1999-03-303912REPS465501999-03-30Mr SPEAKER(Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 2.00 p.m., and read prayers.Questions Without Notice465546554655Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that his preamble has now been criticised by some conservative mates, including Andrew Robb, Joh Bjelke-Petersen, Bruce Ruxton, Ken Crooke and Marise Payne? Is he also aware of the lukewarm reaction from his senior colleagues, Jeff Kennett and Peter Costello, as well as his own co-author, Les Murray? Is he also aware of the criticism this morning by his former senior adviser, Gerard Henderson, who wrote that the Prime Minister is suffering from a severe case of political arrogance and thinks that he speaks like Robert Menzies and writes like Winston Churchill?Is he aware of the negative reaction of ordinary Australians as revealed in the Rehame survey, two-thirds of whom do not support his preamble? When will the Prime Minister set aside his massive self-regard and allow a genuinely representative body of Australians to come up with a preamble of which we can all be proud?4655Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I have already indicated that I have sought the comments of the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the Australian Democrats and the state Premiers. When I receive those comments, I, along with my colleagues, will give careful consideration to them.46554655Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH2K6LongmanLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Veterans Affairs. I refer the minister to a question asked yesterday by the honourable member for Cowan. Can the minister advise the House of the government's position on the awards as part of the Vietnam End of War List?4655Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—I thank the member for Longman for his question. Yesterday the honourable member for Cowan raised the award of the Medal of Gallantry to six veterans who felt that their service had been inappropriately recognised. I have said consistently that I am always prepared to meet veterans and listen to their views, and I said that also in the House yesterday.This issue has arisen because, when the Australian government moved from the imperial system of awards and honours to an Australian one, the differentials in imperial award levels could not be translated exactly into the Australian system. The decision that the government had taken based on official advice on a number of occasions was that the Australian awards to the six veterans originally designated in the End of War List should stand. Therefore, the matter was not formally under review by the government.In light of the continuing representations, including from the RSL, the Vietnam Veterans Association and most recently by the member for Cowan, the government has decided to establish a small panel to review the issue and make recommendations.Opposition members interjecting—YT4Mr BRUCE SCOTT—I have in mind that the panel might comprise, amongst others and subject to availability, the former secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, the national president of the RSL and the national president of the Vietnam Veterans Association. I am well aware of the strength of people's feelings on this issue. It is an extremely sensitive one and the government does not wish in any way to devalue the service given by these six, nor any of the other hundreds of veterans who have also received awards.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—You ought to go and hide in the corner; you disgrace!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Batman! The House will come to order. As is sometimes the case from the Speaker's chair when there is someone at the despatch box, it is difficult to see either of the front benches. I presume that remark came from the member for Batman. I would ask him to exercise a little more restraint.46564656Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware of a report released yesterday by the Australian Communications Authority which revealed a six percentage point decline in the delivery of new Telstra services in major rural areas, including a 24 percentage point decline for Tasmania? In light of the verdict delivered on Saturday by the people of New South Wales, where, according to the Sydney Morning Herald , the Liberal Party's vote in the upper house was less than the combined votes of the independents and One Nation, and where the Liberal Party received less than 25 per cent of the lower house votes, will you now act on the concerns which voters have about the privatisation of public assets used by the whole community and withdraw your bill for the full sell-off of Telstra?4656Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I thank the Leader of the Opposition for that question. It affords me an opportunity to quietly restate the commitment of the coalition government to the policies on which we were elected last October. The Leader of the Opposition can extrapolate as much as he likes in relation to federal and state elections. The truth of the matter is, as he knows as a student of Australian politics, that there is a long history in this country, particularly out of the state of New South Wales, of people voting radically differently at state and federal levels.Those of us who were here in the 1970s will remember that, in 1975, 1977 and 1980, the Fraser government received overwhelming support in the state of New South Wales. They will also remember that that support coincided—4T4MELHAMMr Melham—Why did you encourage Chikarovski into the leadership? Did you set her up?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Banks is a persistent interjector. If he interjects again in that tone, I will warn him. The Prime Minister has the call.ZD4Mr HOWARD—There was that very clear pattern established. Invoking some more contemporary political history, the Leader of the Opposition will be aware that, in the most recent South Australian state election, the Labor Party enjoyed a substantial swing in its favour; yet, in the federal election in South Australia in October last year, the Liberal Party won nine out of the 12 seats. Some of our more triumphant marginal seat victories, particularly those of the honourable members for Makin, Adelaide and Hindmarsh, were in fact achieved in the state of South Australia.There is no validity in the proposition that you can extrapolate anything from transferring a vote at a state level to a federal level, particularly when the issues that determine state elections are quite different from those that determine federal elections. The brutal political reality for the Leader of the Opposition is that the last time he and I went head to head on privatisation, the government won. The last time we went head to head on taxation, the government won.I would simply say to those who sit opposite that we have no intention of abandoning our plans to make available the rest of Telstra to all of the Australian people. We want this nation to be the greatest share owning democracy in the Western world. We intend to pursue that legislation because, out of the proceeds of the further sale of Telstra, we will be able to provide additional services to the Australian bush. Those who oppose the sale of Telstra oppose enhancing services to the Australian bush. Finally, I make the prediction that, at some time during the next four years, the re-elected Labor government in New South Wales will revisit the issue of electricity privatisation in that state.Mr Sidebottom interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Braddon!DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—Rule it out!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Minister for Financial Services and Regulation will also exercise more restraint.46564656Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer inform the House whether he is aware of calls to alter the comprehensive nature of the goods and services tax? What is the rationale for the government's approach? What level of support does this enjoy?4657Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Makin for her question. I am aware that a press release was issued earlier today by ACOSS talking about an unprecedented church and community alliance calling for tax change. I note at the outset that, although it says there is a church call for tax change, in the main it is church agencies, certainly not the bishops themselves. I think it has been made entirely clear by both the Anglican bishops and the Catholic bishops that the churches themselves say that there is no position of the Church in relation to these issues.Unfortunately, the statement does not contain any analysis. It does not have any analysis of the tax package, nor does it advance one inch an analysis of the benefits which are going to be provided to Australia, particularly to low income earners, as a result of the government's tax changes. It does not take any further the analysis that was done by ACOSS with the help, I believe, of the Melbourne Institute, presented to the Senate inquiry which, on their own analysis, showed that every single demographic would be better off as a result of the government's tax changes—age pensioner single, age pensioner couple, single in the work force, couple in the work force, couple with children, sole parent with children. Members of the House will recall that, after ACOSS released its own analysis showing that people would be better off, it then called for further work to try to identify somebody who would be worse off.Support for a broad based goods and services tax comes from all of the groups in the food industry—the Australian Food and Grocery Council, the Restaurant and Catering Association, the Association of Retail Grocers, Woolworths—all of which make the point that food, however defined, would require enormous compliance costs if it were taken out of a broad based goods and services tax. In fact, the Labor Party supports the government on this. The Labor Party's position, which was reaffirmed yesterday, is that it does not believe that food should be taken out of the goods and services tax. The Labor Party made it entirely clear yesterday that it is going to vote against excluding food from the goods and services tax. The fact that it says that does not necessarily mean that that is what it will do, but it was said as recently as yesterday.The government has been supported in relation to this view by the international experts, and I have informed the House of probably one of the world experts on this—the Dutch professor who has been an international analyst in relation to this. The government is supported by all the economists who have appeared before the Senate inquiry, including those who were called by the Labor Party—economists Dixon, Harding and Warren. It has been supported by the Food Council—which made the bona fide point that zero rating food would give $5 of benefit to the top 80 per cent of income earners for every $1 of benefit to low income earners—which makes the point that it is fairer and it reduces compliance costs.If you exclude food from GST, you are going to have tax inspectors running around trying to see whether the chocolate on a gingerbread man is bigger than the eyes, trying to determine whether it is food or a snack. You are going to have tax inspectors putting thermometers into pies to see whether they are fresh or takeaway. The government is supported by the economists, international experience, the Commissioner of Taxation and, of course, the Australian people, as expressed in their votes at the last federal election.I finish by saying that it is all very well to say you should drive a $5 billion hole through the government's tax reform, but I note that nowhere in that press release was there any suggestion as to where you could get $5 billion from to make it up. To drive the budget back into deficit would, of course, cost jobs and cost interest rates in this country. The great news is that tomorrow the government will be introducing legislation to increase all family assistance in Australia. We are doing that in two ways—through payments for families that are not in the tax system and through increased tax-free thres holds for families that are in the tax system. Under the legislation which the government is going to introduce tomorrow, a single income family with two children will get the normal $6,000 tax-free threshold plus an additional $5,000 because it is a single income family plus $2,000 dollars for each of two children, making another $4,000, which will make for a two child, single income family a tax-free threshold of $15,000—no tax on your first $15,000.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—And they're going to vote against that.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Again opposed by Labor, these family benefits will go through to benefit families as a result of tax reform. Why can't the Australian Senate get on and see the wisdom of that policy?46584658Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister recall telling the House yesterday about the `very positive response' to the charities' tax concession from the Salvation Army, which he said was `one of the most respected bodies in the Australian community'? Prime Minister, have you seen the very, very negative response to your GST package from the same body, the Salvation Army, and a broad range of other church, charitable and community groups, including statements that the GST package is `unfair and unacceptable' and `very harmful to people on low and fixed incomes'? Prime Minister, will you listen to these organisations, or do you think you are the only one who knows what real Australians are thinking?4658Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The answer to the first part of the question is yes. For the first time in a long time the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has correctly quoted something that I had said. It is the case that I have a high regard for the Salvation Army. I have a high regard for Anglicare. I have a high regard for the Catholic Church. I have a high regard for a lot of the organisations. But I happen to believe that on this issue they are in error, and I will explain why I believe they are in error.The Treasurer has already explained the paucity of the material contained in the statement. I have read the statement, and the statement calls for the government to punch a $5 billion hole in the tax package and it says, `Other organisations have worked out how you might be able to fill it.' I welcome the participation of all of these organisations in the taxation debate, but I think it is very important to recall the words—I think about seven or eight months ago after the government's taxation package was released—of the Catholic Archbishop of Melbourne, George Pell. He said, `There is no such thing as a Catholic position on something like taxation reform.' And I think that whenever any of us start invoking the name of the church—whether it is the Catholic Church, the Anglican Church, the Uniting Church, the Baptist Church or the Salvation Army—we ought to remember that there is no such thing as a Catholic position on taxation reform.Mr Crean interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Indeed, there are views of Catholics on tax reform, just as there are views of Anglicans and Baptists and views of agnostics and so forth. So it falls to us as the representatives of the Australian people to make a judgment. I think their analysis is wrong. I do not believe for a moment that if you took food out you would have a more equitable system. If you took food out you would be delivering very significant benefits to high income earners. If you take out fresh food but you seek to include restaurant meals you create enormous anomalies and enormous inequities.Mr Crean interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham has asked his question.ZD4Mr HOWARD—If you exclude restaurant meals you are making a very, very significant gesture. You are giving a bonanza to the well off in the community. It is far better, as the Commissioner of Taxation pointed out, to have a broadly based indirect tax that includes everything and then through the compensation system you provide special assistance to low income earners.I think it is also worth pointing out to those who appended their names and the names of their organisations to the statement that was released this morning that a large number of food items will, in fact, fall in price as a consequence of the decision that has been taken by the government. And, overall, the package that we have released and which has been endorsed by the Australian public contains major benefits for the low income people of this community. The Treasurer has already pointed out the massive family benefits that accrue under the taxation package. Pensioners and low income earners will be significantly advantaged by the package. The package contains a guarantee to protect the safety net and the incomes of pensioners within the Australian community.DT4CREANMr Crean—No, it doesn't.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Up-front there will be a four per cent rise in pensions.DT4CREANMr Crean—Yes, but what happens when it erodes?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham will exercise more restraint.ZD4Mr HOWARD—It will always be 1½ per cent ahead.DT4CREANMr Crean—Of what?ZD4Mr HOWARD—Nothing that the Labor Party can say or do can alter the fact that under our package pensioners will always be 1½ percent ahead in real terms in relation to the cost of living adjustment.Mr Crean interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Prime Minister will resume his seat. I have persistently asked the member for Hotham to exercise more restraint. He asked the question. The Prime Minister is entitled in his response to be heard in silence. The Prime Minister.ZD4Mr HOWARD—The government's taxation plan represents the most comprehensive and thoroughgoing review of the Australian taxation system carried out by any government of any political stripe in this country. We are the first government since Federation to put forward such a detailed and comprehensive plan for economic reform to the Australian people. We took it to the Austral ian people. We laid it out before the Australian people. We did not disguise any of the details. We did not hold anything back. The Australian people voted for the plan and we intend to implement the decision of the Australian people. And those who sit opposite and those who belong to the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Democrats in the Senate who are posturing about voting against this legislation will not only be voting against the will of the Australian people, as expressed at the last election, they will also be voting to reject a $13 billion tax cut for the Australian people. They will be voting to reject family benefit. They will be voting to reject pension guarantees. They will be voting to reject a $3½ billion cut in the cost of diesel fuel for rural Australia. They will be voting to reject the removal of a $4½ billion tax impost on Australian exporters. They will be voting to reject the removal of $10½ billion of tax relief for the Australian business community. In other words, they will be voting against a plan and a charter that will deliver to this country in the 21st century an unrivalled opportunity to drive home the massive economic endowments we now have.As a result of the policies of this government, this country at the moment is better poised internationally than it has been for decades. And so far from that being a time when you stop the reform process, it is a time when the reform process should be driven home more resolutely. That is why we put the plan to the Australian people and that is why, on behalf of the government, I make it absolutely plain we have no intention of retreating one iota on our taxation reform plan.46594659Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Has the minister seen reports claiming that the government's proposed tax reforms, including significant reductions in diesel fuel excise, will have a negative impact on the environment? What is the government's response to these claims?4659Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for her question. I note at the outset that she, of course, comes from the beef state. Queensland is the home of the major part of the beef exporting industry of this country. No sector in any part of the country benefits more from our tax reform proposals than the far-flung beef industry in Queensland. So the member has a real interest, particularly when we are faced with some pretty spurious and second-rate contributions to the debate about our reform proposals. The fact is that the government's response to the claims that the member refers to is to point out that they are driven by ill-advised politics; not by any commitment to sound policy. It is plain that the ALP and the Democrats—with the assistance of the Greens—clearly want to maintain Labor's taxation regime for transport fuel in this country. Labor's transport fuel taxation regime was amongst the highest in the world and the highest in the world when it comes to comparable countries such as Canada and America—agriculturally-oriented, exporting nations with vast differences. It all proves that, in the end, for all of their new-found rhetoric about their new-found concern for rural and regional Australia, they do not give a fig about it. They want to deny rural Australia $3,500 million worth of benefits through taxation reform, particularly in the area of fuel. The fact of the matter is that the whole community will clearly benefit from lower transport costs. The cost of goods will be reduced. There will be a boosting of the efficiency and the competitiveness of our exports—so it goes on.Let us come to some specific claims. There are some specific claims by the Australia Institute in the report that these tax reforms will lead to increased deaths from pollution and crashes. This is based on a very simplistic assumption that cheaper fuel will mean more trucks driving further. The claims fail to recognise the enormous advances in vehicle technology and in engine design in both cars and trucks. It denies completely the reality that from 1997—Ms Macklin interjecting—4K4Mr ANDERSON—The more they dislike the answers, the more the truth is exposed, the more we hear some background static from the other side. And the more we ought to ignore it, because it reflects the fact that we are onto reality. Statistics do not lie. From 1987 to 1997 the number of road deaths involving heavy trucks in Australia dropped by 44 per cent from 243 to 169. While you had more trucks on the road covering greater distances, hauling more freight and reflecting more economic activity—road deaths came down. The claims also fail to recognise the success that road safety campaigns are having. They fail to recognise that tighter emission controls being put in place by the government will bring down total emissions. In fact, particulate emissions for heavy vehicles and trucks will come down by around 70 per cent.Some further interesting observations have been made today by the National Farmers Federation. They point out that reality disproves the committee's conclusions. They point out—Mr Beazley interjecting—4K4Mr ANDERSON—Oh yes, we want to shoot the messengers! How about you shoot some of your own messengers when they deliver messages that you do not like—like Mr Hogg, perhaps? They do not like being exposed for wanting to deny rural and regional Australia some very major benefits. The NFF has pointed out that, in fact, you have seen a substantial reduction in fuel costs in this country, because of reducing crude prices in recent years. What has happened to fuel usage? It has actually come down. And the committee has failed, they say, to take into account that, as you get a reduction in sales tax under the tax reform policy, you will actually see an upgrading of a vehicle fleet and a reduction in its age. More efficient trucks will mean very real environmental outcomes. So, in a whole range of ways, the views being put to us out of that Senate committee by the majority ought to be, I think, taken with more than a grain of salt.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—I ask the minister to table the document from which he was quoting.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Was the minister reading from a document?4K4Mr ANDERSON—Mr Speaker, I am more than happy to table the NFF's press report.46614661O'Byrne, MichelleMs O'BYRNE84SBassALP00—My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts. Has the minister seen reports that, while he was seeking to justify the decline in services from Telstra to Tasmania, the Queenstown Hospital on the west coast of Tasmania had been without a functioning phone service for almost 29 hours? Minister, if you can't even keep the hospital phones working, how do you expect the people of Queenstown to believe your promise that a privatised Telstra will deliver a better service?4661McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPArts and the Centenary of Federation10—I thank the honourable member for her question. This is an important issue. I have sought further information regarding this matter. I am advised that the Queenstown Hospital PABX system experienced an outage—in other words, it did not work. It started at 9.00 a.m. on Sunday, 28 March. Telstra has advised that the fault was fixed by 6.00 p.m. on Sunday night, but subsequently a second apparently unrelated fault occurred which was only fixed at 3.20 p.m. the following day, on the Monday, when they received spare parts. Telstra has advised that staff resources was not the issue. However, local management had difficulty in finding staff, in contacting them. This matter is being investigated and the government will be requiring, naturally, the same explanation that Telstra's management will want.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will resume his seat. The member for Bass asked a serious question. I would have thought she would be very anxious to hear the answer, but I doubt that she can above the cacophony of sound that is occurring on that side of the House. I call the minister.XH4Mr McGAURAN—However, the hospital responded superbly to the problem and they put in place a contingency plan to maintain communication which was praised by the Tasmanian Minister for Health and Human Services, Minister Judy Jackson. What the hospital did was advise the community by radio to ring 000 for emergencies or otherwise the hospital's mobile number and they diverted calls through Hobart to the ambulance officer on duty. Telstra is required by the government—indeed, at its own initiative in any event—to investigate this matter fully and determine why such a delay occurred and how it should not occur in the future. 46614661May, Margaret, MPMs MAY83BMcPhersonLP10—My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. Can the Attorney inform the House of steps the government is taking to ensure equity and balance in the division of superannuation and property in the event of marriage breakdown?4661Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I thank the member for McPherson for her question. The Howard government has taken unprecedented steps in assisting people to maintain healthy marriages and relationships. Despite the best efforts of all concerned, many marriages regrettably do break down. With a view to achieving greater balance and equity in family law matters, the government has today announced a new regime for the treatment of superannuation on marriage breakdown. The changes will enable parties for the first time to divide superannuation between them and superannuation trustees will be required to act on the parties' decision. This will widen the choice available to parties for the separation of property on marriage breakdown. The parties will also be able to settle their affairs quickly and inexpensively using non-judicial dispute resolution services, including the recently foreshadowed property arbitration services. But where the parties are unable to agree, the court will have power to order that superannuation be divided.The inflexibilities of the current situation are in nobody's interests, particularly not in the interests of the two parties to the marriage breakdown. Typically the non-working spouse, usually the female partner, is left with no access to retirement savings built up during the marriage and the working partner, usually the male, is obliged to trade off other property and then maybe is left without current financial resources until retirement. This is a no-win situation. The changes will enable provision to be made for retirement for both parties, an option that is not currently available under current law. Today I have released a discussion paper `Property and family law—options for change'. This, along with the government superannuation reforms, is further evidence of the government's commitment to fairness, balance and equity in family law matters.46624662Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts. Is the minister aware that the Hobart Telstra store that supplied the replacement PABX cards for the Queenstown Hospital is due to close in three months time? Is he aware that in future all parts will have to be sourced from Sunshine, Victoria? How does the minister expect the Queenstown Hospital to guarantee its ambulance service when essential replacement parts have to be shipped in from other states?4662McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPArts and the Centenary of Federation10—The honourable member will know very well that it is the role of Telstra's board and management to determine the location, placing of staff, as well as equipment and the like. We expect at all times Telstra to be full and frank and open about their business decisions and to be sensitive to any employees who might be affected by change and the like. This has always been conveyed to Telstra and certainly will not change in the future. But what interests me most about the member's question is that there is an assumption that Telstra performed better in days gone past when in full government ownership, whereas we know it could have taken up to six weeks to have phones connected even if the lines were in place. The best way to bring about the resolution of the issues regarding Queenstown Hospital and elsewhere is to have full competition.I notice with interest that Senator Brian Harradine has said that the major contributor to differences and the level of services between urban and rural is the lack of competition in rural areas. That is what the government's whole policy is aimed at—that is, opening it up to competition so that, whether it be a hospital or whether it be a private residence, there are greater levels of service. We can further facilitate and indeed enhance that by way of community service obligations, universal service obligations and other re quirements as we have with the first part privatisation of Telstra in legislative form.BV5ADAMSMr Adams—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. The minister is not dealing with the question.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Lyons will resume his seat.BV5ADAMSMr Adams—We used to have a depot—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Lyons will resume his seat.QI4PRICEMr Price—Mr Speaker, with all due respect, the member for Lyons raised a point of order and it does not appear that you have made a ruling with respect to that point of order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Chifley is raising a point of order on a question which has already concluded.46624662Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSONFB6WentworthLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Community Services. Minister, you would be aware of reports that the government intends introducing some new measures to crack down on the payment of benefits to unemployed people who are capable of working but who are avoiding finding a job in order to live an alternative lifestyle at the taxpayers' expense. Would you inform the House of whether or not these reports are correct?4662Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—I thank the member for Wentworth and assure him that the reports are indeed correct. The government is determined to clamp down on those people who should be seeking work and who are required to seek work but who attempt to avoid their obligations and social responsibility through taking advantage of any loopholes that might happen to exist in the law. I mentioned to the House a week or so ago legislation that had passed the House of Representatives and which was going to the Senate which dealt with New Zealand migrants coming to Australia and indeed some other groups of people. This same legislation includes a number of other measures which will be important in preserving the integrity of our welfare system.For instance, for some time now the law has penalised people moving from areas of high employment to areas of low employment whilst they are on welfare benefits. People have been able to avoid that requirement by cancelling their benefits and then moving to the sun belt and applying again. This legislation will close that loophole. There have also been people who have been applying for a job outside of their area who get that job but, when it is offered to them, they turn it down and remain on benefits. That loophole will also be closed. People who refuse a job that has been offered to them will have their benefits affected.Most people who receive benefits do so legitimately and receive benefits for which they are entitled. But if people want to have a life on the beach and enjoy the sunshine, they cannot expect the taxpayers to fund that sort of a lifestyle. This government will be closing those sorts of loopholes. I am somewhat disappointed that members opposite have indicated some opposition to elements of this legislation. I hope that they rethink their negativity and that there will be some glimmer of hope that they may support the legislation when it goes to the Senate.46634663Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Community Services. Minister, I refer you to the social security and veterans' entitlements legislation amendment bill. Minister, do you think it is fair that an unemployed person who loses their leg in an accident and receives a lump sum compensation payment of $25,000 for pain and suffering will lose all of their Newstart allowance for 12 months? Is it fair that an aged pensioner who slips and falls at the supermarket seriously injuring herself and receives a lump sum of $18,000 will lose over $100 a fortnight from her pension for a whole year? Minister, do you think it is fair that this bill will effectively mean that many injured people will be defrauded by your government?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Before I call the member for Menzies, I indicate that I consider the question to be out of order because throughout it the member for Lilley has sought an opinion from the minister and the question would need to be rephrased if it were to be in order. Before I call the member for Lilley, is the member for Menzies still seeking the call?HK5ANDREWSMr Andrews—Yes, Mr Speaker, and that was precisely the point of order I was about to raise.2V5Mr SWAN—Mr Speaker, my question related to this bill. The question I asked related to provisions of this bill. Is it a fact that those people will be defrauded of their compensation?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I will allow the latter question—that is, is it a fact that these people will be affected by the legislation—to stand, but the earlier question sought an opinion.3K6CAMERONMr Ross Cameron—Mr Speaker, in relation to the latter part of the question, as the member says, it relates to the bill. It clearly contravenes the anticipation rule and should be ruled out of order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Some may have noted that I consulted with the Clerk. I do not believe the bill is currently before the House. I will be guided if I am wrong; I am going by memory. Assuming that there is no anticipation ruling, I call the minister to answer the latter part of the question of the member for Lilley.4663Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—Mr Speaker, the question from the honourable member for Lilley is virtually the same as one that was asked of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs yesterday, and answered in that context. There are benefits provided to veterans by this government and, indeed, by governments since the promises and commitments were made to veterans following the return of soldiers from war.2V5SWANMr Swan—I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My point of order is in regard to relevance. I was asking about Newstart allowance and about pensioners.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Lilley will resume his seat. In fact, the question ranged over a range of areas, much of which I ruled out of order. I am asking the minister to respond to the latter part of the member's question.GT4Mr TRUSS—Mr Speaker, the question was about legislation that is currently before the House. I introduced that legislation to the House, so I am certainly aware of what its context is. It does, in some regards, deal with veterans' benefits differently from benefits to other people such as those on Newstart.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—My point of order is on relevance. The minister is talking about a completely different area of the bill. What this is is the effect on people who are on Newstart allowance, not veterans' pensions.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. There is no need to repeat the question. I invite the minister to respond to the question. I do not believe that the answer was irrelevant to the question. I ask him to respond to the question, which was wide-ranging.GT4Mr TRUSS—In some ways, the social security benefits are different from the benefits provided to veterans, and the conditions that apply are different. In some areas, they are more generous; in some areas, less generous. Governments make decisions about the priorities which should be applied when additional resources are available to assist in providing benefits to those in need in the community.The honourable member for Lilley is one of those people in the Labor Party who seeks to go backwards to try to find some kinds of new roots for the Labor Party. Some members opposite, I notice, are trying to find new directions for the Labor Party.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will come back to the question.GT4Mr TRUSS—The member for Lilley a couple of days ago issued a media release in which he went back to the 18th century Russian soldier Potemkin to endeavour to get some kind of background to the Labor Party's new future.2V5SWANMr Swan—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: it is pronounced Potemkin, with the emphasis on "tem".46644664Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELINHV5GreyLP10—My question is addressed—Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Grey has the call. I would remind those on the government frontbench that they are denying the member for Grey the call.HV5Mr WAKELIN—I will start again. My question is addressed to the Minister for Aged Care. Can the minister inform the House how the approval of new aged care places will increase care options for older Australians?4664Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLPAged Care10—I thank the member for his question. His electorate contains, of course, many rural and remote facilities. Of the 7,000 new aged care places that I have announced today, 40 per cent of them will go to rural and remote parts of Australia. The 7,000 new places that we are announcing amount to an investment of a further $67 million by this government in aged care places for older Australians who need that residential care.In addition to funding for residential places, there are an additional 4,300 places for community aged care packages, which allows us to have the flexibility for older Australians who wish to remain in their own homes, which they have clearly indicated is their preference. There are 2,500 residential care places, and there are a number of places for restructuring—again, to enable people to meet the accreditation process that we have set in place.All this stands in direct contrast to what the Labor Party left us. The Labor Party left us 10,000 places short. They did not even meet their own benchmark. They set it in 1986 and, by 1996, they had left us 10,000 places short, effectively withdrawing $1.5 billion in funding from the whole of the aged care sector. I have used this graph before, and it is extremely good.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will resume her seat!8I4MARTINMr Martin—That's against the standing orders—it's 304A.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I thank the former Speaker for the assistance but, even without his assistance, I did not intend to allow the minister to continue to abuse the standing orders by using that chart. She will respond to the question.SE4Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP—Mr Speaker, it is such a good chart that I think I will table it. The point is that sometimes, to get the message across to the lot across the other side, they need graphics to help them along. That graph certainly shows them 10,000 places short, and we are fixing them up. I would simply say that, once again, this is an area where the Labor Party left an appalling legacy, and we are fixing it up.46654665Sawford, Rod, MPMr SAWFORD3J4Port AdelaideALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Minister, I refer to your answer yesterday on the impact of the government's policy of excluding veterans' affairs disability pensions from the proposed more generous treatment of periodic compensation. Minister, what would you say to a veteran who loses over $20 a fortnight from his age pension because he receives a veterans' disability pension as compensation for a service injury he suffered, whilst his next-door neighbour who gets the same amount of compensation for pain and suffering caused in a traffic accident receives the full age pension? Minister, will you back down on this unfair proposal, as you did today on the review of medals sought by the member for Cowan?4665Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—I do not know where the member for Adelaide gets his figures in relation to the $20 difference between an ordinary pensioner and a veteran with a veteran entitlement for a disability pension, so I really cannot take that into account in my answer. Our Australian veterans already receive the most generous compensation schemes in the world, and I do not think even the opposition disputes that—that we have one of the most generous repatriation systems in the world.The fact of the matter is that the legislation protects veterans by ensuring that any other compensation payment made to a veteran that is taken into account for disability pension purposes will not affect their income support payment. So, in relation to the member's question, I think he should go back and have a look again.46654665Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—My question on notice is addressed to the Minister for Employment Services.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—With notice? This is supposed to be without notice.9K6Ms GAMBARO—Without notice, thanking the member for Banks.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Banks. The member for Petrie will start her question again.9K6Ms GAMBARO—My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Employment Services.Opposition members interjecting—9K6Ms GAMBARO—The Job Network is already proving more successful than the old CES in getting unemployed people into work.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Petrie will come to her question.9K6Ms GAMBARO—Is the minister aware of any recent Australian research suggesting alternative approaches to the delivery of employment services?Mr Beazley interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition.Mr Beazley interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition is uncharacteristically choosing to ignore the chair.4665Abbott, Tony MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPEmployment Services10—I thank the member for Petrie for her question and for the close interest that she takes in the success of the Job Network. Any new and successful scheme like the Job Network can be expected to attract the interest of academics and commentators. I am aware of recent research by Melbourne University's Don Harding, who said that the Job Network was a very significant advance on the old CES. But he did call for the government to go further down this particular reform path. Mr Harding wants the government to create employment accounts. The idea is that job seekers would pay part of their benefits into these accounts and use them to buy employment services.This is a government which is very open to new ideas, but I can assure the House that we have no intention of creating any such accounts. But the Harding proposal has strong echoes of a plan by the member for Werriwa in his recent research to create income security accounts which everyone could draw down on or pay back, depending upon their economic circumstances. But that is not the only alternative approach. While the member for Werriwa wants a more radical free-market approach, we have the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Batman calling for a return to the paternalism of Working Nation.In an article last Friday, the member for Werriwa said, `This is, of course, the saddest sight in public life—a smart person giving up on the hope of new answers to longstanding problems.' Ostensibly the member for Werriwa was referring to Bob Carr, but we all know that he was really talking about the Leader of the Opposition. I call upon the Leader of the Opposition to end this policy anarchy and repudiate the member for Werriwa.46664666Sercombe, Bob,MPMr SERCOMBEQK6MaribyrnongALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Minister, are you aware of the report entitled Review of social security income test treatment of disability pensions , prepared by your department in 1998? In the light of that report, did you raise any concerns about the proposal to discriminate against veterans by specifically excluding them from the proposed new income testing of periodic payments of compensation? Can you explain your government's decision to discriminate against the veteran community in direct contradiction of your pre-1996 election pledge that the coalition `will always attempt to err on the side of generosity in support of our veteran community'?RH4KERRMr Kerr—Mr Mean!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Denison is warned.4666Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—I am aware of the review that has been conducted, and I certainly will not be canvassing in the House the consideration of that by the government.46664666Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWSHK5MenziesLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment Services. Is the minister aware of any work for the dole projects that have recently attracted unfair criticism; have projects of this nature operated in the past; and can the minister outline to the House details of any recent statements of support by public figures for participants in these types of work for the dole projects?83VEMERSONMr Emerson—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. That question asked for an opinion from the minister by using the reference to `unfair'; you used that in relation to the member for Lilley's question a moment ago.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I am happy to elaborate with the member for Rankin later, but the member for Lilley's question quite distinctly asked for an opinion and this question does not.4666Abbott, Tony MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPEmployment Services10—I thank the member for Menzies for his question and for his strong support for Work for the Dole projects. I am aware of a proposal to place 140 Work for the Dole participants in up to 25 ACT schools, which has not proceeded because of opposition from the local union movement. I am aware of another proposal to place 24 carefully selected and supervised Work for the Dole participants in ACT child-care centres which also attracted significant union opposition. But it is going ahead and operating well because it has the support of the vast majority of the parents concerned. Union opposition to Work for the Dole is pretty surprising, given the member for Werriwa's support for forcing welfare recipients to act as parent educators or risk losing the dole. It is also surprising given that under the former government's Working Nation program hundreds and hundreds of unemployed people were placed in schools and child-care centres on programs.I have been asked about recent statements in support of Work for the Dole. None other than the man of the hour, the Premier of New South Wales, said recently:Let's think of the girl working in the school on the north coast working for the dole because she wants to be there in a classroom with kindergarten kids.I thank the Premier of New South Wales for his endorsement of Work for the Dole. Presumably this is yet another split within the Labor Party. I call on the unsuccessful Leader of the Opposition to reprimand the successful Premier for breaking ranks on this issue.46674667Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Minister, are you aware that the Vietnam Veterans' Federation of Australia receives most of its income from membership fees and spends this on the welfare of veterans and their families? Has your attention been drawn to recent comments by the federation's president, Mr Tim McCoombe, who said:It is totally inappropriate that the Federation's membership fees should be subject to a 10% GST . . . It simply means that the government intends to impose its new tax so that it snatches away for itself money otherwise destined to assist those sick and suffering because they fought for their country.Minister, why is it the government wants to penalise good community organisations like the Vietnam Veterans' Federation by imposing a 10 per cent GST on them?4667Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—I am not aware of the comments of the President of the Vietnam Veterans' Federation of Australia. Let me say that it really relates to whether or not the organisation registers for GST credits. It is really a matter for their consideration, taking into account the nature of the revenue and the expenditure of their association.46674667Lawler, Tony, MPMr LAWLER834ParkesNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Forestry and Conservation. Could the minister inform the House of what action the government is taking to protect jobs in regional Australia in the forestry industry? What level of support is the government receiving from other groups in relation to these policies?4667Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLPForestry and Conservation; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—The government is proceeding at a great pace to get regional forest agreements in place throughout Australia for the purpose of guaranteeing certainty to industry and encouraging their investment to create and guarantee the jobs of many working people in rural and regional Australia into the foreseeable future. Consequently, the government has put forward, with the support of all industry sectors, regional forest agreement legislation so that those agreements that are met between premiers and the Prime Minister will have the backing of legislation.It is of concern to me, nevertheless, that the Labor Party has again today backed down on one of its own policy initiatives—the national forest policy statement. We heard them daily backing down on their privatisation policy when they were in government. One wonders if now they are so convinced that privatisation does not work whether they are going to buy back the Commonwealth Bank and Qantas, which they sold so they could spend the money. The Labor Party has now announced that it is their intention to propose amendments to the regional forest agreement legislation in direct contradiction to all industry requests, including the trade union movement. They want this legislation. The Tasmanian government wants the legislation and have passed their own regional forest agreement legislation. They want it for certainty, and the proposals put forward by the Labor opposition on this issue would completely negate the purpose of the legislation.The government will not accept such amendments. It must be known by those opposite who have been getting their names published in the Age newspaper wanting their constituency to know that they are really unhappy about this matter that, on the other hand, in typical Labor style, having signed the piece of paper they are going to vote for something their own constituency does not want. So much for those members of parliament opposite in terms of representing their own constituency. This is a situation where the Leader of the Opposition had to branch stack his own caucus committee to get the result he has delivered on behalf of the left wing in terms of amending the regional forest agreement legislation. It was all in the Age newspaper. Your people are leaking like a sieve on this issue. They really have it in for you.Mr Tanner interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will respond through the chair.SJ4Mr TUCKEY—In every way the Labor Party knows that what they are doing is wrong. They want to destroy the very process that they put in place, the regional forest agreement process. In closing, let me point out that in their press release they talked about—Opposition members interjecting—Mr Tanner interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Melbourne persistently interjects and simply ignores the chair. I warn him. The minister has the call.SJ4Mr TUCKEY—In their press release they talk about how everything should be done as it was in New South Wales and how transparent that was. In New South Wales, out of four regional forest agreements, the New South Wales government has yet to have a written public consultation process. If that is transparent, I will go he! They have refused to publicise the methodology and the data that they are using to write contracts on sawmill entitlement, yet their own Auditor-General says that that is wrong. There are no secrets in Western Australia—you have only to read the media coverage. There are no secrets; it is all on the record.46684668Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. I ask the Prime Minister whether he has seen comments by his factional colleague, New South Wales MLC Mr Charlie Lynn describing `The Group' in the New South Wales Liberals as `A small group of spivs organising a group of cockroaches'. Does the Prime Minister agree with this assessment, and has he told the members for Macarthur, North Sydney, Cook, Bradfield and Gilmore of his view?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The question focuses on scorn and derision. It is not an area over which the Prime Minister has any immediate control, and I rule it out of order.46684668Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRNOK6Eden-MonaroLP10—My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. Can the minister outline to the House measures the government has implemented to attract migrants into rural and regional areas of Australia? What impacts are these measures having? What is the minister's response to the ALP's proposal to introduce a conditional five-year waiting period for migrants who move from regional Australia to the cities?4668Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—I thank the honourable member for Eden Monaro for his question because the member for Eden Monaro has taken an interest in regional migration and has been actively promoting opportunities within his own electorate for people who are anxious to enter Australia and to take up some of the opportunities that this government has implemented.I was also glad to see that the shadow minister, the honourable member for Bowman, had taken some interest in these matters—he commented in the press yesterday and put forward some constructive proposals. I am glad to hear of his interest because I pursued that same route when I was a shadow minister. I pressed very strongly on this issue because it was one that his colleagues had not taken any interest in before. Since being in government I have been responsible for implementing a wide range of initiatives which I would like to tell him about.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—Send him a letter!0J4Mr RUDDOCK—I think you might need to know something about it as well. Obviously in relation to this matter there is an increasing awareness in the opposition of the measures that the government has implemented. We put in place the state and territory nominated independence scheme which enables states and territories to nominate skilled migrant applications for identified skills shortages. We have enhanced the regional sponsored—Mr Martin Ferguson interjecting—0J4Mr RUDDOCK—Not enough, I might say. One state is very actively involved in it, and I am encouraging the others to also be involved in it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Batman. The minister will respond through the chair.0J4Mr RUDDOCK—We have enhanced the regional sponsored migration scheme which allows employers in regional Australia to nominate overseas personnel for permanent entry where they are unable to recruit suitable skilled personnel locally. We have the skill matching scheme which is working very effectively in helping to identify migrants who have applied in the skilled categories who are prepared to move to regional Australia to fill identified skills shortages. We have the regional linked category which enables family members who have already settled in regional Australia to sponsor family members. We have the regional established business in Australia scheme, and I have the working party, which has been looking at skilled migration, examining further options.This is an area in which we are very actively involved and in which I welcome the opposition's interest. But what I am particularly interested in is the proposal to link access to benefits to people residing in particular regional areas of Australia after they enter Australia and the suggestion that benefits might be able to be denied to people who move from a particular regional location if they do so within a period of five years. This is from the same party that said we should not have provisions which would exclude access to benefits for people who had been in Australia for two years. But it is a very interesting proposal, and I am certainly prepared, in concert with my colleagues, to have a look at it and see how it might be able to be used. I am glad to hear of your interest in this matter and I am glad that you are striking out in new directions with positive initiatives that we might be able to follow up.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper . Questions to the Speaker466946694669Forrest, John, MPMr FORRESTNV5MalleeNP10—I have a question for you, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, during question time today you ruled that a question from the member for Lilley was out of order and you asked him to rephrase it. You subsequently ruled again on another question that was out of order without asking for it to be rephrased. I have noticed in the past that you have extended a courtesy to the member to rephrase their question. It seems to me that, in accordance with standing order 144, if members are unable to phrase their questions in ways that comply with that standing order, that that courtesy ought not be extended; they should simply seek the call in their turn at a later date. Could I have your intentions on how you will consider this situation in the future, having had the contrast today of two separate occasions where you have adopted a different position?4669Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—The member for Mallee asks a valid point. I intend to continue to rule in future as I have ruled in the past. I felt the member for Lilley was genuinely seeking information from the minister and therefore should have had an opportunity to rephrase his question. There was no sense in which the member for Grayndler could have been extended that sort of courtesy.Documents46694669Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—Papers are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the papers will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings .Motion (by Mr Reith) proposed:That the House take note of the following papers:Advisory Panel on the Marketing on Australia of Infant FormulaForeign Investment Review Board reportDebate (on motion by Mr McMullan) adjourned.Personal Explanations466915:15:004669Sciacca, Con, MPMr SCIACCA6J4BowmanALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. 10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?6J4Sciacca, Con, MPMr SCIACCA—Yes.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.6J4Sciacca, Con, MPMr SCIACCA—During question time, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs read from, I think, a press release. I suspect it was from yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald . The fact is that I am not quoted at all in that press release. It is just something that the journalists talked about. The fact is that I never made such a statement.15:15:004670Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—The member has suggested that I might have misrepresented him in some way. I simply quoted from the article—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister must indicate whether he is seeking indulgence—0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—I would have expected that yesterday was an appropriate time for that matter to be raised if it were relevant.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—No, the member for Bowman was perfectly within his rights under the standing orders.Ministerial Statements4670467015:15:004670Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—by leave—During the period of 13 to 22 March it was my privilege—and, I might add, a very real pleasure—to lead on behalf of the government a visit by former prisoners of war, widows and next of kin to Sandakan, in the state of Sabah, Malaysia. The shadow minister for veterans' affairs, Senator the Hon. Chris Schacht, also accompanied the mission party, representing the federal opposition.Members may have seen television or press coverage of the events undertaken during the mission tour. The mission was formally farewelled by the Prime Minister at the historic Victoria Barracks in Sydney. The first stop for the mission group was Singapore where ceremonies were held at Kranji War Cemetery and the Changi Chapel. These ceremonies commemorated all those who died or were captured at the fall of Singapore, were imprisoned and died at Changi and were buried at Kranji.The mission party then moved to Sandakan for the two major ceremonies of the mission program. These were the opening at the Sandakan Memorial Park of a commemorative pavilion, and the dedication of a memorial stone in memory of those who suffered and died as prisoners of war of the Japanese at Sandakan, on the death marches and at Ranau during World War II.There was no worse wartime atrocity to affect Australian servicemen than the Sandakan-Ranau death marches, yet relatively few Australians know of these events. In 1942, more than 2,700 prisoners of war were moved from Singapore to Sandakan to construct an airfield for the Japanese. During the latter part of 1943, following the breaking of an underground intelligence ring in the camp, almost all of the prisoner of war officers were moved to Kuching.As the tide of war turned, and fearing an Allied invasion, the Japanese marched most of the Sandakan POWs to Ranau, 250 kilometres to the west. By September 1945, all but six of the POWs were dead—and these survived only because they had escaped. As well, the Japanese destroyed the POW camp at Sandakan in an effort to hide evidence of their brutality.Among the Sandakan mission party was Mr Owen Campbell, now the only one of those six escapees still alive. The commemorative pavilion contains a number of panels which set out in full detail the background and history of the camp. At one end of the building is a stained-glass window, which helps provide an appropriate setting for contemplation. The Sandakan Memorial, an imposing monolith measuring some three metres in height, also offers visitors a place where floral tributes or other tokens of remembrance may be laid.The structures are part of a $750,000 upgrade to the Sandakan Memorial Park, which follows a 1995 memorandum of understanding between the Australian government, the Sandakan Municipal Council, the Returned and Services League of Australia and the Sabah State Forestry Department. Following an emotional ceremony at the Sandakan Memorial Park, which included many local dignitaries and local veterans, the mission group travelled to Ranau, closely following the death march route.At Ranau, a commemorative ceremony was held at the Gunner Cleary Memorial on the site of the old POW camp. The story of Gunner Cleary is a particularly poignant one and it has come to symbolise the fate of all those who suffered and died at Sandakan and on the death marches. Gunner Cleary was recaptured after trying to escape. He was chained by the neck at a stake, brutally beaten, spat upon and starved for almost 11 days. When he was at the point of death he was given to his mates, who cleaned his wounds and comforted him before he died in their arms.The final destination of the mission group was the Labuan War Cemetery. Here, in the tranquil surrounds of the carefully tended Commonwealth War Graves cemetery, lie the remains of all those who died at Sandakan, on the death marches and at Ranau. Along the walls at the entrance to the cemetery are the names of those with no known grave. The ceremony at Labuan was a fitting commemoration to all those who had suffered and died during that tragic period. Attended by local dignitaries, local citizens and expatriate Australians living in Malaysia, the final ceremony was a fitting tribute to those who suffered and died.What are the benefits of missions such as this? The main objective is to raise awareness within the community through the publicity that surrounds such a visit. Far too many Australians are unaware of events at Sandakan and I trust that, through this visit, many will have come to know about this enormous tragedy. The impact on those who took part in the mission was quite overwhelming. No-one on the mission could fail to be moved by the emotion surrounding the commemorative ceremonies. For some, there was a healing of the heart that for far too long had carried the hurt and pain of the loss of a husband, brother or father. For others, there was, as described by one, `a sense of peace from having, at last, stood by his grave to say goodbye'.It is regrettable that not every person who suffered loss at Sandakan could take part in this particular mission. But it is my fervent hope that many more widows and next of kin will undertake the journey to Sandakan to view the new memorial as part of their experience of remembering and honouring the loved ones who never returned to Australia.May I also express here the thanks of the Australian government to the government and people of Malaysia, and in particular the state of Sabah, for the very warm welcome we received. We also appreciated the assistance provided during the planning stages and during the visit by the mission party. The mission was funded under the government's commemorative program Their Service—Our Heritage which, as members know, offers all Australians the opportunity to acknowledge the debt of gratitude we owe to our veterans in helping preserve the freedom we enjoy today. I present a copy of my ministerial statement.15:22:004671Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—by leave—Labor is very happy to continue the bipartisan approach to commemorating Australia's wartime history. I think it is fair to remind the House that it was my colleague Con Sciacca, the member for Bowman, who, as Minister for Veterans' Affairs in the last Labor government, brought great vigour to commemorating the vital contribution of our service people and their families. It is a practice which has been continued by the Howard government under the stewardship of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Bruce Scott.I had the opportunity in the last parliament, for a brief time, to be the shadow minister for veterans' affairs. I know of Bruce's genuine feel for the veteran community and how he wanted to continue this process started by Con Sciacca, very much in a bipartisan way, of commemorating Australia's war dead and those who have served their country. Much of the commemorative activity that we are talking about here under this program derives from the 1995 Australia Remembers program, which was begun by Labor and which, as the minister rightly has pointed out, has continued under the program that he has put in place entitled Their Service—Our Heritage.I think it is also important to recognise that it is clear to all of us in this place that these issues are striking a strong chord in the Australian community, not just with current and former service people and their families but with all Australians. It is appropriate, as the minister has suggested, that these types of commemorative activities raise awareness throughout all of Australia of the great debt of gratitude that we owe those that have gone before in the service of their country.Memorials such as that at Sandakan are crucial in ensuring that Australia's future generations are informed of and educated about war and its brutal reality. They stand as eternal reminders of the significant contribution made by Australians during periods of conflict. Ultimately the erection of such memorials plays a vital role in the healing process, and I was encouraged to hear from many on the trip that there was a healing of the heart.Sandakan was, without a doubt, one of the worst wartime atrocities to affect Australian servicemen. It is of concern that it is only now, after more than 50 years, that Australians are just learning the truth of what happened. The Sandakan memorial is not just a memorial to the bravery and the valour of our servicemen and women but also a memorial to the local people who suffered terrible deprivation and brutality during the same period.I am advised by the member for Bowman that he laid the original memorial stone at Sandakan, which has subsequently been turned into the memorial that the minister spoke of during his contribution today. Again, I think that is typical of the bipartisan nature in which veterans affairs is dealt with by both sides of politics.I would like to pay tribute to Mr Owen Campbell, the only one of the six escapees still alive. His courage during that period and that of his comrades was truly remarkable, as the minister has said. I would also like to thank you, Minister, for the invitation which was extended to my colleague the shadow minister for veterans' affairs, Senator Chris Schacht, to accompany you on that delegation. I know that Senator Schacht found it particularly rewarding. It is typical of the way both sides of this place can put any political views to one side when there is something genuine in need of commemoration. The fact that our shadow minister was able to accompany you, Minister, on that particular visit is fundamental to that process.I would also like to acknowledge the many family members and relatives of the Australian servicemen who attended the opening of the memorial and the ceremonies. Many of these people paid for the trip themselves, and it shows great dedication to the memory of the servicemen.I conclude by saying again to you, Minister, that, certainly on this side of the House, we encourage you and we give you every support for continuing your efforts with the very important program of memorials and ceremonies for many Australian servicemen and women. It is an important part of our heritage, our service. It is an important part of Australians recognising what their forebears have done on their behalf to ensure that we have the democracy that we enjoy in this country. Accordingly, I think a statement such as that delivered by the minister does in fact give us time to pause and reflect on the contribution that has been made.Motion (by Mr Bruce Scott) proposed:That the House take note of the paper.Debate adjourned.Matters of Public Importance4672467210000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER— I have received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The failure of the Prime Minister to acknowledge the verdict delivered last Saturday on the privatisation of public assets used by the whole community. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—15:29:004673Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—Firstly, congratulations to Bob Carr and his team for an excellently well-fought election campaign, and congratulations to John Della Bosca, who headed up an expert machine which understood the electorate they were dealing with and pitched policy exactly right to their concerns. We had in New South Wales a proper marrying between aggressive, effective policy and what a community actually wanted for itself and what it expected of itself and of its government.I mention both sides of the operation because, unlike the Liberals, according to one newspaper today, we do not see an upstairs and downstairs in the Labor Party. We see us as all one company and we also see that there are two sides to every coin of an election campaign—the machine and those in leadership. There are no unpersons in victory or defeat as far as the Labor Party is concerned, but there will be more than a few declared unpersons in New South Wales over the course of the last little while.Mr Deputy Speaker, let us first look at the bomb damage assessment of this particular campaign. The first piece of information worth noting is this: the second largest party in Australia, the Liberal Party, in the largest state in Australia, New South Wales—the state from which its federal leader is drawn, the Prime Minister John Howard—received less than one-quarter of the primary votes in the Legislative Assembly in the state of New South Wales. Indeed, according to the Sydney Morning Herald, when we shift over into the upper house, we discover that the combined votes of the Independents and One Nation exceeded the Liberal Party primary and, according to the Sydney Morning Herald, in that chamber the Liberals have one in five votes in New South Wales.The second point to notice is that there was a swing away from the Liberal Party of over eight per cent, and a third point to notice is that it lost its deputy leader and two other frontbenchers in the process. The Liberal Party and the National Party have been massively mauled in New South Wales. As David Humphries, the Sydney Morning Herald journalist commenting on these matters, very accurately said:It was a stinker of all campaigns and the voters thought so too.Since that campaign has had its denouement and since election day, we notice several things. The person prominent in the election campaign for the Liberal Party for the course of two or three weeks has become what the submariners would determine as a shadow in the ocean. A shadow in the ocean occurs when the submarine that you have is so silent it is actually detected by sonar operators because there is a section of the ocean emanating no noise at all. The Prime Minister has been the submarine shadow in the aftermath of this election campaign.Forgotten is the fact that the Prime Minister says, as he said today in his comments to his Liberal Party caucus on the election campaign, that the blame for the New South Wales result lies fairly and squarely with the New South Wales Liberal and National parties. He is a forgetful Prime Minister. When he is confronted by the fact that, invited by the Liberal and National parties to launch Mrs Chikarovski's campaign, and subsequently invited by them to participate for at least a solid fortnight in the campaigning activities—up every night extolling the virtues of the federal government and saying that is why folk ought to vote for the Liberal Party locally; confident, as we find out from the polling, that he is attaching himself to the slipstream of a winning campaign—we discover that none of that really happened; none of that really occurred. It was actually not him there in the course of that campaign; it was just a small shadow floating across the surface.Of course, the explanation is that New South Wales always prefers to have alternative parties in government at the state and federal levels. It has to be said that that was not quite our experience when we were in office—not quite. There are certain historical problems associated with that. I suppose Mr Askin could probably feel aggrieved on that subject as well when he comes to contemplate that situation. If you want to look back to the Labor government in the 1940s, as I recollect it, there were state and federal Labor governments in that period, too. But these simple historical facts seem to have escaped the Prime Minister in his analysis.In so far as attaching blame to an individual for this particular election debacle on his part, he actually singled out Mr Collins. I would have thought that of all the people he could figure out to blame in the New South Wales Liberal Party—Mr Fahey interjecting—PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—We will get on to that as well; don't worry. We are setting the scene very nicely for that. Of all the people that you could exclude from blame for this entire process, it was probably Mr Collins; the one person whom the Prime Minister decided to hold up. He said, `Collins is out there. He is a dead body. He has been a dead body since before Christmas. Since I had foreknowledge of his demise, since I supported Mrs Chikarovski's claims, since I undermined that particular state leader, so I now drag his dead body down on myself in order to conceal my involvement as far as this particular exercise is concerned.'One of the reasons why they lost—and if the Prime Minister gave a genuine review of the reasons for the defeat of Mrs Chikarovski and the efforts of her party to his party room today, he would have had this as his starting point—was the position that she adopted on the issue of the privatisation of the Electricity Commission of New South Wales. He would have had that at the forefront of his opinion. But if he were to do that, of course, he would have to point to a substantial development of opinion in the electorate which he wants to deny and does not wish to confront but which he must start to put into his considerations as he contemplates his future and the future of his policies.What Mrs Chikarovski offered was unprecedented. I have never seen anyone go to an election campaign saying, `If you vote for me, you will get $1,000'—not in this country anyway. `If you vote for me, you will get $1,000 because I will do this to put cash in your hand—one grand.' It is an extraordinary offer; a difficult offer for an awful lot of people in New South Wales who are doing it hard. I can think of a very large number of New South Wales families who would like a grand in the back pocket. It would mean a very great deal to them in contemporary circumstances if they managed to get it. Apart from anything else, if they anticipate successful passage of the GST legislation in this parliament, they will need every cent of it to make up for the shortfall in compensation that is entailed in that particular package when they ultimately confront it, if indeed they have to.It was an unprecedented offer to the people of New South Wales and it was followed by a whole plethora of other promises associated with public works. When the Daily Telegraph ran its daily pork meter, they gave up 10 days before the campaign in the pork meter. Very unfairly, they had the Labor Party side gradually approaching a modest level on one side of the meter. On the other side of the meter they simply had an explosion—the Chikarovski explosion—in relation to the offerings that were made to further induce the New South Wales people to arrive at that conclusion.The New South Wales people said no. This is a service, unlike many others which have been privatised over the years, which we all use—a service like Telstra. There are many other things which have been in government ownership in years past, including things like butcher shops and sawmills. Over time they have disappeared from the system, but what is retained is what is necessary for all of us to use and on which we know we are going to be substantially dependent as the years go by. At this level of government, we are dealing with Australia Post and Telstra. At their level of government, they are dealing basically with public utilities, and it happens to be this. I could not do better in this debate than to now put into Hansard what another Sydney Morning Herald journalist had to say about all this. Mike Seccombe said:But most importantly, Saturday's result showed the electorate is sick of political correctness. Not the phoney political correctness Howard talks about, but the real political correctness which for so long dominated elite opinion in Australia.. . . . . . . . .And why should they?—he says, talking about privatisation—They have the example of the first tranche sell-off to look at. Shares sold off for billions of dollars less than market value to that minority of people with enough spare cash . . . That's very nice for them, but not so nice for the rest of society, which has suffered a dramatic fall in standards of service from Telstra as a result.Make no mistake: the communications report that we received today is talking about the downward spiralling of services by Telstra: the downward spiralling from a level of service prior to the start of privatisation to now. It is not that things were bad in the past. Telstra has committed errors in the past; it has been by no means perfect under full public ownership. But the point about that report is this: whatever you think was wrong with Telstra when it was under full pubic ownership, it is worse now. It is worse now in regional Australia in particular where the full impact of massive job losses bites most heavily and services thereby are not being delivered to people in regional Australia.We have had startling examples of that presented during question time today, and yet the Prime Minister ignores all that. The Prime Minister retreated from the New South Wales battle front in this last week in parliament to make his own personal contribution to the success of the New South Wales campaign by deciding that this was an opportune moment to discuss his idea of a preamble, and we have already had an opportunity to have a conversation about that in parliament.But to emphasise the way in which the Prime Minister has responded in the area of the preamble is to point out a streak which has developed in his personality in this place and which means that he will not listen to what the public is telling him. He will not listen on the preamble and, in an equivalent fashion, he will not listen on the subject of Telstra. What is coming into play here is overweening arrogance.We have been alone on the field pointing that out over the last three months, as people who have listened to these debates in parliament will recollect. We have talked about the extraordinary swollen-headedness that has been shown since the last federal election campaign when, with 49 per cent, he skated back into government with a record swing against a first-term government after a lengthy period in opposition prior to that—almost as big as the swing in New South Wales.Bob Carr pipped us. He got eight and we got six in the course of that election campaign. It was almost as big as Bob Carr's swing against him. The Prime Minister claims a mandate on the basis of the fact that he got 49 per cent of the vote. He claims a mandate in New South Wales. He keeps lecturing me here that he is the fellow who got the New South Wales majority. He should have—he is from New South Wales! Even in Western Australia we managed to turn around what has generally been a pretty poor Labor vote, probably on the strength of the fact that there was a Western Australian leader of the federal Labor Party. At least that was part of the result. We managed to get it up to a reasonable level.But, if the truth be told, we beat him in New South Wales. We got 51 per cent in New South Wales, not him. So he cannot even claim, as he went out onto the hustings in New South Wales, that he went out with a majority of states behind him under his own banner when he actually ran for election federally. But that overwhelming swollen-headedness has led him into the position he is now in with the preamble, and that produced one of the most extraordinary articles I have read in some considerable time. Mr Henderson, a former staffer of his, wrote:Last month, talking about the preamble to the Constitution, Howard stated . . . his intention to seek the "advice of other gifted wordsmiths". Some thought the Prime Minister's description of himself as a "gifted wordsmith" was . . . self-mocking . . . Others . . . knew better. In time it became evident that the Prime Minister was equating his writing skills with such "other gifted wordsmiths" as Les Murray and Geoffrey Blainey. Hence the preamble as a shared writing experience. Forget the gifted wordsmiths and forget his participation amongst them. The Prime Minister is not amongst the gifted wordsmiths, as far as this country is concerned. What he has to be is what he has not been and what he promised to be in 1996—that is, a Prime Minister for all of us. If you want to be a Prime Minister for all of us, Mr Prime Minister, start listening to the messages that you get from the community and retreat on your intentions on Telstra. (Time expired)15:44:004676Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—I listened with great interest to the Leader of the Opposition's speech that was supposed to be on privatisation. The first seven minutes were a commentary on the New South Wales election with no reference whatsoever to privatisation, the values or otherwise. The reason undoubtedly is that the Leader of the Opposition is on record over a long period of time as being a supporter of privatisation. I listened to the last four minutes of his address today that was about the preamble and about heaping ridicule on the Prime Minister, not about addressing in any shape or form the question of privatisation. It centred on the fact that the vote in New South Wales for the Labor Party at the last election was greater than that for the government.I have noted that this particular mandate argument has been put forward time and again by the Leader of the Opposition and by others from the Labor Party in this House. But they conveniently—despite the fact that he is the hero of the moment in the Labor eyes—ignored the fact that in New South Wales in the 1995 election Bob Carr and the Labor Party got 48.3 per cent of the vote. Did you ever argue in favour of `no mandate for Bob Carr' in the four years of the first term of the Labor government? Did you ever use that particular argument in all of this posturing you have done on the question of mandate in the last six months? I have never used it. I recognised that there was a bit of luck in three seats. I accepted my fate, and I moved on with my life. Let us stop the hypocrisy in terms of mandate. It comes down in our system to who controls the numbers in this House and who controls the numbers in any house in any parliament in Australia.So today I came in here just to see if the Leader of the Opposition will rule out the question of privatisation should there ever be a Labor government under his stewardship in the future. Not one word has been said about ruling out privatisation. He has used as his argument and as his base in this debate the recent state election. He has used the fact that the opposition in New South Wales spoke of a policy to privatise power generation. He has used, of course, the fact that, as a result of how the voters made their decision last Saturday, the policy of the coalition in New South Wales was rejected.At no point in time in that entire election campaign did I hear Mr Carr rule out privatisation of power generation in New South Wales. And I noted with great interest a contribution by the strategist of the moment, Mr Della Bosca—who has been said to be the architect of the success of Mr Carr in the recent campaign—last Sunday on television. Question—Glenn Milne:Can you give us a guarantee that over the next term of the Carr government no part of the power industry in New South Wales will be privatised?Answer—Mr Della Bosca:That is a vast oversimplification of the debate, Glenn, to be fair. It is not for me now or last night or at any time at the moment to rule in or out any policy measure.So the options are open. We have looked at, of course, privatisation of power generation in New South Wales—this issue that is so burning it seems in the context of Telstra, for the base political motives that the Leader of the Opposition has for the moment on this issue. We have looked at the manner in which they brought it forward in New South Wales. It was Labor's policy to sell off the power stations, and then they changed their minds. But they have not ruled it out for the future. And I also say, here and now, that over the next four years of government in New South Wales there will be a sale of power generation by the Carr Labor government. That is certain. That will happen.Privatisation is, of course, something which the Leader of the Opposition knows a fair bit about because, after all, he was the architect of Labor's privatisation. He was the architect over a long period of what the Labor Party, when in government, sold. And the list is pretty impressive—going back to 1988 when they sold the Commonwealth Accommodation and Catering Services; going back to November 1988 when they sold the loans portfolio of the Defence Service Housing Corporation to Westpac; going back to the Australian Defence Force home loan franchise sold to the National Bank in May 1991; going back to the first and the second tranche of the sale of the Commonwealth Bank. And now they are trying to slip into this groove of saying, `We are not interested in privatisation of public assets used by the whole of the community.' I would have thought that everybody had access to the Commonwealth Bank. As many people in Australia had access to the Commonwealth Bank as have access today to Optus or to Telstra, and you are a hypocrite when you try to slip into a groove on this issue at this point in time.Opposition members interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The minister will withdraw the `hypocrite', please.HQ5Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEY—I withdraw that, Mr Deputy Speaker. You, the members opposite, are disingenuous when you slip into that convenient argument, that convenient groove of suggesting that it is about those pieces of infrastructure that might be available to the whole community. And it is fair to say that all Australians had access to Qantas if they wanted to take a fight anywhere in this country or, for that matter, leave the country. But, no, of course, that was something that they could conveniently sell. And on numerous occasions the Leader of the Opposition went forward in the days of government as the architect of privatisation, putting forward the valid and legitimate reasons which I support. I liked what he said then. I say it now. It was right then, and it is right now. Let me quote what Mr Beazley said on 24 August 1994 at the National Press Club. He said:The government's commitment to the deficit reduction strategy— I am not sure there was much of a commitment there—means that a halt to privatisation would result in the direct cut to government programs in the current year and next year as the economy recovers. Asset sales help the government keep the deficit down and debt at manageable levels.The theory was right if the proceeds of those sales were used to pay off debt, if they were used to ensure that there was no deficit in that budget or in the budgets of the following years. But we know that in five years, five budgets, of the Labor government, leading up to 1996, general government debt and borrowings in this nation grew by $70 billion as a result of their failure to manage, and each time they sold an asset they used it just to prop up current programs and not to retire debt. They simply wasted the assets of the taxpayers of this country by simply using them to, as I say, look after the current programs instead of clearing the debts that were there. To the Life Insurance Federation in Perth in July 1994 the Leader of the Opposition said:We sell assets and the benefits that flow from the sales.He went on to say:There are broader benefits to be gained from moving the ownership of assets into the private sector—most notably in achieving greater efficiency, stronger performance and improved competitiveness in some of our key national enterprises.The library is full of quotes from the Leader of the Opposition as the architect of asset sales under the Labor government. He was the person who ran forward with it.UNKNOWNOpposition memberOpposition member—What about Telstra?HQ5Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEY—Now let us come to Telstra. I noted with great interest something which, of course, has been fairly well known in the broader community for some considerable time. There was an opportunity available, it seemed, to the former Prime Minister and his asset sales minister, the former Minister for Finance—the now Leader of the Opposition—when it came to the disposal of Telstra. It seems from the article, which was in the Business Review Weekly on 21 December 1998, that the former Prime Minister was doing a cosy little deal to dispose of Telstra to BHP. This flows through from what we know was the arrangement that was put in place for the employment of the former CEO of Telstra, Mr Blount, who has recently completed his term. He did a very good job and he moved back to the United States. We know that it was very much on the agenda for Labor to dispose of Telstra when the Leader of the Opposition was one of the members of the team that took Mr Blount on board to take over the reins of Telstra.There is a great deal of misleading of the Australian community on the question of privatisation and Telstra. It has been the agenda of Labor and it will be the agenda of Labor if they ever get the opportunity again to take over the reins of government. To try to take some consolation out of last Saturday and the power generation disposal proposed by the coalition—to use that as an argument to prevent the sale of Telstra at this time—is, as I have said, disingenuous in the extreme. This government wants to sell Telstra because we are still paying off the debt left to us by Labor. We want to dispose of that asset so that we can clear the servicing of debt which came close to $10 billion per annum at the commencement of the coalition government. It is an absolute waste of taxpayers' money, year after year, to pay that sort of money to the banks, simply because of your mismanagement and debt. You have to pay for that debt by giving the proceeds of hard-earned taxpayers' dollars—collected by way of Commonwealth revenue—to the banks. With each year that goes by, under the good management of this government, under the `spending only what we have got' principle that this government applies, we are reducing that debt.Each time we can dispose of an asset that is not core government business, we can replace it by a business supplied by many others out there in the marketplace—be it in telecommunications or anywhere else. We are using the proceeds of such sales to dispose of that debt. And, in the course of reducing that debt, there are more and more funds each year to put towards the core responsibilities of government. Instead of paying the banks, we have the capacity to pay for the services that Australians deserve. We have the capacity to look after those in this community less fortunate than most of us. We have the capacity to ensure that services of the very best nature are given to those who slip through the net, who need that support, whether it be in welfare or in health or elsewhere.In the course of this fiscal responsibility and proper economic management, we are contributing significantly to the general economic boom that this country has seen in recent years. We have seen six reductions in the official interest rate. That has given a massive boost to all Australians—whether they are paying off a credit card debt, whether they are paying off a mortgage, whether it is a business loan or whether it is their first, second or whatever home. They are paying less today than they were at any time in the past 30 years. It is the consumer confidence that flows through from this process which has done so much to ensure that, despite world economic downturn, despite the fact that we are seeing in our region some significant economic difficulties, Australia has ploughed ahead. In economic terms, Australia is leading all of the OECD countries, bar one or two. In terms of Western nations, Australia is seen as the real star performer in the management of its economy. That is the benefit of privatisation—when you use the proceeds of a sale in areas where a service can be provided by others. That is where you can ensure that you do something useful with the proceeds. This government has. The former government wasted the proceeds of their privatisation.Let me conclude with these few remarks in relation to service. We heard the nonsense suggestion in here today that, because there is a privatisation afoot, the service of Telstra is diminishing. For starters, we have got records that we did not have in the days when it was fully owned. Secondly, the control that any government had over Telstra and any other corporatised body ceased when Kim Beazley, as Minister for Finance, corporatised Telstra in 1991. And it ceased when the former Labor government corporatised many other business enterprises of government because, at that point in time, the Corporations Law took over. No government anywhere in this nation, irrespective of whether it is Labor or Liberal, has the capacity to direct the board or any of the officials or members or employees of Telstra to simply do certain things. If this legislation is passed in the Senate, there is a massive benefit for this community, not the least of which is to increase the capacity of government, under the punitive arrangements in that legislation, to ensure that Telstra and all telecommunication companies increase and improve the service that they deliver to the Australian people. (Time expired)15:59:004679O'Byrne, MichelleMs O'BYRNE84SBassALP00—One of the key parts of the Tasmanian state Liberal Party platform at the state election was the privatisation of the Hydro-Electric Commission. It was in fact the flagship of their policy. They spent 12 months and thousands of dollars trying to sell this policy. As members here know, the Tasmanian Liberal Party were soundly defeated at the state election. Today's Mercury carries a story about the Liberal Party's change of attitude regarding this privatisation with an article titled `Liberals HEC rethink: sell-off strategy up for review'. Funnily enough, the Liberal Party in Tasmania have rethought their position because they realise it is not what the Tasmanian population need. Let us hope this government are prepared to rethink a number of policies that they have, including those regarding Telstra.The Australian Labor Party is committed to the provision of services to rural and regional areas. The members here who represent these areas know very well how important effective and efficient communication services are. My colleagues who represent Tasmania—and I need not remind the House that they all reside on this side of the House—know how important Telstra services are. The electorate knows, which is why we had such a strong vote against the coalition in Tasmania. It is because Tasmanians do not want Telstra sold. The Prime Minister in question time today talked about mandates. This government were not given a mandate for the sale of Telstra from the people of Tasmania, nor were they given one on the GST.We have to be able to provide the highest quality service to regional areas. That is not what Tasmania is receiving now, and it is certainly not what we will receive under further privatisation plans. Telephones are a vital link. They are a lifeline for communities and businesses. There have been many references made to the special deal that Tasmania supposedly received from the first partial sale of Telstra.The facts do not show that we got a special deal. The facts show that there are 91 new connections which are yet to be made due to the lack of a network; Tasmanian linespeople have been transferred to the more profitable urban mainland centres, resulting in increased new connection and fault reduction waiting times; the Telstra Hobart store is to be closed on 30 June; over 220 jobs have been lost in the commercial and consumer sections of Telstra since February 1997; overtime for the Victoria-Tasmania region is excessive, and I refer to the Victoria-Tasmania region because we are no longer an entity unto ourselves with regard to Telstra; the Hobart Telstra call centre has a ration of two casual jobs to every one permanent job while Telstra is slashing permanent highly skilled jobs in regional Tasmania; and the Hobart Work Management Centre was closed with the loss of 35 highly skilled jobs, despite assurances that it would not be closed and despite a Senate direction to Minister Alston to ensure that it remained open. I could go on because the list of grievances does not end there. Whilst I am focusing only on Tasmania, the members from regional areas can give us many examples. I would like to remind members of exactly what the Australian Communications Authority found in Tasmania in the December quarterly figures, despite the fact that apparently we have no records on such things. They found a 24 per cent decline in new services, a 10 per cent decline in fault repair times, and an 11-hour increase in the average time for payphone fault clearances. Yesterday, the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation, representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, was reminded of these figures and asked how, given the decline in services to regional areas, anyone could believe that there would not be a further decline with further privatisation. I would really love to be able to stand here and say that the minister jumped to his feet, fully engaged on the issue, and gave a commitment to rural and regional Australia on the high quality service that they should not only expect but they would, by necessity, receive. I would like to be able to say that the wellbeing of Tasmanians was his first priority.83VEMERSONMr Emerson—You can't.84SO'Byrne, MichelleMs O'BYRNE—You are right. I can't and that is very sad. What the minister did was concede that the result in Tasmania was `disappointing', but not as disappointing as a minister in this government that has a lack of concern for services in regional areas. The minister attempted to offer us a `scientific rational examination' of this issue. He said that we should `keep in context that the number of connections in rural Tasmania is very small'. Minister, that answer is simply not good enough. Adrian Lynch said in the Australian in May 1998 that rural people are discriminated against not only because of the physical distances involved but also because their communities are not profitable. Rural communities have become a low priority.5K6ELLISMs Ellis—The reality of privatisation.84SO'Byrne, MichelleMs O'BYRNE—It is the reality of privatisation. It is what happens to rural communities. Let us look at what happens in regional Australia when Telstra services are cut—obviously the minister has not yet comprehended what diminution of service means to rural areas. Let us look at what happens when you decrease Telstra technical staff on the west coast of Tasmania, in the electorate of the member for Lyons, by 50 per cent since 1997. The minister was asked a question about services on the Tasmanian west coast today and indicated that Telstra had had trouble locating staff. Let me shed some light on the issue of staff resources on the west coast.Telstra have one technician and one linesman allocated to Queenstown on the west coast of Tasmania. However, last year Telstra removed the full-time technician from King Island, in the electorate of Braddon. This means that the west coast technician is currently working on King Island trying to fill the hole created by Telstra slashing. I must thank and congratulate my colleague Senator Sue Mackay for the work she has done on this issue, driven by her commitment to rural and regional Australia.Let me tell you about what happened at Queenstown Hospital. You have heard some mention of this issue, but let us really understand what went on. On Sunday, 28 March the Queenstown Hospital became aware that their PABX phone system was not working. They contacted Telstra—obviously not by their PABX system—to report the problem at 9 a.m., requesting that an employee be sent to fix the problem. They tried again just prior to lunch time. They tried again in mid-afternoon. At 6 p.m., some nine hours after the first report, a Telstra technician arrived to repair the system. He did that and that is very complimentary. You might think this delay was bad enough, but for residents of Queenstown it got worse.After repairing the fault, the technician returned to Burnie. Two hours later the system went down again. Telstra then sent a local linesman to attempt to fix the problem, but a linesman does not have the expert training required to work on a PABX system. This man did his best and worked on the system until 1 a.m. yesterday. The problem was then identified as a faulty card or cards in the PABX system. Let me remind you that by this time the hospital had been without its PABX system for 16 hours. One of these replacement cards was eventually sourced from the Hobart Telstra store and was transported by car from Hobart to Queenstown on Monday morning. It was due to arrive around 1.30 p.m. and, as the minister indicated, was eventually fixed by 3.20 p.m.Let me make it clear that, while the minister was offering the House yesterday his `scientific rational examination' for a reduced Telstra service in Tasmania, a hospital in a regional area had been without a reliable phone service for 29 hours. The hospital was forced to advise Queenstown residents and other people living in the region by broadcasting over the local radio station not to call the hospital because the phone system did not work.The minister referred to the fact that the hospital did put in a contingency plan. Of course they did. These people are committed to the health industry. They will do what is best for their community. However, there were still delays in service delivery. There were calls made to the ambulance service that were not dealt with as speedily as they normally would have been. Just because the hospital was able to put in another system does not abrogate the responsibility of Telstra.The Queenstown Hospital is the base hospital on the west coast. It is in a mining area. It also coordinates the ambulance service for the area. If the phone service is not working lives are put at risk. I shudder to think what might happen if a similar event occurs in Tasmania in about three months time. As we heard today, the Telstra store in Hobart from which replacements are sourced is due to close on 30 June. Should this problem occur after 30 June all parts will have to be sourced from the Telstra store in Sunshine, Victoria, resulting in further delays. It certainly will take more than two hours to source something from this area.This is not only not good enough for Tasmania but appalling. Tasmanians, despite the smaller population, have the right, as every other Australian does, to expect certain standards. These standards include being able to call an ambulance or contact the local hospital. I must confess, though, that, despite finding the comments of the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation particularly offensive, the most offensive comments were made by the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. When asked about the decline of services in Tasmania, Senator Alston said:Telstra's performance in Tasmania has shown a disappointing blip.I am not sure what a blip is. I know that what it meant in Tasmania was that people could not contact their hospital. How far can these blips go? When is the minister going to say, `This is a serious issue. This is something that Telstra should be concerned about'? It is a very serious issue. Whilst we can be flippant, we must remember that. It is clear that Tasmania and regional Australia are suffering a loss of telecommunications services. If anybody needed further evidence of the need to stop any sale of any further part of Telstra, then they saw that evidence in a regional area of Tasmania yesterday.16:08:004681Forrest, John, MPMr FORRESTNV5MalleeNP10—Unlike the previous speaker, my intention is to speak to the matter of public importance before us which purports to be all about the privatisation of public assets. That to me smacks of the grossest political hypocrisy I have seen in the six years I have been in this parliament. It comes following a massive sale of public assets to private ownership by the Australian Labor Party from 1988 to 1996, to which the Minister for Finance and Administration has made reference—a long litany of the sale of public assets. He mentioned a number of the organisations that were sold but did not make reference to the amounts of money that were associated with that.If I might take some time to refer to that, the Defence Service House Corporation loan portfolio was sold to Westpac—$1.5 billion was the revenue to government from that source. The first tranche of the Commonwealth Bank netted some $1.7 billion. The Moomba-Sydney pipeline system netted some half a billion dollars. In fact, from 1988 to 1995, prior to the time they lost the last election, the Australian Labor Party were responsible for selling off $7.8 billion worth of public assets.834LAWLERMr Lawler—How much?NV5Forrest, John, MPMr FORREST—$7.8 billion.834LAWLERMr Lawler—And how much debt did they pay off?NV5Forrest, John, MPMr FORREST—A good question from the member for Parkes: how much of that $7.8 billion was used to pay off an accumulating public debt? By the end of the dreadful 13-year period, the Labor Party accumulated a public national debt of $95 billion. To answer the question of the member for Parkes, not one single dollar. It just goes to show the ineptness of the Australian Labor Party to have any semblance of responsible fiscal management. For 13 years we had the worst kind of fiscal mismanagement this nation has ever seen in the history of this parliament. The impacts that that had on the economy—incredible interest rates on my business overdraft in excess of 25 per cent; that was the impact that that kind of irresponsible fiscal management had on our economy—motivated persons like me to come here to try to convince the then government of the ineptness of their management.There was $95 billion accumulated debt from profligate spending and an asset sales program to try to cope with that—as the Minister for Finance and Administration has made reference to, to fund their ongoing current account program. They used that precious capital accumulated by Australian taxpayers in an asset. To those of us who are involved in our own businesses, we like to think we have an accumulated asset that we can one day use for good purposes—to fund our retirement. Were precious funds owned by taxpayers used to reduce that accumulating debt? No. They were used to fund profligate spending with a current account designed purely for the cynical purpose of keeping the Labor Party in government for 13 years.It was a furtive program, too, I might add, hidden behind smoke and mirrors. I well remember the 1993 election when the Keating government committed themselves in quite strong language, almost ironclad guarantees, about the further sale of the Commonwealth Bank. Like their Clayton's consumption tax which they introduced immediately after coming into government in 1993, they refused to honour their so-called ironclad commitment in an election campaign in respect of the sale of the Commonwealth Bank. The period from 1993 to 1995 saw the current government, under the careful and watchful eye of the Minister for Finance and Administration, see through the sale of the rest of the Commonwealth Bank which returned $5.1 billion to government and which has been used in meeting the needs of that debt servicing.As the Minister for Finance and Administration has made reference to, that enormous debt removes from our capacity to service the needs of rural Australia and all the electorates of Australia, certainly the one that I represent. I resent the member for Bass as a new member coming in here and boosting about the Australian Labor Party having the concerns of rural Australia at heart.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—Where is she?NV5Forrest, John, MPMr FORREST—Yes. Where is she now? She was probably told by the Leader of the Opposition to put that debate. I suffered out there along with my constituents for 13 years of long and sustained neglect of rural Australia. What that means in my area is that aged care facilities are grossly undercapitalised and not meeting the needs of my constituency.Talk about the performance of Telstra! I can give examples similar to that hospital in Tasmania that has been referred to which are far worse than that under the jurisdiction of the Labor government through that dreadful period in the 1980s. We had Telecom unable to be competitive and to have a proper business attitude towards its service facility. It is competition from the other players in the telecommunications industry which is putting pressure on them to perform. For a hospital to have a PABX system as its central telephone system indicates just how underfunded that hospital is. We have new technologies far better than PABX to service our telephony needs.I will support the government's approach to getting that debt under control, getting $95 billion reduced to something that is sustainable, so that the government has more in its cash flow reserves to meet the needs of those hospitals, those aged care facilities, those schools, and particularly the needs of the environment, which is a grossly undercapitalised sector of our economy.I have been very pleased indeed with the support from the government. From the first tranche of the sale of Telstra we have been able to put some of that locked up capital, which belongs to the Australian taxpayer, into refinancing another undercapitalised sector of our economy. We hear a lot of people in this place talking about the environment, but you could never have a more degraded environment than that across rural Australia. I am very pleased to be able to say that the whole of the north-west of Victoria and the area that I alone am responsible for has received over $15 million of Natural Heritage Trust money.XT4RONALDSONMr Ronaldson—Which would never have been available.NV5Forrest, John, MPMr FORREST—Which would never have been available—$15 million would have been locked up in a publicly owned facility. We have been able to make better use of that.I support the government, and I am certainly pleased to stand here and defend a Prime Minister who has my enthusiastic support for the courage and the strength that he showed in the election campaign in putting policy on the table. We have made very clear our intentions in respect of the future of Telstra. He received a mandate and then stuck to his promise, unlike the Australian Labor Party prior to 1993, which said what it would do and gave `ironclad guarantees'—to use the words of the former leader of that organisation—which were blatantly and conveniently broken as soon as the Labor Party got into power.The Australian electorate are not stupid. They see through the hypocrisy of this motion that is before us today. Yes, we have had an election in New South Wales, but the Leader of the Opposition seems to forget that we had an election for this parliament last year, in October 1998, in which the Australian people gave a mandate to John Howard, our Prime Minister, to implement his vision for our nation: to put a plan in place to get our debt under control, and to sustain our finances so that the precious revenue that is raised from taxpayers can be put directly to use in that undercapitalised sector of our economy. I have already given examples.The Labor Party's hypocrisy on public ownership has demonstrated its ineptness and its history. The Australian people, especially those in rural Australia, will be a long time forgiving that 13 years of neglect that they suffered during those long years of profligate spending and accumulated debt. I am pleased to stand here to defend the Prime Minister, and I am proud to be part of the government that he represents.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The discussion has concluded.Bills4683Message received from the Governor-General reported informing the House of assent to the following bill: Therapeutic Goods Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 Bills4683The following bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or request: Referendum Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 Financial Management Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 Bills4683r7934683Bill presented by Dr Kemp, and read a first time.468316:19:004683Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.When the government came to power in 1996, we acted quickly to implement our agenda to achieve significant micro-economic reform. That agenda has involved removing unnecessary red tape from business, providing greater workplace flexibility, encouraging a direct relationship between employers and employees and providing the incentives necessary to encourage improved industry performance.The government identified reform of public administration as a key part of its micro-economic reform agenda. Commitment to that agenda has seen the passage of new financial management legislation; the introduction of government service charters; and the promotion of more flexible employment arrangements under the Workplace Relations Act 1996.The modernisation of the principal legislation regulating the Australian Public Service, the Public Service Act 1922, is a vital ele ment of this Public Service reform agenda. The current act is over 75 years old and has been amended on a piecemeal basis more than a hundred times. It looks back to a bygone age rather than forward to the next century.The bill which has now been introduced is the same as the bill that was passed by the House of Representatives on 30 October 1997. It incorporates the recommendations made by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, JCPA, in its report of 29 September 1997. The JCPA favoured the simplification, modernisation and more accessible format of the bill.The government considers it important for the Senate again to consider the bill for the purpose of providing the means of freeing APS agencies from central controls and of enabling APS agencies to adopt employment arrangements which meet their particular needs. The government is determined to bring Public Service employment arrangements into line with community standards and to provide the conditions necessary for Public Service organisations to achieve high performance.The government has implemented a number of its reforms through administrative means. Under these reforms:. agency heads have greater authority and flexibility to effectively manage their staff;. new Public Service values and a code of conduct for APS staff have been established through regulation;. public accountability has been increased and strengthened; and. protection for whistleblowers raising allegations of code of conduct breaches has been introduced.A number of these reforms were brought about by amendments to Public Service regulations made under the current act. The fact that these amendments were not rejected in the Senate indicates that the opposition and minor parties in the Senate share our expectations for a reformed Public Service where the values and the code of conduct are articulated in the legislative framework, and whistleblowing provisions are in place.Whilst these changes represent a significant step in the government's reform agenda, a new bill is still essential because there are a number of key areas in the current legislation that are not amenable to simplification by administrative action. For example:. giving employment powers direct to agency heads;. ensuring a secure parliament-endorsed legislative framework for APS values, the new code of conduct and protection for whistleblowers;. removing complex appeals arrangements;. removing inflexible employment categories;. removing compulsory age 65 retirement.Implementing a fully coherent, reformed management structure, therefore, requires legislative change.The current Public Service Act is complex, prescriptive and out of date. It has acted like a straitjacket on the APS, stifling the creativity and innovation of those who work within the service. The new bill, on the other hand, aims to put in place a framework for a high performance public service. It removes prescription and central control, and will enable the Public Service to meet market competition, to respond to pressures for change more effectively and to promote a stronger performance culture.The Public Service Bill will give agency heads greater authority to meet the distinctive needs of their own organisations; to provide more rewarding jobs for their staff; and to develop employment arrangements tailored to meet the expectations of clients. At the same time, the bill ensures that the powers vested in agency heads are exercised appropriately by providing for enhanced parliamentary scrutiny and greater public accountability.The bill protects the public interest of citizens and provides a fair balance between accountability and devolved management responsibility. It ensures that merit selection will remain a fundamental principle in selection decisions. Indeed, the bill specifically prohibits patronage or favouritism in staffing, and prevents ministers from involving themselves in staffing decisions relating to particu lar individuals. As recommended by the JCPA, the bill also includes a definition of `merit' which is based upon suggestions made by the Women's Electoral Lobby and supported by the JCPA.The government's clear goal is to assist the Public Service to move towards the goal of becoming a high performing organisation. We cannot afford to lose the opportunity to develop a modern act which will guide the Commonwealth's system of public service into the next century and give it the tools to meet future challenges. Adherence to detailed prescription, rigid regulation and control will mean that we lose that opportunity.Agreement making on pay and conditions was devolved to APS agencies in 1997 within broad policy parameters designed to facilitate mobility and maintain a cohesive APS, and to protect the government's interests as the ultimate employer. For the first time, each agency is deciding, by agreement with its employees, the pay, employment conditions and working arrangements to apply in their agency. We have moved away from `one answer fits all', and agencies are taking advantage of this flexibility to establish remuneration arrangements that reflect their particular needs and operating environment.Almost all agencies now have agreements certified under the WR Act. A vital component of the agreement making process is the capacity to enter into Australian Workplace Agreements with APS employees. This is already operating successfully with approximately 3,300 people in the APS on AWAs. Although about half of these are at the Senior Executive Service level, there is a growing number of AWAs being made below this level.The current legislation contains rigidities in relation to the engagement of APS employees on a short-term or fixed-term basis which restrict the flexibility of agency heads to employ staff efficiently and economically to meet the needs of their agencies from time to time. If this lack of flexibility is allowed to continue, we will see a growing move away from employment under the Public Service Act in favour of the use of employment agency staff and independent contractors. The bill seeks to give agency heads the same rights, duties and powers as an ordinary employer, thus allowing fair and flexible employment arrangements that will meet the particular needs of each individual workplace. It does not prescribe process but instead ensures that agency heads are held accountable for their actions.The Public Service Bill is a very significant piece of legislation. The reforms which, with the assistance of the opposition and minor parties in the Senate, have already been implemented have gone a long way towards providing the environment necessary for the APS to enter the next century as a high performing, innovative and responsive organisation. It is my hope that we can now progress this legislation to allow the APS to achieve its full potential. I commend the bill to the House. I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill.Debate (on motion by Mr Brereton) adjourned.Bills4685r7924685Bill presented by Dr Kemp, and read a first time.468516:28:004685Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The Public Employment (Consequential and Transitional) Amendment Bill 1999 deals with the consequential and transitional matters arising from the proposed repeal of the Public Service Act 1922 and its replacement by the legislation set out in the Public Service Bill 1999. This bill is the same as that passed by the House of Representatives in October 1997 and again in March 1998. The government is reintroducing this bill to progress the reforms which will allow for a high performing public service. It considers that it is important for the Senate again to consider the bill and the advantages that the reforms can bring in terms of flexibility and innovation.The bill sets out certain transitional provisions that are necessary with the introduction of the Public Service Bill. These transitional provisions cover three broad areas. First, it is essential to set in place conversion arrangements for those who work in the Australian Public Service. With the removal of the concept of `officers' for APS staff and the creation of a single employment category, officers and employees covered by the existing act are converted to employees in their corresponding agencies with their corresponding classifications.Second, the Public Service Bill 1999 is primarily principles based. Therefore, there are some conditions covered by the Public Service Act 1922 that require transitional arrangements because they will no longer be regulated in the same way. The most significant of these transitional arrangements covers the rights of return of staff who have left the APS to take up non-APS Commonwealth employment under the complex legislative provisions of part IV of the old act. There are no equivalent part IV mobility provisions in the new bill.Under the transitional arrangements, persons with existing part IV rights of return to the APS will retain these rights for a period of three years. These provisions will be covered by regulations.In March 1998, the Public Service Regulations were amended to remove the majority of non-APS Commonwealth agencies and statutory offices from part IV coverage, thereby effectively removing any further access to part IV mobility by APS staff.Staff now wishing to take up employment with a non-APS Commonwealth agency or an appointment to a Commonwealth statutory office must resign from the APS or, alternatively, they may apply for leave without pay. In accordance with government policy, APS agency heads must grant leave without pay to APS staff to enable them to take up appointment to specified Commonwealth statutory offices. Third, it is necessary to provide for the continuation of processes already under way. Action may have commenced under the Public Service Act 1922 or the Merit Protection (Australian Government Employees) Act 1984 that will not be completed by the time the new Public Service Act is proclaimed. To enable action to be completed, regulations will be made to ensure the continuation of those processes after the new act is proclaimed. The validation of actions and decisions taken under the former legislation will be largely dealt with in regulations.There is also a need to make consequential amendments to the extensive range of legislation which incorporates references to the Public Service Act 1922. These consequential amendments include the following categories:. changes in the current provisions relating to staffing that reflect the new employment framework;. consequential amendments to the superannuation legislation, but without any changes in the operation of the schemes;. changes to the role of the Remuneration Tribunal in relation to the remuneration and allowances for secretaries;. removal of references to the old mobility arrangements set out in part IV of the Public Service Act 1922; and. other miscellaneous amendments to ensure appropriate links to the new APS employment framework.While it was originally intended for the acts specified in schedule 1 to this bill to be amended or repealed as set out in that schedule, I would like to notify the House that this schedule will require amendment to incorporate references to additional relevant legislation.The bill also deals with the consequences of devolving the arrangements for setting the salaries of the Senior Executive Service. The link of the remuneration of members of parliament with the SES band 2 minimum salary will be replaced by a link to the classification structure created by the Remuneration Tribunal for certain statutory offices. It is not intended to increase the level of remuneration. Subject to any special requirements in relation to particular consequential amendments, this bill will commence on the same day as the Public Service Act 1999. The proposed amendments have no financial impact.Collectively, the arrangements proposed in this bill will provide the necessary certainty and continuity of administrative and management arrangements for the Australian Public Service. They will enable an orderly devolution of employment powers in the APS and a transition to a less regulated workplace. I commend this bill to the House, and I present the explanatory memorandum to the bill.Debate (on motion by Mr Martin) adjourned.Bills4687r7864687Bill presented by Dr Kemp, and read a first time.468716:34:004687Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The Employment, Education and Training Act 1988 established the National Board of Employment, Education and Training, NBEET, to provide the then minister with independent advice on employment, education and training.As well as establishing NBEET, the act established the Australian Language and Literacy Council, the Australian Research Council, the Employment and Skills Council, the Higher Education Council and the Schools Council which all report to the minister through NBEET. The board and councils are supported by a series of committees.In our 1996 policy statement on higher education, `Quality, diversity and choice', we announced our intention to abolish NBEET and establish independent councils to advise on higher education and research. This bill is the first step in that process. NBEET was established to advise on the policies and priorities of the previous government. This government sees the need for different consultative mechanisms focusing on post-secondary education and training needs. Our preference is for advice to flow directly to the minister. Current arrangements instead have specialist advice being filtered through NBEET, rather than flowing directly.The bill therefore provides for the abolition of NBEET, the Australian Language and Literacy Council, the Employment and Skills Council, the Schools Council and the Higher Education Council. The Australian Research Council will continue as an independent council reporting directly to the minister.I move now to the major provision of the bill. NBEET, the Australian Language and Literacy Council, the Employment and Skills Council, the Schools Council and the Higher Education Council will cease to exist when this legislation is proclaimed. The Australian Research Council will continue with its membership unchanged. It will provide advice to the minister on matters already referred to it by the minister. Any committees currently established to serve the council will continue with their existing membership.Under the previous legislation, NBEET had functions which included and extended the work of each of the councils. Those functions of NBEET which related to the work of the Australian Research Council will now continue as functions of the council in its own right.Previously, advice and reports from the councils were filtered through NBEET before going to the minister. In line with the government's intention to create more independent councils, this bill will enable the advice of the ARC to now flow directly to the minister. The ARC will report to the minister annually on its operations, as has been the requirement on NBEET, and this report will also be tabled.Other amendments in the bill go to administrative matters, including removing definitions no longer required under the act and retaining the position of director to service the ARC. There are also transitional provisions to provide for continuity of membership of the ARC, and the counsellors and committees which assist it. The financial impact of the bill will be minimal. I present the explanatory memorandum to the bill.Debate (on motion by Mr Martin) adjourned.Bills4688r7944688Bill presented by Mr Slipper, for Mr Williams, and read a first time.468816:38:004688Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The Statute Stocktake Bill 1999 continues the `statute stocktake' foreshadowed in the government's law and justice policy and started with the Statute Law Revision Act 1996.The government recognises that the parliament, as the primary law-maker, must bear a direct responsibility for maintenance and repair of Commonwealth statute law.The past 25 years have seen a dramatic increase in the volume, complexity and reach of Commonwealth law. Legislation impacts much more directly and significantly on all aspects of daily life. Whether it is family law, social security assistance, business regulation, environmental laws or taxation, laws passed by the federal parliament affect the community at a business, social and personal level.Indeed, today the expectation is that, when a new issue arises within a Commonwealth head of power, the parliament will step in to pass legislation to cover the field and reduce uncertainty.Not surprisingly, there are now over 1,300 Commonwealth acts on the statute book. But parliaments cannot simply pass more and more legislation without re-examining our existing laws on a regular and ongoing basis to assess their suitability and continuing necessity.As the first stage of the statute stocktake, the Attorney-General wrote to portfolio ministers in 1997 asking them to identify legislation which was no longer required and which could therefore be repealed.The stocktake has revealed many redundant acts still on the statute book.This bill will repeal 96 principal or stand-alone acts that are still on the statute book despite having no further operation. This will reduce the total number of substantive acts on the statute book by over seven per cent.The bill also includes provisions to make consequential amendments and transitional and saving provisions relating to the repeals.The consequential amendments will remove references to the repealed acts and ensure that other acts can continue to operate properly despite those repeals.The transitional and saving provisions will ensure that the repeals do not have any adverse effects on existing rights.This bill repeals redundant laws as recommended by the Small Business Deregulation Task Force. It is an important contribution to the government's policy of reviewing and repairing the statute book.Although of itself an important exercise, this is but the first stage of the stocktake process. Ministers and their departments have also been asked to identify legislation for repair. Further work will continue to be undertaken to give effect to the coalition's ongoing commitment to clean up our laws.The repair of legislation is politically a low profile task which does not attract much attention from the media. Some might even see it as a thankless task. It requires hard work, dedication and commitment. The coalition is doing what Labor failed to do in government.The winners are, however, all Australians. Whether it is small business taking out a franchise, a public company developing a major infrastructure proposal, an Aboriginal receiving Abstudy assistance to go to university or a family qualifying for the savings rebate, we all benefit from clearer, more accessible laws.This bill, together with the further changes the coalition has initiated, reflect our commitment to reduce the volume of legislation, minimise the complexity of Commonwealth law and ensure that any new legislation takes into account the impact on our citizens.The bill is expected to have no financial impact on the Commonwealth.I present the explanatory memorandum for the bill.Debate (on motion by Mr Martin) adjourned.Miscellaneous468916:43:004689Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—I move:Customs Tariff Proposal No. 1 (1999)Customs Tariff Proposal No. 1 (1999), which I have just tabled, contains alterations to the Customs Tariff Act 1995. The proposal implements the government's response to the Industry Commission's inquiry into machine tools and robots in relation to customs tariff rates of duty and policy by-law arrangements.These changes will operate from 1 April 1999.The first of the changes involves the reduction of import duty on parts of machine tools classified to certain subheadings in chapter 84. Under the proposal, these parts will now be duty free. The subheadings in chapter 84 which have been identified are those containing parts for machine tools for working metals. Parts under these subheadings are currently dutiable at five per cent. In some instances, the importation of the complete machines which include these parts does not incur import duty. However, Australian manufacturers export machine tools that include parts on which the duty has been paid.The Australian machine tools industry exports in excess of 90 per cent of its production, and much of that production incorporates goods imported as parts which are subject to the payment of customs duty. It is the government's policy to reduce the impact of tariffs on inputs to industry generally. Based on current data and predicted trade, the anticipated cost to the government in forgone revenue is estimated to be between $5 million and $5.6 million per annum.The government has also decided to cancel policy by-law items 48, 49 and 55 in schedule 4 of the Customs Tariff Act 1995. These items offer a free rate of duty on goods which satisfy certain criteria—principally, that there are no substitutable goods made in Australia.Policy by-law item 48 covers parts and accessories for machine tools for the working of metals. As these parts and accessories will be duty free under the proposal, the duty-free concession accorded by item 48 is no longer required and is being repealed. The impact on industry is expected to be negligible because of the offsetting arrangements taking place with tariff reductions.Policy by-law item 49 provides a concession to importers for certain parts for machines which incorporate a computer controller. Examples of these are electric lasers and electromagnetic soldering machines. Trade statistics reveal that this item has had little use and its cancellation will have little impact on industry.Policy by-law item 55 was created in 1992 to provide an import duty concession for machine tools and parts for the working of advanced materials, such as carbon fibres and exotic metals. Trade figures for this item indicate that this particular by-law has not been used by industry in the past five years or so. The cost to industry through its revocation is expected to be minimal.The recommendations and the advice gained from the Industry Commission's study have been invaluable to the government in determining the best mode of assisting the technological development and encouragement of Australia's machine tools and robots industry. This government has acknowledged the recommendations, and proposes to adopt them in this proposal. I commend the proposal to the House.Debate (on motion by Mr Martin) adjourned. Bills4690r7794690Bill presented by Mr Ruddock, and read a first time.469016:48:004690Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 corrects an error made in 1991 by the previous government, when it inadvertently included the Elliott stockyards and dip in schedule 1 to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. The area of land involved is about 3.8 hectares. Regrettably, it has not been possible to return this land since the error was made. This part of the amendment will commence 28 days after royal assent.The bill will also amend the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 to ensure the effectiveness of subsection 50(2D) of the act, which prevents land claims over stock routes and stock reserves. The background to this matter is that the previous government entered into a memorandum of agreement in 1989 with the Northern Territory government concerning the granting of community living areas to Aboriginal people in pastoral districts in the Northern Territory. As part of that agreement, the Commonwealth undertook to proclaim a 1987 amendment to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 preventing the making of land claims over stock routes and reserves. This amendment was made because it was never intended that stock routes and reserves should be available for claim.The amendment was proclaimed in 1990. However, it appears that the amendment was technically deficient. The effect of the amendment as drafted is that, while the claims cannot be heard by the Aboriginal land commissioners as a result of subsection 50(2D), they remain registered. This means that there is doubt about whether the Northern Territory government can deal with the land.In 1995, the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory governments reached an agreement that an effective amendment be made in exchange for the Northern Territory accepting Commonwealth proposals for amendments to the Northern Territory's Pastoral Land Act 1992. The aim of these amendments is to expedite the granting of community living areas to Aboriginal people, particularly those being dealt with by the Community Living Areas Tribunal. This part of the bill will conclusively dispose of stock route and stock reserve claims by removing any doubt about the effectiveness of subsection 50(2D) of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976.The bill will also amend the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 to dispose of Aboriginal land claims if the Aboriginal Land Commissioner, in his report to the minister relating to the claim, finds that there are no traditional Aboriginal owners of the land or is unable to make a finding that there are any traditional Aboriginal owners of the land. Currently, the act finally disposes of land claims if the Land Commissioner makes a positive finding that there are no traditional owners. In cases where the Land Commissioner has held that it is not possible to determine traditional ownership, the claims have remained on the books.The sunset clause introduced in 1987 was intended to prevent land claims being made after 5 June 1997. However, while the Land Commissioner cannot deal with claims lodged after this date, it does not prevent such claims being lodged and remaining on the books. The bill will finally dispose of claims in the following three categories:(i) where the Land Commissioner is unable to make a finding that there are Aboriginals who are the traditional Aboriginal owners of land; or(ii) where the claim is over stock routes or stock reserves and the Land Commissioner had not commenced a hearing by 1 March 1990; or(iii) in all other cases, the claim was made after 5 June 1997.These latter amendments will commence on proclamation, with a 12-month limit on the time within which proclamation is to be made. In accordance with the 1995 agreement with the Northern Territory, the amendments will therefore commence at the same time as the amendments to the Northern Territory Pastoral Land Act 1992. We believe that there are no financial implications arising from this bill. I commend the bill to the House and table the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Martin) adjourned.Bills4691r7844691Bill—by leave—presented by Mr Bruce Scott, and read a first time.469116:53:004691Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The Defence Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 makes various amendments to defence legislation which are associated with the government's commitment to improving the management and administration of the Defence organisation.The first set of amendments made by the bill establishes a urinalysis drug testing scheme. This will apply to members of the Australian Defence Force who undertake combat and combat related duties, and forms a key element of the Defence Force's `No Drugs' policy. The scheme will help to ensure that members of the Defence Force will continue to discharge their duties in a safe, efficient and effective manner.Selection for testing will be made on a random basis. Safeguards will ensure the dignity and privacy of the members to be tested, and ensure that they are notified of the testing requirements and results. Samples willbe forwarded to an Australian Standards accredited laboratory for testing for illegal drugs such as cocaine, opiates, cannabinoids and amphetamines.Commanding officers will initiate administrative action against individuals detected using illegal drugs under this scheme. Administrative action willinclude an assessment by a qualified medical practitioner of the individual's fitness for further service. Other administrative action that can be taken against a member includes reduction in rank as well as posting action. However, members who are detected using illegal drugs under the scheme will not be charged under the Defence Force Discipline Act, given the range of administrative action that can be taken against them.The second set of amendments:. enable the Chief of the Defence Force, the Vice Chief of the Defence Force, the Chief of Army and the Chief of Navy to be transferred to the Reserves, on the expiration of fixed term appointments; and. enable officers who are subject to limited tenure promotion or management initiated early retirement to be transferred to the Reserves on the expiration of the limited tenure promotion or relevant management initiated early retirement period.At present, these officers must, as a general rule, be retired at the expiration of these periods. As an alternative, the amendments will enable them to be transferred to the Reserves before the expiration of these periods, where they request this action.These amendments will maintain access to these officers' expertise, and avoid the more cumbersome present requirement of an officer being first retired from the Defence Force and then appointed to the Reserves under separate processes. The retention of these officers in the Reserves will also enhance the Defence Force's capacity for rapid expansion should an emergency situation develop at some stage in the future. Corresponding amendments will be made to the regulation provisions dealing with officers in the Air Force.The third set of amendments enable the Chief of Army and the Chief of Navy to delegate their powers to retire officers and terminate officer appointments, including their powers in relation to management initiated early retirement, to an officer not below the rank Brigadier or Commodore. This will bring the Army and Navy provisions into line with the corresponding Air Force provisions, and enable the devolution of the management of these matters to more appropriate areas in the Defence Force.The fourth set of amendments extends, from three to five years, the time limitation that applies to most charges under the Defence Force Discipline Act, and removes an obsolete provision from that Act. The extension of the time limitation on charging persons results from the government's response to the report of the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee on the crash of a RAAF Nomad aircraft.The final set of amendments are essentially technical in nature, and include the repeal of the Supply and Development Act which formerly provided the legislative framework for defence production activities. With the creation of government owned companies such as Australian Defence Industries in the late 1980s and the closure of all the remaining factories, the act no longer serves a useful purpose.I am confident that the House will support the legislation. I commend the bill to the House and table the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Martin) adjourned.Bills4692r8014692Bill—by leave—presented by Mr Vaile, and read a first time.469216:59:004692Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTrade10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.It is with pleasure that I introduce the Wool International Privatisation Bill 1999 to the House. The privatisation of Wool International concludes the government's involvement in the management of the wool stockpile as it passes responsibility to a private sector board who will manage the stockpile in the interest of its shareholders.Now is the right time to privatise Wool International. Equity in the stockpile is now significantly higher than the wool debt, so there is little justification for the ongoing involvement of the government in its management.The new commercial structure provided for in the bill is simple, and meets the government's objective to protect, and indeed enhance, the rights of Wool International entitlement holders while providing commercial flexibility for the sale of the stockpile.The most important issue is that ownership of the stockpile is to be formally transferred to the unit holders, and its management to a commercial board answerable directly and only to its shareholders.Wool International will be converted by this legislation into a company operating under Corporations Law. It will be a new company, with a new name—WoolStock Australia Ltd—a new board, new management structures and a new commercial way of doing business.Shares in the new company will be issued to all Wool International entitlement holders—one share will be `stapled' to each unit of entitlement.The units of entitlement remain in place, and remain valid. Cash distributions will be able to be made to the entitlement holders. The amount and frequency of distributions will be a matter for the board of the new company.If the commercial price obtained by WoolStock Australia for the stockpile is higher than the book value of the stockpile at conversion—which will hopefully prove to be the case, the extra equity will be available for distribution as dividends to be paid to shareholders.Protecting and enhancing the rights of entitlement holdersThe benefits of privatisation include:. value of equity could be enhanced by the commercial management of the stockpile;. no legislated selling schedules; and. equity holders' rights have been enhanced in that they now have the right to vote on the management of their asset.There will be considerable interest in the arrangements for appointment of the commercial board to run the new company. An initial board will be established to ensure essential preliminary work on a business plan and the transition of staff and resources to the new commercial arrangements happens smoothly. To that end the government will appoint three members of the board at the outset, with further directors to be appointed later. The actual size of the board will be determined after further consultation, including with the interim advisory board.It is intended that two of the additional directors, who would be appointed by the new board, would need to be endorsed by shareholders at the first meeting of the company. The inaugural shareholder meeting will be called as soon as practicable, possibly within two months from the start-up date of 1 July 1999. This meeting would also have the opportunity of endorsing the future direction of the new company.After that, composition of the board will be chosen in the normal manner under Corporations Law.A trust company is to be established to hold units and shares of unit holders whose legal status has not been established and cannot, for a number of reasons, have their units and shares transferred to them immediately. The trust will be charged with actively working to transfer units and shares to the unit holders, beneficiaries or creditors, as soon as their legal status has been established.Tax issuesIn relation to tax treatment of unit holders, the government worked on the simple principle of seeking to maintain arrangements for the commercial company which would be similar to those relating to the statutory authority. I am happy to say that, in the main, this has been achieved.. Most importantly, the government is prepared to exempt WoolStock Australia from income tax on its stockpile activities.. Distributions in the hand of equity holders will be taxable, but will be able to be considered as primary producer income for eligible unit holders.. Proceeds from the sale of units by eligible unit holders will still qualify for small business capital gains tax roll-over relief.. Dividends paid to shareholders will be taxable in the normal way in the hands of shareholders. There will, however, be the normal access to primary producer income arrangements for those who qualify. Shareholders should seek their own financial advice on this.Continuation of government guaranteeOne of the primary objectives of privatisation is to bring the way the stockpile is managed into line with normal commercial practice. This includes financing its debt.While the intent is that the new board moves promptly to normal private borrowing arrangements, the government is prepared to consider some flexibility in timing of the withdrawal of the government guarantee to allow the new board time to negotiate the appropriate arrangements after 1 July 1999.Lending institutionsThe interests of lending institutions have been recognised by including a provision that any charges or liens attached to current entitlements will remain in place after privatisation and will apply to both the entitlement and the share stapled to it.Trading of units and sharesThe ability to trade units and shares, or to borrow against them, will provide an important opportunity and benefit to many unit holders. Macquarie Bank has been operating a market in Wool International units and, while there has been relatively limited trading to date, there will clearly be scope for a substantial increase in this market over time.WoolStock Australia will not start life as a listed company—but the shares and units will be tradeable. There is the prospect that interest in development of exempt markets for this security will grow rapidly.Further work will need to be done by the board of the new company to improve liquidity of the market for units and shares—this will benefit both the unit holders and those who want to be involved in these markets.New business directionsThe government appointed an interim advisory board, headed by Mr Donald McGauchie, to develop a draft business plan for the new business.This work is not yet complete, but good progress has been made on developing a business plan and Mr McGauchie and this board have been consulting widely with all sectors of the wool industry in the development of this plan.The opportunity for investment in new wool business activities is clearly desired by some Wool International equity holders. Both the government and the interim advisory board understand that, while some wool growers simply want to get their share of the money from the sale of the stockpile, others would like to see an opportunity to invest their equity in developing a broader wool business.While the principal activities of WoolStock Australia will be selling down the stockpile and distributing available proceeds to the unit holders, it will also be able to spend up to $3 million to investigate and possibly support new business activities.Shareholders who might wish to invest in these new business activities will be able to do so, after proper `due diligence' processes and in response to a prospectus.Employees of Wool InternationalThe rights of the existing employees of Wool International have been maintained. There will be no loss of entitlements by staff, as Wool International will itself be transformed into a Corporations Law company, and existing staff contracts will continue.Role of OASITOThe Office of Asset Sales and IT Outsourcing, its professional commercial advisers and officers of my department have done a commendable job in working through the complexities of this privatisation. I believe the package of proposals is simple and workable, and one that provides a balance between the various competing interests. The cost of the process—a total of $4.5 million—will prove to have been a very prudent investment.ConclusionThis bill fulfils the government's commitment to the wool industry, to return the stockpile to its owners under full commercial management. This action will be welcomed by the wool industry.This is a good outcome to a very difficult and long standing issue which had become the Achilles heel of the industry. The industry can now look forward to dealing with the challenges it faces in the world textile market and focus on the issues which it will need to address to rebuild its future. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Martin) adjourned.Bills4694r7814694Bill presented by Mr Slipper, for Mr Fahey, and read a first time.469417:09:004694Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The Commonwealth Grants Commission Amendment Bill 1999 is central to the government's intention to ensure that funding for programs aimed at improving the situation of Australia's Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities is distributed on a needs basis. It will allow the Commonwealth Grants Commission to report on the distribution of funding for meeting the needs of indigenous people. It will also further the government's aim of improving the situation of Australia's indigenous people by ensuring that an inde pendent assessment of their need for services and programs is undertaken.The intention of the government in taking this important step in providing a better basis for the distribution of funding for indigenous affairs was announced as a commitment during last year's election campaign. The new approach is designed to increase the confidence that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities have in the distribution of funds because it will give them greater assurance that the distribution is based on need.The Commonwealth Grants Commission is a world renowned agency that has, until now, been restricted to measuring the relative needs of the states and territories for untied Commonwealth funding and to advising on the needs of the small island territories. Its expertise in assessing the relative needs of different communities has been underutilised, and this bill enables it to be asked to examine the needs of indigenous people.The Grants Commission is an independent statutory authority and has always acted with absolute freedom in making its recommendations to government. During an inquiry into the distribution of resources for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander programs, it will need to have close contact with the departments and agencies currently involved in deciding the distribution of funding for those programs, but it will continue to operate with its traditional degree of independence.The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people will be given opportunities to make both written and oral submissions to the commission and to show it the magnitude of their problems. This approach is in line with the government's commitment to work with ATSIC and the wider indigenous community to develop arrangements to improve the allocation of funding and to give the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people every chance to discuss their situation with those directly involved in advising the government. I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill and commend the bill to the House.Debate (on motion by Mr Martin) adjourned. Committees46954695469517:12:004695Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—I 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, Queensland.RAAF Base Townsville forms part of a chain of military airfields stretching across Northern Australia to Learmonth in the west. Together with RAAF Base Scherger, Townsville provides for the air defence of Northern Queensland and its approaches, as well as provides an air head for military air transportation operations and a base for fighter, strike and maritime and Army aviation operations. In many cases, the facilities need to be upgraded or replaced if the full operational and support capabilities assigned to the base are to be efficiently achieved and maintained and occupational health and safety standards met. Accordingly, a staged redevelopment of RAAF Base Townsville is proposed.The main components of stage 1 comprise 10 fighter, strike and maritime patrol ordnance loading aprons, an operational and technical support facility for consolidation of vehicle and equipment maintenance functions, facilities for the Caribou replacement aircraft and an upgrade of base engineering services. The estimated outturn cost of the proposal is $70.1 million, with a further $16.96 million identified for the capital equipment funded element. Subject to parliamentary approval, the project would be committed in August 1999 with the objective of having it completed by December 2001. I commend the motion to the House.17:14:004695Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—RAAF Townsville is a key link in the defence of northern Australia. RAAF Townsville, aside from being the civil airport for the city, supports the operations of 3rd Brigade and is co-located with 5 Aviation Regiment, the Black Hawk squadron. This development at RAAF Townsville will support the forward deployment of F111s, FA18s and the maritime Orions and will greatly enhance Australia's capability to defend northern Australia. This upgrade is urgently needed.The figure of $87 million is not an inconsiderable amount of money. I believe, though, it will be only the first stage in what will be required to replace the wartime buildings that still exist at RAAF Townsville, and I believe that we will be likely to see some further references coming to the parliament in that regard.At the same time, I signal that at the time of the PWC hearing I will be raising that when this work is done we may be able conjointly to do work that will alleviate the birdstrike problem that exists at RAAF Townsville. Currently there are some very low-lying areas that impinge to within about 20 metres of the main runway near the 500 metre mark on the runway, adjacent to the control tower and the fire services unit. The birds, unfortunately, get in there in the wet season because it cannot easily be mowed. There is the opportunity when we are building the ordnance loading areas, provided we get PWC approval, to use the equipment on site to fill in those low-lying areas adjacent to the control tower and also the low-lying areas at the northern end of the runway. That will go a long way to reducing the birdstrike problem that currently exists. I strongly support this motion this afternoon.Question resolved in the affirmative.4696469617:16:004696Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—I 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.CSIRO proposes to construct a new joint complex for its Division of Molecular Science and Food Science Australia at Riverside Corporate Park, North Ryde, New South Wales. The proposed works are a further stage in the major redevelopment of the CSIRO site at North Ryde into a high technology business park, `Riverside Corporation Park', which will incorporate both CSIRO research and development facilities and compatible private industry technology developments.The new complex will replace predominantly old and substandard existing facilities at North Ryde that are now inadequate for conducting modern scientific research. This project will establish and consolidate new replacement research facilities for Food Science Australia—an incorporated joint venture between CSIRO, the Australian food industry science centre and the Division of Molecular Science—within the central CSIRO precinct at Riverside Corporate Park.The new facilities will provide accommodation for some 220 Food Science Australia and Division of Molecular Science staff plus long-term visitors and students. It will also provide amenities, support services and infrastructure which will be shared among all CSIRO divisions within the central precinct of Riverside Corporate Park. The new research facilities will consist of modern laboratories, laboratory special suites, support areas, laboratory offices, industrial scale process bays, as well as accommodation for the management and administration staff.The joint facilities to be shared among all CSIRO divisions on the site include a library, a canteen, a 140-seat auditorium and a central reception area as well as common stores for both hazardous and non-hazardous goods and general consumables. Associated infrastructure—including fully networked computing capabilities, a comprehensive access control security system and a building maintenance system—will be included in the project. Associated site works will include roads, car parking, site engineering services and landscaping. Substandard, temporary and redundant existing buildings located on the site of the new complex will be demolished. The project has a budget of $49 million. Subject to parliamentary approval, tenders are expected to be called early in the year 2000 with completion of construction in late 2001. I commend the motion to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.4697469717:20:004697Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—I 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.The single services currently conduct middle level officer training in their individual staff colleges. Co-location of the three colleges onto one site was most recently proposed in the context of the defence efficiency review studies. The services colleges are presently located at Queenscliff, Victoria; Balmoral, Sydney; and Fairbairn, ACT for Army, Navy and Air Force, respectively.The Department of Defence proposes to co-locate the three existing single service staff colleges in new facilities to be constructed at Weston Creek, ACT, to sit adjacent to the existing Australian defence college. The works now proposed are needed to improve efficiency in the delivery of middle level officer training and, thereby, realise savings in operating costs and reinforce an emerging ADF joint culture.The works are in three main components, consisting of an educational and administrative facility, supporting library, catering and gymnasium facilities and the augmentation of existing infrastructure, roadways, parking facilities and landscaping. The estimated outturn cost of the proposal is $28 million. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction will commence in October 1999 with the objective of having it completed by December in the year 2000. I commend the motion to the House.17:21:004697Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration has pointed out, the proposal here is to create one centralised training facility for middle level officer training in Australia's defence forces. As we have heard from the parliamentary secretary, three existing training facilities for the three services—at Queenscliff, Balmoral and Fairbairn—will subsequently cease to operate.I had the opportunity some weeks ago to visit Queenscliff in my role as the shadow minister for defence. I gave a talk to what is probably likely to be the last intake of trainees at that facility. I think it is fair to say that that facility, as far as Army is concerned, has been an outstanding one for training Australia's Army, both in the past and at the present time. Similarly, comments could be made about Balmoral and Fairbairn with respect to the Navy and the Air Force.One of the things about Queenscliff which is important to consider as part of this proposal is that, with the closure of Queenscliff as a training facility for the Army, the government has identified that site as being redundant for its purposes and, as a consequence, has listed it for sale. I do not know whether too many people in this parliament have had the opportunity to visit Queenscliff, but I have been there a couple of times now, and it is an outstanding part of Australia. It is a tremendous tourist destination and it has a lot going for it.The fort at Queenscliff has been an important part of the town's operations. It has a tremendous economic impact on the township itself when a regional community has an influx of 80 or so personnel for a 12-month course—and you add to that the teaching personnel that are located within that small town. In Queenscliff, that certainly has been the case. It is no wonder, and would come as no surprise to you either, Mr Deputy Speaker, in your representation of regional Australia, that when the decision was announced there was a lot of angst in Queenscliff and Victoria about the closure of that facility. It is therefore going to take some convincing of the townspeople and those located adjacent to Queenscliff that the decision to cease Army training there will not have a negative economic impact on the town itself.I suppose the government can argue, and it may over time be proven to be the case, that the sale of that facility may open it up to some other form of economic development opportunity and, as a consequence, it may well be that jobs will be created in the town and there will be an economic multiplier effect that will continue to flow through to the local economy. I genuinely hope that is the case. We have previously said in this place that, under the government's Defence Reform Program where a number of bases were identified for closure as part of a cost-cutting exercise by the government, not enough attention was given to the economic and social implications in regional Australia of those sorts of decisions. It does not matter whether it is the RAAF Base at Wagga or the Queenscliff training facility for the Army, when the government takes a decision to close one of these facilities down it is going to have an economic and social impact on the small communities—in the case of Wagga, of course, not such a small community—who depend upon those defence establishments for their livelihood or for a contribution towards that livelihood.That said, there is also no doubt that, with the emerging ADF joint culture that the parliamentary secretary referred to, there are going to be some enormous benefits for co-location at Weston of this facility. There is no doubt that, in the development of cross-service attitudes to defence issues and in the way the various services no longer see themselves as being separate from each other but see a great deal more interaction taking place between them, an opportunity taken to co-locate middle level officer training in the one place is going to have some positive benefits for Australia's Defence Force. From that perspective, Labor would support it absolutely.When we look at today's defence and we look at the way the three services are looking at greater interoperability amongst themselves—the capability development that is taking place and the consequential development and acquisition of platform to meet Australia's defence needs into the future—we see a greater degree of discussion amongst the three defence forces being critical for our future. There is no doubt that, in the strategic environment in which Australia now finds itself in our near region, it is important that we no longer simply say as far as one branch of the service is concerned that X amount of dollars will be made available for them to buy a new platform, which will happen irrespective of what other services may wish to say about that. That time is long past. There has to be this discussion at the highest levels to ensure that the interoperability issue that I have referred to is taken into consideration. One step in that process, of course, is to ensure that people being trained in Australia's military are from the three services and work jointly together. This proposal is a very real way, at middle level officer training at least, in which that can be achieved.I have no doubt also, and I know that my colleague the member for Canberra wishes to make some comment on this in a moment, that there will be a huge economic benefit for Canberra itself. Labor will in no way oppose the development of this project, but again we wish to highlight the important economic and social role that Australia's Defence Force establishments play in regional Australia. These are the sorts of wider issues whichever government of whatever political persuasion happens to be in charge of Australia at any time has to take into account in Australia.Defence of Australia is certainly paramount, but as part of that broader consideration we have to not simply look at the bottom line because a bunch of accountants have got together and said, `We can achieve efficiencies and savings here,' without giving some consideration to issues of how people are affected by those decisions. Nevertheless, we wish the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works all the very best in its deliberations on this proposal.17:30:004698Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS5K6NamadgiALP00—I welcome the motion moved by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration to refer the staff colleges collocation project, which will be located in my electorate, for approval to the Public Works Committee. I thank him for his advance notice of the motion moved today in the House. The estimated cost of the project is $28 million. I can assure the House of the value this project will add to the construction industry in particular in the ACT. To move the three staff colleges to one site, whilst being a proposal in the context of the defence efficiency review, is still an important decision, given that two of the colleges—namely, those of the Army at Queenscliff in Victoria and the Navy at Balmoral in Sydney—will be leaving communities who are quite used to having them in their local areas. I can only reiterate very strongly the words already spoken by the shadow minister of the impact that some of these moves can have on local communities. The Air Force college currently at Fairbairn is of course part of this local region.Having witnessed the move of a number of agencies out of the ACT over recent years, I can and do sympathise with those local communities, particularly the one at Queenscliff, the smaller of them. However, as a parochial federal member for this part of the national capital, I can only be very pleased to see this proposal proceed to this next important phase—that is, reference to the Public Works Committee for appropriate examination. On approval, the project will co-locate the three staff colleges on a site adjacent to the existing Australian Defence College at Weston in my electorate of Canberra—a decision that fits very neatly, I believe, with us in relation to the role and recognition of Canberra as our national capital. This decision also sits well with us from the Defence point of view, as it sits well for the community of Canberra. I certainly look forward to the outcome of the deliberations of the Public Works Committee and look forward to the progress of this long awaited project in my electorate.17:32:004699Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—This proposal arises from a report to the parliament from the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade entitled Officer education: the military after next . The then junior defence minister in an answer to a question in the last parliament referred to that `dreadful Price report'. I am very pleased to have this opportunity to remind honourable members that this was a bipartisan committee. I am very pleased to say that the Rt Hon. Ian Sinclair was the deputy chairman. We made some very important recommendations. We did not want to make some incremental change to the professional development of officers. We sought to look at what would be required a generation or generations ahead.In relation to the staff colleges, it is true that recommendation 13 talked about co-location. I want the parliament to understand that it was not a proposal to site of three colleges on the same grounds; it was a proposal for the single services to provide their individual elements to the college curriculum but there would also be joint elements. To merely have three colleges physically located at the same location I do not think attains the jointery referred to by both the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration and the shadow minister in achieving those objectives.It was terribly disappointing that this government decided to truncate a number of courses being offered by the Joint Services Staff College. This was certainly not a recommendation of the committee. I remind honourable members that I said, in tabling this report, that the test would not be on the committee about the recommendations but on the government to see how many of the recommendations it actually picked up. Perhaps the most controversial recommendation which is yet to be picked up by the government is to look at the then $321,000—I believe it is now $335,000—that it costs for each ADFA graduate.In our report we said that the core business of defence was not undergraduate training and we proposed an alternate system. It would have saved the government money. Nowhere in that report do we suggest that the objective of change or the recommendations was to save the government money but, rather, to provide value for money for the government and allow the government to spend more on the professional development of officers. For example, I know the CDF is one of the few, of his own volition, who has gone out and got a Masters. Hitherto, that sort of activity has been little rewarded.I think it is crazy that the budget of professional development of officers is skewed to entry level training. In fact, if we talk about total Army, the Reserves get nothing. The one Reserve officer I know who did a JSSC course had to resign from his employment as a consequence of undertaking it. It is crazy. If we are to have a very meaningful professional development of officers and a vibrant Reserve, then the reserves need to be able to access these courses and be recipients of this development as full-time officers should be.I look forward to the government coming to grips with the issue of ADFA and undergraduate training. I know the defence efficiency review, as politely as it could, drew to the attention of the government the enormous cost of undergraduate training but made no recommendation. I have a question on notice about whether there has been a consultancy undertaken about any of these professional colleges and what are the recommendations arising out of that consultancy. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary at the table could inform us.I sincerely hope that the Public Works Committee, when it looks at this proposal, will refer to the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade entitled Officer education: the military after next to ensure that we get value for money out of co-location—that is, that there will be one command and staff college with the three services inputting their unique elements into it but with joint subjects or tri-service subjects also being provided. That is the only real way you develop the network of understanding of the different services and the personal contacts that will be so crucially important in an officer's future service.I also look forward, as I have said, to the other recommendations that we have proposed in the committee report. For example, why can't there be a tri-service precommissioning course? Why does every single service have to have a precommissioning course? As I said when I tabled this report, the recommendations are more tests of government than tests of the validity of the committee's recommendations. Inasmuch as the government has accepted an element of this `dreadful' Price report, which is a bipartisan report, I congratulate it. I certainly encourage the Public Works Committee to make a very vigilant examination of the proposal in the public interests to ensure that Defence and the Australian people get value for money out of this.17:39:004700Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—I would like to thank honourable members for their contributions on this motion. The honourable member for Chifley ranged far and wide, well beyond the motion currently before the chamber.With respect to the co-location of the three colleges to one site, it ought to be noted that what we are talking about is co-location—that is, locating the three colleges in the same place. The concerns that the honourable member for Chifley expressed might prove not to be worries at all at the end of the day. The honourable member for Cunningham referred to the situation of Queenscliff and the understandable consternation that the local area would have that the college is being co-located at Weston Creek. Obviously, there would be a concern about the impact on the local economy.I am pleased to be able to advise the House that this matter is currently the subject of federal and state government discussions. It might be that, following those discussions, depending on the outcome of them, there might need to be a community consultation process. If such a consultation process occurs, it is expected that there would be representation at the federal, state and local government levels. I commend the motion to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.4700470017:40:004700Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4LaTrobeLP10—On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I present the following committee reports entitled Report 366—review of Auditor-General's report 1997-98—second quarter and Report 367—review of Auditor-General's report 1997-98—third quarter .Ordered that the reports be printed.OT4Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLES—by leave—The main purpose of these reports is to inform the parliament that the committee has reviewed the audit reports presented by the Auditor- General during the second and third quarters of 1997-98. The committee selected a number of Auditor-General's reports for further examination at public hearings. Today I propose to highlight those issues about which the committee has most concern.I turn first to report 366 which reviewed the second quarter of the Auditor-General's reports. The committee looked at audit report No. 16 on equity in employment in the Australian Public Service. The committee found that more attention needs to be given to under-reporting of equal employment opportunity data and to refining data requirements. Greater clarity in performance and reporting requirements would enable agencies and the Public Service and Merit Protection Commission to more effectively communicate performance to the government and to the parliament. The committee notes that the Public Service and Merit Protection Commission is facing a considerable challenge in facilitating the development of agency diversity management programs and reporting on diversity management in the Australian Public Service.The second audit report reviewed in report 366 is audit report No. 24 on matters relating to a contract between the former Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs and South Pacific Cruise Lines Ltd. The committee considers that the staff of the former DEETYA who were responsible for the cruise ship project decisions were simply not aware of the risks involved in the contracting-out process because of a lack of expertise in arranging and managing contracts. The former DEETYA implemented changes to its contract approval, advance payments and risk management processes and placed more emphasis on personal responsibility principles in its guidelines and staff training program.However, the committee does not think that the department's changes to its administrative processes are necessarily an assurance that the underlying risks have been appropriately addressed. In October last year the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business was given the responsibility for the Job Network. The committee recommends that the department incorporate the Australian National Audit Office's better practice guidelines on risk assessment of new suppliers as part of its evaluation process for future employment services market tenders.I now turn to report 367 which reviewed three Auditor-General's reports. First, I wish to comment about Audit Report No. 35. This report relates to the then Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs International Services, known as DIS. The committee's concerns about this audit report related to the lack of focus of DIS's operational framework, in particular, DIS's inability to clearly define the level of `commerciality' it wished to achieve, while operating on a commercial basis.The committee notes that, since the audit, DIS refocused its business direction and now operates on a cost recovery model. Under this model, DIS intends to free itself from a drive for profit, while continuing to compete for contracts in the international market for the provision of expertise in the field of education and training. The committee has concerns about DIS's ability to achieve its intended aim against vigorous international competition, particularly with a staff of seven. The committee has recommended a further review of DIS.I now wish to make some comment on Audit Report No. 38. This report relates to the sale of Brisbane, Melbourne and Perth airports. The sale of these airport leases represented the first stage of the planned privatisation of the 22 federal airports previously owned and operated by the Federal Airports Corporation. The simultaneous sale of these leases was the third largest asset sale ever conducted by the Commonwealth government and the largest ever trade sale.A key concern of the committee related to the apparent weaknesses in the contracting process. The committee was unconvinced by the argument that external timetables imposed tight deadlines which prevented the Office of Asset Sales and IT Outsourcing from following set procedures and processes designed to lessen risks to the Commonwealth. The committee supports the general direction taken by the audit report and endorses the recommendations made in it.I now turn to the final audit report reviewed by the committee, Audit Report No. 39, relating to the management of selected functions of the Child Support Agency. The decision of the JCPAA to choose this audit report for further scrutiny was made on the basis of continuing negative community perceptions about the administration of the Child Support Scheme. A key concern of the committee is the complex nature of the letters and documents the CSA sends to its clients. The committee believes that the agency should take immediate action to simplify the language and style used in the documents and should employ an outside consultant to achieve this task.Another area of concern related to the CSA's handling of client complaints. Most of us in the parliament have first-hand knowledge of the high level of client dissatisfaction. Statistics in the audit report show that 34 per cent of complaints are made direct to parliamentarians' offices.This high level of client dissatisfaction is unacceptable and must be addressed. To this end, the committee has recommended that the agency should commission an expert consultant to undertake comprehensive and regular client surveys in order to determine the level of client awareness of the client charter and complaints service.I conclude by thanking my colleagues on the committee who have dedicated much time and effort to reviewing these Auditor-General's reports. As well, I would like to thank the members of the secretariat who were involved in the review process. I commend the reports to the House.17:48:004702Cox, David, MPMr COX83UKingstonALP00—by leave—One of the audit reports examined by the Public Accounts and Audit Committee, Report 367, dealt with the Child Support Agency. This is a matter of wide public interest. Most parents accept the objectives of the Child Support Scheme. It is rare to find a non-custodial parent who believes they have no responsibility to contribute to the cost of raising their own children.The Child Support Scheme was set up in an effort to find an efficient and fair means of ensuring adequate support for all children not living with both parents. In practice, it has proved to be a most complex issue. There is a fine balance between the obligation of both parents to contribute and their capacity to pay. All too often this happens in an environment filled with tension and where the financial circumstances of one or both parents frequently change. Unfortunately, there are also some parents who go to extreme lengths to evade their responsibilities.Since its inception the Child Support Scheme has transferred more than $2.2 billion between separated parents. This represents a collection rate of 81 per cent of total liabilities. Debts under the scheme now amount to almost $520 million. Client research shows a large proportion of both non-custodial and custodial parents are dissatisfied with the CSA's service.The CSA has been the subject of a previous Australian National Audit Office examination. The Auditor-General notes in this report that the performance of the CSA has improved since the last examination, and that is certainly my own assessment. I receive many complaints in my office about the operation of the Child Support Agency. The Auditor-General recommends that the CSA make its clients more aware of its complaints service and record complaints with a view to improving the system. The Child Support Agency has accepted these recommendations. That means if clients have problems with the CSA they should complain and that will help get those problems corrected.The Auditor-General also recommended that the CSA develop a technical database, including family law, CSA law and rulings and key review officer determinations, to assist consistent decision making. The Child Support Agency agreement to that recommendation falls somewhat short of agreement to actually establish the database. It ought to be a key objective of CSA management to reduce the number of inconsistent and unfair decisions.As the CSA has improved its administration, more resources have become available for pursuing cases of default and evasion. The best thing the CSA can do, both for custodial and non-custodial parents, is identify early missed payments and improvement in non-custodial parents' financial circumstances. That helps ensure children get the financial support to which they are entitled and debts are less likely to accumulate.The Auditor-General has suggested greater use of employer withholding of arrears as an effective means of debt collection. He also recommended revising the guidelines to make it clear that the financial situation of the debtor is the paramount consideration in setting the rate at which arrears are withheld. That means updating guidelines to reflect current income tax, child support liabilities, other deductions and basic costs of living.One of the complaints I have received from non-custodial parents is slowness of the system to respond to any deterioration of their financial circumstances, such as the loss of large amounts of regular overtime. I was disappointed that this issue was not covered in the Auditor-General's report. It results in considerable hardship, particularly for non-custodial parents with second families.Another area of concern not covered by the Auditor-General's report relates to teenagers who leave home and this is not accurately reported to the CSA. The consequence is an unjustified burden on the non-custodial parent with the probability that none of the payments will benefit the child. This is an area where CSA administrative procedures need to be more responsive to allegations of abuse.Bills4703r7084703Debate resumed from 29 March, on motion by Mr Anderson:That the bill be now read a second time.17:53:004703Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—When interrupted last evening whilst contributing to the debate on the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill 1998, I was making the point that CASA's performance is heavily scrutinised by people who live in regional and remote Australia and that assertions about its operation and efficiency are also closely scrutinised. Also, I had told of my concern when, during the lead-up to the election campaign last year, certain proposals were announced to close the Darwin base and the Townsville office of CASA. I made the point that this issue greatly concerns not only air travellers in the Northern Territory, but also air operators, people in general aviation in particular, and small communities who rely on CASA's service for a whole range of reasons.Ron Lawford, Convenor of the Regional Airspace Advisory Committee, made an interesting comment. As I had no chance to refer to it last night, I will do so now. On 30 June last year, on ABC radio, Mr Lawford spoke of the proposal to review CASA's structure and close its offices in Darwin and Townsville. He said:The Civil Aviation Safety Authority has made some quite dreadful decisions over the last few years but this one really takes the cake so far as the level of safety in aviation in the Northern Territory goes. It just is unbelievable.Mr Lawford continued:It's going to cause a major drop in the overall long-term level of aviation safety in the NT. There's just no other result which can come from it.The government later resiled from its proposal to close those two offices. But, frankly, I do not think we can have any confidence at all in the ability of this government, basically, to keep its word. I think there is a genuine concern within the aviation industry that the government will proceed to make these changes in a way which will not only disrupt the operations of aviation providers in the Northern Territory, but also be of great concern to the travelling public.During my contribution last evening I also made the point that, if the government were to proceed to close these two offices, there would be no CASA establishment between Cairns and Perth. And, when looking at a map of Australia, it is not hard to understand why people living probably on two-thirds of Australia's landmass would be concerned about the possibility of not having any ready access in their own regions to the services of CASA. These services are difficult enough at the best of times—although, as I said last night, concern about them is not due to any lack of effort on the part of CASA staff; in fact, the people working in these regional offices perform very well indeed.However, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would make the point that, when looking at what has happened to CASA and the government's proposals which at least were in train, and looking at the way in which the government treats regional Australia generally, you can understand why the people in Tennant Creek might be outraged at the results of the privatisation of the Tennant Creek airport. Tennant Creek, you would recall, was part of the bundle of airports which were sold off in the Northern Territory: Alice Springs, Darwin and Tennant Creek. At the time it was said by the Howard government that these airports would be better off under a privatised airport regime.It is my displeasure to inform the House that, in fact, the contrary has turned out to be the case. We have heard recently of proposals by Northern Territory Airports Pty Ltd to introduce increased charges at the Tennant Creek airport. These charges will be increased to the point that Tennant Creek airport users will be forced to deal with an increase in landing charges of over 400 per cent, effective from 1 April this year.This is a most unreasonable impost on a small Northern Territory town which has felt the brunt of major economic change over the years and which is dependent on government outlays in many respects in terms of its local economy. This sort of impost is being seen as a breaking of an undertaking by the federal government that people who live in this community would not be worse off as a result of the privatisation of the airport.The fact that airport charges will increase by 400 per cent is bad enough in itself. But, as pointed out in correspondence I have seen from the chief executive of a Northern Territory regional airline:It will encourage charter and private operators not to report on the radio when operating into and out of Tennant Creek. Even though we have been very vocal with the Civil Aviation Authority to attempt to get them to legislate that all aircraft operators must report when operating into and out of Tennant Creek, there is failure to do so. In fact, under existing legislation, other users don't even have to carry a radio in their aircraft.I suggest to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that this presumption or assertion from one of the more significant airline operators in the Northern Territory—that these proposals, which will impact directly on regular users, are inviting other users of this airport not to use their radios in advising that they are going to use this airport—is a particularly important issue for us to contemplate. Not only is it an abrogation by government of one of its responsibilities, but also it is clearly an issue of safety and something which will be of concern to many people; it is certainly of concern to the people of Tennant Creek.I have to say that I have not been a fan of the privatisation of airports. And I have to say that I am even less of a fan of the privatisation of regional airports because, clearly, the economies in these small communities are not strong enough to sustain the costs of running an airport. I think that has been demonstrated time and time again.Because of public policy decisions which have been made by government to sell off an enterprise—in this case, Tennant Creek airport—the people in Tennant Creek are being penalised. They were told that they would get some benefit. There has been no benefit to the people of Tennant Creek or to the people who use that airport. They have been unfairly and unduly penalised. These are communities—and there are others around Australia—where the level of economic activity will not sustain the increased level of charges that will be imposed. I do not blame for a moment the owner of Northern Territory Airports Pty Ltd needing to cover the losses which they have at Tennant Creek airport, but it is a problem for government. Because government took the decision, government should be underwriting the costs of these loss makers to ensure that the people of Tennant Creek are not penalised, to ensure that they are not wearing the burden of poor public policy.The issue of CASA has been under public scrutiny for some time, thanks largely to the efforts of the shadow minister. Over recent days we have seen the impact of the scrutiny under which she has put the government. I have to say to her that they deserve greater scrutiny. I have to say to her that it is clear the management of CASA need to review their operations. I have to say to her and to all members of this parliament, particularly the government, that if they believe the people of regional Australia are going to cop the crap they serve up continually in relation to CASA and other issues they are mistaken, because they have had a gutful. They are sick of being sold down the drain by a government which has shown not only that it does not understand but also that it does not care. That is most important.I know the people of my electorate. I know what their concerns are. I know that they rely on general aviation. They rely on the services provided by light aircraft as well as the small airport operation at Tennant Creek. They know; they feel it in the hip pocket. They know when the standards of service drop off. I talked last night about the frustrations felt by people in the Northern Territory involved in the aviation industry about the levels of service as a result of the changing management practices in CASA. It has to stop.Ms Kernot interjecting—IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDON—Air safety is a major issue. As I said last night, I travel on light aircraft continually. I know the sorts of standards that are required. I have seen fly-by-night operators in this industry who come in and go out. I have seen the aircraft they fly and, unfortunately, I have flown in a few of them. They do not give you a great deal of hope. It is not quite white-knuckle flying, but it is close to it. Although the opposition is supporting this bill, I do not support the direction this government is taking the reform of the aviation industry or what the government has done to CASA.18:02:004705Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—In July 1996 the government announced that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, CASA, would conduct a complete review of civil aviation legislation in Australia, with the objectives of harmonising it with international standards of safety regulation and making it shorter, simpler and easier to use and understand. This was also an election commitment of the government's under Soaring Into Tomorrow, the aviation policy statement.My predecessor on the Standing Committee on Communications, Transport and Microeconomic Reform, the Hon. Peter Morris, in his report Plane safe as well as the Seaview inquiry report, supported the need for a review of Australian regulations and standards. The purpose of this bill is to facilitate the findings of the review and provide for the introduction of a new set of regulations which are harmonised with international civil aviation laws. In recognition of the fact that the safety regulations of aviation activities should not be based on the commercial nature of its activity, it is proposed that the term `commercial' be removed from the act and that `domestic commercial flight' be replaced with `regulated domestic flight'.Amendments also provide for new powers in relation to the retention and destruction of goods seized by CASA during an investigation of breaches of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 and its regulations. The power to retain seized goods for longer than 60 days and the power to destroy seized goods are vested in the courts. CASA must apply to the courts for orders to retain or destroy goods as the case may be. Clarification of CASA's ability to classify the fees charged by CASA under the Civil Aviation (Fees) Regulations as debts due to CASA is also included in this bill. Where regulations made under the act require the payment of a fee, and the fee is not paid by the due date, then the regulations should be able to prescribe a late payment penalty to be added to the fee. Consequently, a provision which enables the making of regulations which prescribe limited late payment penalties to be imposed is also included in the bill. The regulatory changes which the bill facilitates streamline many of CASA's requirements in relation to the industry and will assist the manufacturers of aircraft in Australia. This is my main concern with the bill.The bill has no direct budgetary impact. It is envisaged, however, that the regulatory changes which will follow from the bill will reduce the costs borne by CASA in administering the civil aviation regulatory regime.Let me return to what I see as the main provisions of the bill and its most important aspects. The amendments proposed in this bill will facilitate the long awaited introduction of a regulatory regime for the Australian aviation industry which is not only harmonised with international practice but also clear, concise and outcome focused. The government's commitment has to be realised. I reiterate: the new civil aviation regulations have been designed to be clear, concise and internationally harmonised. For example, these harmonised regulations will reflect the USA's FAA regulations and European regulations and, as such, will make Australian aircraft more saleable in the international market. This harmonisation will also have a strong influence on the insurability of these aircraft in international markets. As a result, they have the full support of the Aircraft Manufacturers and Export Group of Australia, AMEGA.These new regulations will benefit the entire aviation industry, from the major airlines through to the light aircraft designers and builders and, of course, to the pride of Bundaberg's skies—Jabiru Aircraft Pty Ltd, who fittingly operate a factory at Hinkler airport. The Jabiru aircraft was the first Australian built and designed aircraft of its kind—- manufactured from composite materials; that is, fibreglass type materials—to make a serious impact on the international market. It is a two-seater aircraft suitable for training, recreational flying, medium distance commuting and aerial property surveillance—for example, it can be quite useful on a cattle property or something like that. It has become very popular with several aero clubs. I believe that they have done their company proud, the Bundaberg community proud and—in the spirit of Bert Hinkler—Jabiru have marked Bundaberg clearly as the centre for light aviation expertise in Australia.These new regulations will assist Jabiru in overcoming a range of technical barriers that they have currently been encountering in seeking to manufacture and sell their products overseas. This is the biggest breakthrough in safety regulations for over 30 years. For the first time in a generation, the Australian aviation industry and consumers will benefit from clear, concise and—as I said before—internationally harmonised safety and design regulations. In the past, the excellent efforts of Jabiru have been stymied by inconsistent and ramshackle regulations which the previous government put in the too hard basket.I am sorry the member for the Northern Territory is not here. He made the comment that this government does not understand or care. But when it comes to this particular area of concern, I have been very close to these people for some time and they have told me for years that they have been trying to get this changed. So I think the member for the Northern Territory should be a little more circumspect in his criticism—bearing in mind that his own government had 13 years to do something about this and did nothing. I might mirror his own words: `They didn't understand or care.'However, this government sponsored an industry led initiative to review the regulatory framework, and that took two years of hard work. In fact, I well remember the owners of Jabiru—Phil Ainsworth and Rod Stiff—making a presentation to the then minister Mark Vaile with their views on the matter. The result shows that the Howard-Fischer government has a strong commitment to promoting the development of the light aircraft manufacturing sector—most of whom are located in regional Australia.Let me give you an example of how this levelling of the playing field for Australian light aircraft and component manufacturers will lead to job creation in regional Australia. Jabiru's operation currently provides work for 45 people in Bundaberg. They have manufactured more than 200 aircraft and are currently exporting 50 per cent of the production of their aeroplanes to 25 countries and 80 per cent of their motors to 40 countries. If I could just divert for a minute, there is a very interesting history. When they started building these Jabiru aircraft, they were obtaining the engines from Italy. A new company bought out the Italian company and said they would only sell the engines in blocks of 1,000. These two guys went around Bundaberg to workshops—people who could do turning and so on—and they have de signed a four-stroke aviation engine which, as I said, is being exported to 40 countries overseas. It is a remarkable effort. That is why these new regulations are going to be so important for the industry. Phil Ainsworth and Rod Stiff tell me that these amendments alone to the civil aviation legislation could see their business grow five times its present size.Another implication of harmonising these regulations and the saleability of Jabiru aircraft will be the opportunity for Jabiru to be considered as the serious replacement for the ageing Cessna trainers. Those of you who have been in aviation will know that the Cessna trainers—great and all as they have been, and there are many good and well maintained ones still in Australia—will need to be replaced. This is the first serious Australian built product, and it is being taken up by a lot of aero clubs around Australia.Of course, they are not just sitting back and waiting for this `five-times export circumstance' to occur; they have already been active with the export market development grants and are very grateful for the help the government has given them in that field. They are also going to sell more of their aircraft to various aero clubs and training institutions.They already have their plane certified in Europe and the US. When this legislation goes through, they will be able to manufacture the complete aircraft in Bundaberg for export whereas previously—because of these regulations—they had to send the aircraft over as kits and have them assembled in the United States or Europe. That means more value adding for regional Australia. They are also working on a new model—a light trainer—due for release mid-year. They also launched a new engine at major air shows in the US and the UK, and Phil Ainsworth just told me today that he is on his way to the States again. They always attend the major air shows in the United States. As well as helping our manufacturers sell aircraft overseas, this legislation opens the gate for them to jump into the US market for componentry for aircraft other than their own, and that is another area at which Jabiru is currently looking. So take the positive effects of this legislation on Jabiru and apply them also to Spitfire Aircraft Pty Ltd—also in Bundaberg—Seabird Aviation Pty Ltd in Hervey Bay, Skyfox Aviation at Caloundra, Ausflight Aviation at Boonah, Gippsland Aviation in Victoria, Howard Hughes Engineering in Ballina and aeronautical engineers like Kerr's Aircraft Design in Bundaberg and Southdown Engineering at Pilton.That is what the government is all about: levelling the playing field in favour of our exporters—and, in this particular instance, in favour of exporters in regional areas. That Jabiru and the rest of the local industry have done so well in export markets is a testament to their pioneering spirit and their entrepreneurial skills. I am sure they will be able to grow stronger under this government's patronage, now that they are no longer hamstrung by the red tape the previous government imposed upon them.18:15:004707Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—Civil aviation safety is a cardinal area of government. Many things are discussed and debated in this chamber—many interesting, many challenging and many marginal—but when we come to the safety of the civil aviation system of this country we are talking about a core function of government, and one which must be performed effectively and well. The reasons are very simple. Each year, millions of people use the aircraft of this country to fly both within the country and abroad. There are also millions of flight movements over the suburbs and cities of this country, and so everyone has a legitimate interest in a properly maintained and funded civil aviation safety system.The basic statistics associated with this industry make stark reading indeed. In the most recently available annual figures up to June 1997, first, there were some 1.3 million aircraft movements in that year alone. Second, those aircraft carried some 65 million individual passenger movements. Third, of those total number of aircraft movements, some 103,000 were international aircraft movements into and out of this country. Fourth, those aircraft movements are carrying some 13 million individual passenger movements of an international character, representing an 8.3 per cent annual growth in movements each year over the last 10 years. Fifth, 55 scheduled international airline operators are now coming into this country—up from 40 only five years ago. Sixth, 58 per cent of the total international passenger movements into and out of this country are now being carried by foreign carriers, as opposed to Australian carriers like Ansett and Qantas.Finally, all this activity—millions of flight movements and millions of individual passenger movements each year—operates in the skies over the major metropolitan airports of Australia located in the five principal cities of this country in mainland Australia, which collectively have something like 10 million residents. This set of figures of itself shows that regulators active in this area of public policy have a most serious challenge before them.The provisions of the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill 1998 are quite straightforward. They seek to harmonise the civil aviation safety regulations and to have those phased in between 1999 and 2002 in a manner which will make them compatible with the principal act—the Civil Aviation Act. Part of the act deals with the role of foreign aircraft in the overall fabric of civil aviation safety. This is reflected, for example, in section 7 of the act, as well as in section 27AE which extends the application of aircraft operator certificates, or AOCs, to foreign airlines.Based on these provisions in the act, from 1996 CASA—the Civil Aviation Safety Authority—began a system of individual aircraft inspections of foreign operators operating into and out of Australia. It is part of an international system. Its objectives are very simple: to ensure that we have aircraft coming into this country which are technically in shape and, in addition to that, that we have crew documentation associated with the human factor of individual aircraft which is also properly in order.In the year 1997 alone, some 40 inspections were completed, involving 35 separate foreign operators. The objective is to have one inspection per foreign operator each year. It is important that the House take note of this fact because when we assume, as some do in this country, that there is a comprehensive system of inspection of the technical qualities of all foreign aircraft using this country this is not the case at all. Instead, we have a system of spot audits, random audits, the objective of which is to audit technically one aircraft per foreign operator per year.Based on that alone, there have been some interesting findings. The most recent annual report of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, the report of 1997-98, says:In a number of cases deficiencies were found with aircraft equipment or documentation and these were brought to the attention of both the operator and the regulatory authority responsible for that operator. The time limit for remedial action was imposed, and if warranted follow up inspections were carried out.That relates, as I said, to the findings of just those 40 inspections of 35 international operators each year. So the system is actually off to a reasonably good start. It represents an attempt to come to grips with the differing technical skills and technical traditions of the various international civil aviation countries which have airlines servicing this country. However, as I said before, it is not comprehensive.It is doubly `not comprehensive' when it comes to this critical question of how you monitor effectively the competence of crews. I think this is a most important point for the House to consider. The Civil Aviation Act includes regulations which involve the proper licensing of competent crews. These are dependent on an international regime which is governed by the Montreal agreement of 1944 and the ICAO which governs the provisions of that convention. Those provisions contain within them licensing arrangements for international airline crews.At the end of the day, the critical point is that adherence to those provisions, adherence to the concerns about whether or not a flight crew is properly qualified and continues to be properly qualified, is entirely contingent on a system of national compliance. There is no separate audit of the qualifications or the competence of crew on individual flights as they come into this country, irrespective of how an individual flight may have been managed.We come to this difficult and delicate question of the competency of foreign airline crews operating into and out of this country. We have all been on flights around this country and some of us have flown in various overseas countries. We have all had bad experiences and we have all had good experiences. We have all heard stories from Qantas pilots and crews about how terrible or how lowly skilled some of their counterparts are in various airlines around the world. This is beyond my competence to comment on because it involves a range of technical skills which I do not have.However, I think it is important to look at the case study recently provided by a report in the Wall Street Journal published on 19 March 1999 concerning a United Airlines flight from San Francisco to Sydney in June the previous year. I propose to quote from that article at some length to give honourable members, and the House more generally, a sense of what nearly transpired. The article by William Carley, dated 9 March, says:As the United Airlines jumbo jet lifted off from San Francisco International Airport one night last summer, one of its four engines lost power. Because of poor flying techniques, the co-pilot who was at the controls slowed and nearly stalled and crashed the plane."Push . . . down" to pick up speed, shouted two extra pilots sitting in the rear of the cockpit. The co-pilot did but now the jet was off course and heading toward San Bruno Mountain northwest of the airport. The jet's ground proximity warning sounded, and the extra pilots shouted, "Pull up, pull up!Carrying 307 passengers and crew, the plane cleared the hill by only 100 feet.That is 30 metres. It continues:The jet also barely missed apartments and houses with hundreds of sleeping residents. A crash of the jet, which was heavily loaded with fuel, would have been one of the worst aviation incidents in history.The captain finally took control and flew over the ocean, dumping fuel before returning safely to the airport. But the incident—just now been publicly disclosed—has rocked the world's biggest airline and spurred the Federal Aviation Administration to force changes in United's pilot-training techniques. The jumbo's low flight also has alarmed local residents . . .United, a unit of UAL Corp., based near Chicago, acknowledges the incident and says that it has spurred the carrier to take a series of steps, ranging from a safety audit of all its 9,500 pilots to a major shakeup in its pilot training. Edmund Soliday, vice president for safety, says the airline hasn't lost a plane because of poor piloting for 20 years, "and we are taking this incident very seriously." He says the airline aims to improve its margin of safety "so we won't have to look at a hole in the ground someday."The point of that lengthy excerpt from the Wall Street Journal of earlier this month is to demonstrate graphically and simply the problems associated with pilot error—pilot error in an airline which most people in this House would assume was one of the world's most leading airlines, namely, United Airlines. It makes for very sobering reading indeed. It points to the problems which we face quite in addition to those of the individual technical competence of aircraft and goes to the human error factor. It points to the problem of pilot error in what is arguably one of the world's best airlines, not one of the world's worst airlines, and it points to particular problems of long haul flights. All of these factors have potential implications for Australia.In Australia we have a concentration of long haul flights. It is a function of our geography. We are geographically isolated, served by a range of international carriers, all of whom are engaged in long haul flights in order to get here, with the single possible exception of New Zealand. We also have, as I said at the outset, some 13 million passenger movements per annum being carried by these international carriers. There are some 55 separate foreign carriers, most of whom have a worse track record than United Airlines. As I also said earlier, these 55 separate airlines are servicing five major international airports in Australia in cities which, between them, have a combined civilian population of the order of 10 million. So what we face is in fact a significant challenge for the Civil Aviation Safety Authority of the nation.It is wrong and improper to imply that there is at present some overall crisis in the day-to-day management of civil aviation safety in the country. The adequacy of the current system is due in large part to the continuing professionalism of pilots. It is also due in large part to the continuing professionalism of air traffic controllers. But it has got nothing to do with the ongoing management of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.It is important that we have a civil aviation safety authority that is equipped to handle the challenges of the future. Instead, what we now have in CASA is not a civil aviation safety authority but something more approaching Barnum and Bailey's circus. The ringmaster, the minister for transport, appears each day in parliament to explain to us how all is well with the world, when we are only to read in the newspaper the next day that all is not well in the world.Can any of us in this parliament forget the unrelenting campaign in 1996-97 undertaken by this government in its attempt to gelignite out the previous board of CASA—Justice Bill Fisher, its chairman, and Mr Leroy Keith, the director of aviation safety. What were their sins against humanity? We know not, other than that the coalition went to that election saying that they wanted a board which `had more aviation experience'. Who was to be the saviour charging in on a white charger? Mr Dick Smith. It was a matter, of course, of entire coincidence, not faintly connected with the merits of Mr Smith, that he actively campaigned for the Liberal Party at the 1996 election. It would be tacky of me to draw any more direct conclusion than that.XW4KERNOTMs Kernot—What about donations?83TRudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD—Donations, as the member for Dickson points out, may have been a consideration, but again I could not possibly comment. After 18 months of sustained trench warfare, the chairman of the board, Justice Fisher, and the other members of the board were finally removed. In September 1997 they were forced out, they were purged, because they were either not of the right political colour—whatever that might mean—or somehow not to the government's liking. Instead we had Chairman Smith arrive. Ground station zero in the civil aviation business of this country began therefore in September 1997. It has been a very colourful 18 months indeed. When Dick Smith took over the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, he said:I want to give you an assurance that there will not be any major or quick changes. I am seeking a new director. I am confident that there is an Australian who can do the job.Pity about merit. Pity about the fact that the previous incumbent happened to have been an American. He may have been the best qualified for the job but Mr Smith a priori assumed that it should be an Australian rather than anyone of any other nationality.Then, in what I would regard as one of the more optimistic statements, made in embarking upon a professional career in September 1997, he said:I will commit the next five years of my life to this job.He went on to say:We look forward to an harmonious and collegiate relationship with all staff in CASA as we build on the undoubted excellence that exists within the authority.Well, if ever I have seen a gap, nay a chasm, between aspiration and achievement, this statement and the reality which has followed it in the ensuing 18 months represents that gap. It is interesting to reflect also how that appointment was greeted at the time by Labor's shadow minister for transport, Mr Tanner. Mr Tanner said in a statement of June 1996:Given the comments of the coroner investigating the Monarch crash regarding the performance of Mr Dick Smith during his time as Chairman of the old CAA and his ideas relating to affordable safety, Labor does not believe that the minister should appoint Mr Smith to the CASA board.Sitting suspended from 6.30 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.83TRudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD—So the government decided in September 1997 to appoint Dick Smith as chairman of CASA, and it is useful for the record to reflect upon the statements made at the time by the then shadow minister for transport, Mr Tanner. One of his media releases states:The appointment of Dick Smith as Deputy Chair of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority is likely to divide and destabilise the organisation . . . "Dick Smith represents a particular set of sectional interests and hardline views which are not shared by the bulk of the industry. . . ."His appointment demonstrates that the Coalition puts the repayment of political favours ahead of all other considerations.How prescient the then shadow minister for transport now appears. What have we had in this 18-month long grand experiment at the Civil Aviation Safety Authority? What we have had is an unmitigated public policy disaster of the first order. We have had a period of 18 months trying to blast out the previous chairman of CASA, followed by a subsequent 18 months which has ended in the situation where we have had to blast out the replacement chairman of CASA—the chairman of CASA which your government appointed, the chairman of CASA who you stated repeatedly had to be someone with considerable aviation experience and the chairman of CASA, Mr Smith, who was sent in to fix up all the problems. Well, you certainly got the chairman, Mr Smith, to take over the reins of the show, but what then ensued was nothing short of a civil war within CASA itself and between CASA and the rest of the regulatory bodies responsible for civil aviation management in this country.While the government was playing games through this entire period of three years of social experimentation with this most important body, who were the poor bunnies who actually suffered the consequences of this exercise? The long suffering public of Australia who at the end of the day want one simple thing—that is, a stable, properly resourced and properly managed body which will take to itself with seriousness the responsibility for the proper management of civil aviation safety in this country.Civil aviation safety is an issue which breaks down into a number of component parts. We have the architecture of government responsible for this matter—we have CASA, Airservices Australia and BASI. As another part of the civil aviation hierarchy, the civil aviation safety infrastructure, we have the training of pilots, the maintenance of aircraft and the construction of aircraft.The final element in this overall picture, however, is in fact the airports themselves and the flight paths which are used by aircraft on approach to those airports and the runways. I conclude my contribution to this debate on the bill in relation to this final and important element of the equation. That is, as we approach the 21st century, why is it that we continue to contemplate the possibility of constructing runways at airports which direct tens of thousands of aircraft movements each year across suburban Australia, and, in the case most recently in Brisbane, across the suburbs of Brisbane? When other options exist which direct traffic out over areas which do not have substantial suburban concentrations, where water can be maximised in its use, why are we still embarking upon a course of action which throws this element into the overall civil aviation safety equation?In conclusion, I would say this: while the Labor Party supports this bill, it does so with profound reservations about the management of civil aviation safety in this country and with profound reservations about the degree of unmitigated ministerial mismanagement of this portfolio which has occurred in relation to CASA for the last three years, mismanagement which has continued most recently under the current minister.20:04:004711Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—The Civil Aviation Amendment Bill 1998 is essentially a machinery piece of legislation, but it will facilitate the introduction of simple and straightforward aviation regulations. The government is committed to aviation reform and the bill is another step toward that objective. On behalf of Minister Anderson, I thank those honourable members who have contributed to this debate. I think all Australians share the goal and the objective of having a safe Australian industry. The government, through this legislation and indeed its policy commitments, is determined to ensure that this is the case.The member for Dickson displayed some remarkable intellectual dexterity in her speech. She demanded that the government choose a non-political and independent figure to head the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, and then next she argued that the minister should politicise the authority and eliminate its independence. Surely not even the member for Dickson could expect that both of those contradictory suggestions could be put into practice.I find it quite remarkable that the honourable member who has just completed his remarks and the honourable member for Dickson should make comments in opposition to political appointments to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. This is the party that stacked the authority with Labor mates, with people who knew nothing about the aviation industry. That is the mess this government inherited when we came to office. The Labor Party should hang its head in shame about the state of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and the way it utterly mismanaged this important area, the supervision of aviation safety in this nation. It is hypocritical in the extreme for the honourable member for Dickson or anybody else opposite to suggest that appointments should be non-political when you look at the sorts of people the Labor Party placed on the board.The member for Hinkler made a very thought provoking speech about Australia's aircraft manufacturing industry, which dates back to 1909. I share with the honourable member for Hinkler the distinction of having an aviation manufacturing and aircraft manufacturing industry in my electorate. Although the industry is sadly quite small, I think it is commendable that aircraft are being manufactured in this country and I hope those industries can continue to grow.I understand that there is a minor typographical error in the explanatory memorandum to this legislation. I now provide a corrected version to the Clerk. This legislation is essentially a machinery bill. I acknowledge that, while some members of the opposition have expressed reservations about some aspects of aviation safety regulation in this country, they have indicated their support for the legislation. The government acknowledges that. The opposition recognises that this legislation will provide a step forward. It facilitates a simple and straightforward aviation regulatory regime, and that is an advance that everyone in the industry would welcome. I, therefore, commend the legislation to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.4712Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Truss) read a third time.Bills4712r7144712Bill returned from Main Committee without having been fully considered; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration at the next sitting.Bills4712r6554712Message received from the Senate acquainting the House that the Senate does not insist on its amendments disagreed to by the House but in place thereof has amended the bill.Senate amendments—(1) Clause 2, page 2 (lines 1 to 9), omit subclauses (3), (4) and (5).(2) Clause 2, page 2 (line 10), omit "or (3)".(3) Schedule 1, item 6, page 9 (line 11), at the end of subsection (1), add ", provided that any action under this subsection that results in the extension of a waiting period applicable to a contributor or his or her dependant for an ailment, illness or condition (including a pre-existing ailment) is prescribed in accordance with subsection (3)".(4) Schedule 1, item 6, page 9 (after line 14), at the end of section 73BAA, add:(3) Regulations for the purposes of subsection (1) in respect of an ailment, illness or condition (including a pre-existing ailment) must not be made unless the Minister has taken into account the following matters: (a) evidence that the ailment, illness or condition is associated with opportunistic membership of health benefits funds; and (b) the potential for an extended waiting period to discriminate against people with the ailment, illness or condition; and (c) the impact of an extended waiting period on: (i) the principle of community rating; and (ii) the public health system; and (d) such other matters as the Minister considers relevant.(5) Schedule 1, item 9, page 9 (line 21), after "subparagraph (ka)(i)", insert "or paragraph (ja)".(6) Schedule 1, page 10 (after line 7), after item 9, insert:9A After paragraph (j) of Schedule 1Insert: (ja) subject to paragraph (kc), where the rules of the organization provide for a waiting period with respect to contributors for benefits in accordance with an applicable benefits arrangement of the organization and the benefits are in relation to psychiatric care, palliative care or rehabilitation, that waiting period will not exceed 2 months;(7) Schedule 1, item 12, page 10 (line 13), omit "paragraph (j)", substitute "paragraphs (j) and (ja)".(8) Schedule 1, item 20, page 13 (line 9), omit "The Minister", substitute "Subject to subsection (4A), the Minister".(9) Schedule 1, item 20, page 13 (after line 10), after subsection (4), insert: (4A) Guidelines made under subsection (4) must include a requirement for an approved procedures facility to be subject to accreditation and quality assurance procedures that: (a) are at least equivalent to the minimum accreditation and quality assurance procedures that apply to a day hospital facility or day procedure centre under State or Territory laws; and (b) include annual utilisation reviews to be conducted by the Commonwealth.(10) Schedule 1, item 21, page 13 (lines 18 and 19), omit paragraph (a), substitute: (a) that it is a procedure that, before the commencement of this subsection, was performed usually in a hospital or day hospital and involved an episode of hospital treatment; but(11) Schedule 2, item 9, page 18 (lines 3 to 6), omit the item.(12) Schedule 3, page 19 (line 2) to page 23 (line 29), omit the Schedule.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration forthwith.Motion (by Mr Tuckey) proposed:That the amendments be agreed to.20:11:004713Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—Earlier this week, the House considered a request from the Senate to put public patients on the same footing as private patients for surgery in doctors' rooms. At that time, that request was not accepted. I am pleased that, after further discussions, the government has now accepted that the objections raised by the opposition were serious and, along with other non-government senators, has agreed to withdraw part 5 of the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 , which we are currently debating. I am very pleased that the Minister for Health and Aged Care has decided to withdraw this part of the bill which did contain provisions for approved facilities for out-of-hospital surgery. As I foreshadowed in the debate in the House over the request, this is the action which the opposition was calling for, and we will now agree with the government's amended bill.If the minister wishes to persist with out-of- hospital surgery, it would be best if he came back with a much more developed proposal that he put forward in the first instance. He needs to clarify exactly which procedures will be carried out in these approved facilities outside of hospitals; what fees are likely to be charged; how public patients will be catered for; very importantly, how quality standards will be set and enforced; how many approved facilities he envisages being established; and how these approved facilities will operate to complement existing services provided in day surgeries.I will conclude by briefly summarising Labor's position in relation to the rest of the bill. We do agree with the proposals in part 1 of the bill to discount rates of contributions where there are administrative savings. The opposition also agrees with the proposals in part 2 to provide for loyalty bonus schemes. The proposals in relation to waiting periods in part 3 are acceptable with the amendments that the government agreed to when the bill was last debated in the Senate. The opposition also supports the inquiry announced by the government into the pre-existing ailment rule. This is a positive response to the anomalies raised about this rule by Senator Margetts and Senator Harradine.We have also supported the amendments in part 4 in relation to the coverage of pharmaceutical gap payments. In the debate we have made a series of points about how such a scheme needs to be confined to avoid rorting if large quantities of pharmaceuticals were prescribed while a person was in hospital and the pharmaceuticals were then taken home. This proposal that is currently in the bill is limited to situations where the medicines are provided under a policy providing for no gaps, and there should not be an extension of the provision to allow any wider coverage being given to pharmaceutical gap payments. It is understood that it is the government's intention to maintain this limit, and the problem of misuse will be dealt with by regulations.We also welcome the deletion of schedule 3 which dealt with the deregulation of private health insurance premiums, which would have seen the minister washing his hands of any responsibility for health insurance premium increases, which would have been an outrageous situation given the enormous amount of public funds that have just been poured into health insurance. The government has also deleted part 6 of this bill which provided also for a poorly thought through scheme to allow specialists to cover gap payments through private health insurance if they entered into contracts with health funds. As I said, the opposition supports the passage of the bill in its amended form, and we look forward to seeing any further proposals for out-of-hospital surgery the minister might like to bring forward as long as they are properly developed and not the sort of ramshackle proposals that were in the original bill.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills4714r7754714Debate resumed from 25 March, on motion by Mr McGauran:That the bill be now read a second time.20:16:004714Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—I am happy on behalf of the opposition and as shadow minister for communications to indicate that the opposition supports the legislation before the House. The measure is, I think, fairly summarised, explained and outlined in the second reading speech of the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. The Telecommunications Laws Amendment (Universal Service Cap) Bill 1999 proposes to amend the Telecommunications Act 1997 and the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1999 on the basis that that legislation is enacted by the parliament.The legislation will cap the costs that can be claimed for reimbursement for discharging the universal service obligation, the USO, by the national universal service provider, Telstra, for the financial year 1997-98 at a level no higher than $253.32 million. Telstra has lodged a claim of $1.828 billion for the USO cost reimbursement for that financial year, which is about seven times higher than the previous year's claim. The $253.32 million, the proposed cap limit, is the 1996-97 recovered cost plus the CPI.The Australian Communications Authority is currently assessing the 1997-98 claim by Telstra, and the legislative cap will only come into play as a last resort if Telstra, the industry, the ACA and the government fail to agree on an amount. Telstra's competitors, naturally, oppose the $1.8 billion claim and support utilisation of the cap measure if required. The recovered cost of providing the USO is shared by Telstra's various competitors in accordance with their market share—in other words, the effect of the legislation is to cap the amount Telstra can charge the other carriers for the cost of the 1997-98 financial year.As well, the ACA has been asked by the government to review the USO cost methodo logy generally in order to address this issue for future years. This report, as I understand it, is not expected prior to July of this year. The bill also provides a last resort cap mechanism for the 1998-99 and 1999-2000 financial years by way of a ministerial decision subject to parliamentary disallowance—an entirely appropriate use of the disallowance mechanism in respect of those decisions if they are required to be utilised.As I indicated, the opposition supports the legislation. We have done that on the government's timetable. Whilst, from memory, I think is true to say that the government indicated on 12 October—shortly after the last election—its intention to propose capping legislation if necessary, it has taken until last week to bring the legislation into the House. It was brought on this week in what could be regarded as a more speedy time than usual, but none of this has caused us any consternation. I am happy to, in a sense, restrict my remarks to the substance of this legislation on the basis that this is predicated as an interim or a last resort measure.The cost of the universal service obligation and the public disclosure of the universal levy cost was the subject of some comments in the Labor minority committee report on the Telstra legislation and related legislation which was presented to the Senate recently. I will take this opportunity to quote a couple of extracts from the Labor senators' minority report together with their recommendations. Under the chapter entitled `Cost of the USO and Public Disclosure of USO levy cost data', the report had this to say:Several witnesses to the Inquiry addressed directly the issue of Telstra's 1997-98 USO levy cost claim. The witnesses, Telstra's competitors, disputed the amount of the claim and called for amendments to the USO levy regime.And there is a quote:The recent $1.8 billion USO claimed by Telstra has served to highlight the need to strengthen the legislation in this regard. The very size of the claim (over seven times the value of claims in previous years) and the inadequacies and shortcomings in the data provided by Telstra in support of its claim, have generally highlighted the inadequacies of the current arrangements. That was a submission by Network Vodafone, one of Telstra's competitors. And, after some discussion, the Labor senators in the minority report go on to say:Opposition Senators are aware that the Australian Communications Authority is at present analysing and assessing Telstra's USO claim. Reports released by the ACA in recent weeks bring into question aspects of Telstra's calculation, in particular the figure allocated to the Weighted Average Cost of Capital.Opposition Senators agree with Telstra's competitors and interested parties that there is far too much secrecy associated with the calculation of the USO cost.There is particular validity in the argument that as the public are ultimately the ones to bear the cost of the claim, information relating to its calculation should be more readily available upon request.The opposition has announced today that, in addition to supporting the capping legislation before the House, it proposes—when the Senate gets around to ultimately considering the Telstra privatisation and related legislation—to move an amendment to the relevant telecommunications legislation to the effect that, in respect of the Australian Communications Authority's calculation of the USO, once Telstra has presented to the ACA the costs of its USO in a financial year, the ACA will then be authorised at its discretion to release that information, such information being in the public interest. The current mechanism is that at the end of each financial year Telstra presents a claim, the Australian Communications Authority assesses that claim and, once it comes to a conclusion as to the amount of the claim, under the legislation the ACA is then authorised to release its deliberations and to release such of the Telstra information presented to it that is not commercial-in-confidence.There are two deficiencies in that regime in the opposition's view. The first is that the information is released ex post facto—that is, after the ACA's deliberation—and the criteria on which the information can be released is commercial-in-confidence. Given that ultimately the universal service obligation and its cost is in effect a matter of public interest, in the end it is the community that pays, and the opposition's view is that the test for the release of that information should be that which is in the public interest.The second deficiency is that it seems the most relevant and prescient time for the ACA to have discretion to release that information is prior to its own deliberations and consideration of the Telstra cost. The obvious exercise of a sensible ACA discretion would be to make that information available to Telstra's competitors to enable industry to have their own views made known to the ACA prior to the ACA's deliberations. The opposition believes that is a much more effective and transparent and open cost calculation system. It is proposed to move accordingly if and when the government gets around to listing the Telstra legislation in the Senate. I suppose there may be some healthy or unhealthy delay depending upon your point of view—a bit of space from the New South Wales election, a bit of space from the terrible performance bulletin of Tasmanian service decline we saw from the ACA in recent days, a bit of ho-hum over Easter.There are a couple of general comments to be made in respect of Telstra's $1.8 billion claim. These are, in a sense, tongue-in-cheek, but we are dealing here with either a monopolist or a dominant market player. In some respects, you can proceed on the basis that that which Telstra says in this regard is presumptively anticompetitive and/or presumptively an ambit claim. That is why there is a need to ensure thorough and exhaustive analysis of the claim.Secondly, the government has made it clear that, in addition to the ACA considering the 1997-98 claim lodged by Telstra, it wants to have a proper methodology in place on the basis of a review and report by the ACA and subsequently, as I understand it, a review and report by the department to make sure that there is a proper methodology in place which will obviate the need for this type of shock to the industry and legislative cap in future years. I think that is appropriate because, whilst you might be able to mount some sort of argument for a $1.8 million claim on the basis of the capital investment which has gone into the PMG, then Telecom, now the Telstra network over a considerable time, if you actually put your mind to the cost of delivery of the USA using new technology and technology which will become available in the near future, you might find yourself dealing with substantially less amounts.Another general point that can be made is that this legislation does not predetermine the nature and extent of the universal service obligation. Currently, of course, most members would be aware that the universal service obligation requires, as a matter of course, that people have access to standard telephony service and standard payphone service. Putting that in the vernacular, it is the payphone outside the pub in the local main street and the phone in your home. There is of course a live issue as to whether that realistically ought to be the nature and extent of the USO into the future. The obvious issue here is the provision of digital data service to all of Australia. Again, this is an issue which I am sure will be seized upon by the parliament, potentially in the course of consideration of the Telstra legislation, but also in the course of consideration of the necessary ministerial and no doubt parliamentary legislative deliberations, when we see the various results of the ACA and departmental reports in the next 12 months or so. So it does not predetermine the methodology which the ACA may apply, it does not predetermine what we might regard as the nature and extent of the USO and it does not predetermine a sensible cost of the provision of the USO, bearing in mind new and more readily available technology.One of the notions which is contained in the majority report of the Telstra Senate committee—and there is also a reference in the minority report—is the notion of competitive tendering. The notion of competitive tendering on a regional basis is something I have expressed general sympathy towards in terms of considering it as an idea. Telstra is the national universal service provider. It is hard to envisage in the short and medium term how Telstra would be overtaken in that role as the national universal service provider. But the act currently makes available the option of competitive tendering, particularly on a regional basis, with the availability of new technology, whether that is terrestrial, whether that is satellite or whether, for example, that is using some of the bandwidth which AAPT has recently purchased across the countryside for a figure, from memory, of about $66.9 million.There is the prospect in the future that on a regional or a niche basis the implementation of a USO in terms of efficiency, in terms of cost, in terms of availability of the provision of these services to regional Australia, is an area which is well worth exploring so far as the parliament is concerned and so far as the government of the day is concerned. If you go back to the point I made earlier that, tonguein-cheek, you may well regard the $1.8 billion claim from Telstra as being presumptively anticompetitive and presumptively an ambit claim, then at some point in the cycle you might just work out what the true cost of a USO is by throwing some parts of that out into a competitive tendering arrangement. It is not the case that every customer you find in a USO area is necessarily a loss leading customer.In conclusion, the opposition supports the measures on the basis, as outlined, of last resort and interim measures. I notice that the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation, who represents the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts, is in the chamber. I am not aware whether he or the parliamentary secretary is summing up the debate. If the minister is, he might want to take the opportunity of advising me and the House formally of the current proposed timetable for the various ACA and departmental reviews of the 1997-98 claim and also the more general review so far as future methodology is concerned. I am sure he will do that in the style that we have become accustomed to as we exchange notes across the chamber.The opposition supports this piece of legislation and we look forward to considering in detail and carefully the USO, its nature, its extent and the calculation of its cost, as these issues come before the government and the parliament in the not too distant future.20:32:004717Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—The Australian telecommunications regime includes universal service arrangements to ensure that all Australians have reasonable and equitable access to a standard telephone service and to payphone services. As the shadow minister said, we should keep an open mind on the concept of data delivery and that is a concept that I support. I hope for the sake of those in rural and regional Australia that the government does keep an open mind on that, and that in this review of the universal service obligation that be constantly monitored.The USO is something that the government is rightly very proud of because it will be a continuing safeguard for consumers even if eventually Telstra is completely privatised. Whether it is at the 49 per cent level or more is not the important thing, the important thing is that the USO is very firmly put in place and, as the shadow minister said, that we allow sufficient flexibility to include other forms of citizens' rights in that USO. That is something the previous government failed to legislate for before the sale of the Commonwealth Bank and Qantas. However, the Telecommunications Act 1997 places a universal service obligation, or USO, on one or more carriers requiring them to ensure that all these services are reasonably available to all Australians wherever they may reside or carry on their business.At present, Telstra is the carrier which fulfils the USO. The cost of fulfilling the USO is shared among all the carriers in proportion to each carrier's market share because the other companies rely on Telstra's established infrastructure, especially in regional and rural and remote areas, to carry their own services. At the end of each financial year, Telstra puts in a claim for the cost of fulfilling the USO during that financial year. The Australian Communications Authority, the ACA, assesses that claim and rules on the actual cost then bills the other carriers for their contributions. This assessment of the USO claim by the ACA ensures that an independent regulatory authority transparently assesses the cost of the USO in each year.A problem has now cropped up in relation to these arrangements. In previous years, under the equivalent provisions of the former Telecommunications Act 1991, Telstra, Optus and Vodafone simply agreed on an estimate of cost fulfilling the USO. The agreed sum was $230 million in 1993-94, to be increased by the consumer price index each year. For the 1996-97 financial year, the agreed sum had increased to $252 million. The three carriers and the ACA used that time to develop a new model for estimating the cost of the USO. In September 1998, Telstra put in its claim for the 1997-98 financial year using the new model. The claim was $1.828 billion, seven times the agreed cost for the previous year.In any business, a rise of that magnitude and the cost of providing a service would spark some sort of scepticism. I, for one, find it difficult to understand how the government can accept a figure like that against the previous year's figure of $252 million, which all of the stakeholders agreed to. It is hard to believe that in one year Telstra could embrace that and the next year want seven times the figure. The cap now proposed by the government is incrementally consistent with the figures over recent years, having regard to the consumer price index. Dare I say that a $1.8 billion USO shared between the other shareholders would place an enormous burden on new players in the industry. In other words, 15 per cent of the USO required of these other telecommunications companies applied to $1.8 billion would be in excess of what Telstra itself paid in the previous year. Clearly, that is very difficult to wear. I find that totally inconsistent.I echo the minister's statement that the claim had the potential to destabilise the entire industry and deter investment in Australian telecommunications. Quite frankly, even if the $253 million figure is not correct, I do not believe that the amount which the USO has costed will materially affect the level of service. If for argument's sake we take the USO to be $1.8 billion, people in regional Australia could be forgiven for being sceptical, considering the level of service over recent years. The government has actually had to step in with standard penalties because of the poor delivery of those services.I know from the number of complaints I get in my own office that even with those penal ties the service is not all that flash. If Telstra says it is putting in $1.8 billion a year, I think people of country Australia can not only be sceptical but also say with a fair amount of force that they have been treated very badly. If the USO was really costing $1.8 billion, then I question whether parts of the social bonus from the further sale of Telstra would be necessary. But clearly it is necessary to get that social bonus.If Telstra was really putting $1.8 billion a year into the bush, you would think that some of the things that have had to be negotiated as part of the social bonus would have been occurring on a regular basis. The various things that we have been asking for, things like the removal of the pastoral call and all those sorts of things, would have been easily encompassed within $1.8 billion. Even if that were the real cost, surely incremental and marginal efficiencies alone could have delivered a lot of the social bonus. But it has not, and there is a clear need for that social bonus.Sadly, those social bonus items are necessary and they are being held up by an opposition which is beginning to turn on itself over this sad policy of opposition for opposition's sake. I for the life of me cannot understand why Labor—having sold the Commonwealth Bank, Qantas, Commonwealth Serum Laboratories and a whole host of government enterprises, as my colleague the member for Mallee so adequately revealed today in the MPI—would baulk at the next 16 per cent to deliver that social bonus to regional Australia.YU5TANNERMr Tanner—We didn't sell Telstra.KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLE—There is a fair bit of evidence around that the current opposition leader when telecommunications minister did a bit of talking with Telstra about that very subject.KL6ANDRENMr Andren—It doesn't make it right.KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLE—It will be interesting in years to come when we really find out the truth of that. My colleague the member for Calare says that it does not make it right. I have a very clear view on this sort of thing. I do not think there is anything wrong with selling government enterprises, on two conditions: you either reinvest it in the reduction of debt or reinvest it in new infrastructure. We should not have a mind-set in looking at new infrastructure. The social bonus does deliver new infrastructure. The remainder from the Telstra sale will go into the reduction of debt. We all know the long-term effects of that for the benefit of the whole nation.The government in this instance has moved swiftly to alleviate the uncertainty hanging over the industry by an interim solution, pending a detailed review of the USO arrangements. On 12 October 1998 the government announced that USO costs for 1997-98 would be capped at $253,320,000, which was the agreed cost for the 1996-97 year plus CPI. The government said that it would seek to reach an agreement with the industry for such a cap but, failing that agreement, it would introduce legislation to impose the cap. The government continues to negotiate with Telstra and the other carriers seeking their agreement to a negotiated cap.In case an agreement is not reached, the government is today introducing legislation to cap the USO cost in the short term. This legislation will therefore serve as the ultimate fall-back. This will be an interim solution only to provide sufficient time for a measured and orderly review of future USO funding arrangements. The government expects to carry out that review this year and to enact any changes to the USO funding arrangements before the commencement of the 2000-01 financial year. In the interim, this problem could recur. Therefore, a cap will also be applied to the financial years 1998-99 and 1999-2000. The ACA will continue its assessment of the Telstra claim for 1997-98.However, the legislation caps the USO cost to be used for working out industry contributions to Telstra at a maximum of $253.32 million. Should the ACA assessment produce a lower figure, that amount will apply. For 1998-99 and 1999-2000, the USO cost will be used for working out industry contributions to Telstra fixed at $253.32 million plus CPI. Telstra and the ACA will need to repeat the process of calculating the USO cost for the two years. As I said earlier, the minister will be given the power to change the amount for 1998-99 and 1999-2000 to allow for changes in these circumstances.Finally, the government has said it is determined that any cap should not put at risk Telstra's ability to fulfil the USO, and I welcome that assurance. In fact, recourse to this legislation as a short-term measure affects Telstra less severely than the other carriers if a substantially increased claim is allowed without a properly detailed review. Under the interim solution proposed, Telstra can be expected to receive an amount comparable to last year, indexed to the CPI for a three-year period. This outcome minimises instability in the industry while a long-term solution is being implemented. In the meantime, the government can be satisfied that the USO will continue to be delivered while long-term arrangements are being reviewed.I would add to my contribution that I hope the minister representing Senator Alston here tonight, the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation, Mr McGauran, takes on board, as the USO is reviewed in the light of modern telecommunications, the necessity to in some way mandate that all Australians have a right to data access.20:45:004719Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—The Telecommunications Laws Amendment (Universal Services Cap) Bill 1999 caps the universal service obligation cost for the 1997-98 financial year at $253.32 million, indexed to the CPI for the next two financial years. The need for this legislation was brought about last year when Telstra argued the actual cost of its universal service obligations was, in fact, $1.828 billion. This obviously has a great bearing on services in rural areas if it is anywhere near the cost that Telstra claims. Telstra believes the net cost of its 1997-98 USO was $1.8 billion compared with the $250 million it and other carriers had agreed on in recent years.The universal service obligation is Telstra's undertaking that all Australians have `reasonable access on an equitable basis' to a minimum service of standard telephony and payphones. Under existing arrangements, Telstra can bill other telecommunications carriers based on their shares of certain markets. Telstra usually takes responsibility for about four-fifths of what was previously an agreed figure. Telstra has long argued that that figure, even though indexed, was far too low. Telstra has argued that last year it provided subsidies to nearly half a million customers in rural and non-urban areas at an average estimated cost of $3,868 per customer.It is interesting to note some of Telstra's problems in providing some basic services to constituents in my electorate. My office has become something of a lightning rod for complaints about Telstra service in recent years. I am pleased to say Telstra management has been very proactive in attending to some of those problems in recent months. It has recently begun an upgrade program on the Central Tablelands to replace old wiring, some of which has become waterlogged. In one area, the problem has persisted for 10 years. That is only 20 kilometres at most from Orange. It really does raise the question of why it has taken so long for Telstra to begin to catch up with that infrastructure repair, and what may happen down the track so close to a major regional centre. If it is having difficulty keeping up with that repair maintenance program, what may happen further afield?There have been instances of customers on rural blocks near Bathurst being told they could get a service installed more quickly if they ran out the cabling and dug the trench themselves. Payphones in the isolated Rylstone Kandos area and Clarence, near Lithgow, were to be shut down as a cost saving measure until strong representations from the community, through me, convinced Telstra that there was reason to prolong, at least in the short term, those payphones.There was very little consideration given, for instance, to the absolute necessity for a payphone at the bottom of Growee Gulph, on that isolated stretch of road between Rylstone and the Hunter Valley. There have been numerous accidents on that piece of road, and credit to the government for giving some black spot funding to that road to upgrade its safety status. Nevertheless, there is a large section of isolated road with only a couple of homesteads in about 25 kilometres and, with accidents numerous on that stretch, Telstra saw fit to plan to close down that payphone at the bottom. It was the only source of communication because there are no mobile phones in that territory to call for help when it is needed. There have been three serious accidents in the last 12 months and, but for that payphone, the results of those accidents could have been quite tragic.Here we had the provider of telecommunications—a publicly owned company, at that—considering closing down that vital piece of communication because of the fact that it was not being used enough. I would suggest, and I think all would agree, that the three uses to which it was put in those 12 months certainly made up for any cost that Telstra might have sustained by it being used only three times.I must pay tribute to senior Telstra management, including the Greater Western District Service Delivery Manager, Chris Eke, for their excellent attention to concerns from me in recent months. The question can well be asked, though: do other telephone carriers give a damn if Kandos Rylstone or Clarence have a payphone—or a mobile phone service, for that matter? There is just not enough money in it. In fact, there is no money in it. Telstra knows that and is reluctant to expend large amounts of state-of-the-art technology because there is no return. That is under a 66 per cent public ownership regime. What can we expect when or if Telstra should be privately owned?When one looks at Telstra's profits one could ask why the company needs any support from its competitors to service the rural and remote areas. But it is a matter of fairness. Why should Telstra support the bush when the other competitors do not give a fig for anything but the most lucrative markets? Is this truly a market model? This has been amply demonstrated during the debate on mobile phones. Tests by the APUMP organisation have graphically shown how inadequate is the mobile service outside the major highway strips between the major towns. Even along those highway strips, you need an account with each of the providers to ensure coverage.Only Telstra's analog system has maintained anything like a decent service in most parts of rural Australia. The former Labor government and this government have been instrumental in dismantling the analog system at the behest of the very players in the communications market who do not give a damn about rural and regional Australia.CK6HARDGRAVEMr Hardgrave—It's Labor's fault.KL6Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDREN—You say it is Labor's fault.CK6HARDGRAVEMr Hardgrave—It was.KL6Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDREN—You had the means of renegotiating that, you really did, but you threw it away.CK6HARDGRAVEMr Hardgrave—At big costs.KL6Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDREN—But what is the cost now of throwing out analog? We have had one test of CDMA which has come up reasonably well. But my advice is that it is certainly not the sort of test that should be conducted, for instance, from Mount Conoblas where there is such a variety of terrain. And Telstra puts out analog maps that grossly understate the coverage area and grossly overstate the digital coverage area. Until such time that I and many of the rural constituency are convinced that they will get an equivalent coverage, we will not have a bar of this—quite apart from the fact that there are farmers out there with $1,000 worth of hardware in their trucks that basically they are being asked to throw away at the end of the year.CK6HARDGRAVEMr Hardgrave—It's Labor's fault.KL6Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDREN—It is not Labor's fault. It is Labor's fault that it negotiated that with so little foresight as to how inadequate that digital service would be, but it is equally this government's fault that it did not sit down and renegotiate that.The new CEO of Telstra, Ziggy Zwitowski, said the other day, `If you see one of Telstra's competitives driving around the bush, they'd be lost.' He got a good laugh at the press conference on that. But I contend that, if the remainder of Telstra or even another 16 per cent is sold, if you see a Telstra truck in the bush, it too will be lost for there will be eventually and inevitably no legal compunction on it to be out there providing non-profitable services. Sure, it may upgrade some Internet lines, replace old copper lines and install more optic fibre in areas of high return, but what happens to the next generation of high technology that will inevitably arrive? Where will be the compunction then on Telstra or anybody else when there is not a dollar in it?The performance report of the Australian Communications Authority on Telstra's service delivery in the December quarter last is a sober warning and is very relevant to this bill. We have all heard the reports on Tasmania where service standards have fallen away. The minister regards this as an unfortunate `blip'. There are still delays in service delivery to other parts of Australia that are completely unacceptable, and this is a product of low staff numbers and a pressure on Telstra to deliver services in more competitive areas and profits to private shareholders.As the Sun-Herald asked in September last year when another negative performance report was published, `Since when has demand been an excuse for poor service?' The paper went on to say, `A telephone line has become as essential a function as electricity and water.' I would add that, within a year or so, high speed data lines, including Internet, will also be essential services, if they are not already. But will Telstra be able to deliver, and will the other providers care? The newspaper also rightly declared that a corporation which can declare a record $3 billion profit—heading now to $3.6 billion or thereabouts—ought to be doing far better.Government members argue that the Labor Party has no philosophical commitment to public ownership, and it does not. That has been amply demonstrated over the years. But a `you did it, so we're justified' argument holds no credibility in the bush. Debt will occur again down the track, whichever government is running the show. What will we flog off then? Uluru or Parliament House perhaps. What will we have if we now use our silverware to pay off the bankcard?The Carr government, it seems, is finally hearing the message that the voters in regional areas do not want to privatise essential services. There is no mandate for this, and the longer governments ignore this the more voters will turn to non-major parties for their representation. Labor and coalition may have the numbers at the moment to make up governance or opposition, but that pattern is changing. The sell-off of public utilities and essential services will deepen that cynicism and anger.Telstra argues that its universal service obligation is costing $1.8 billion, and the Communications Authority is still investigating these figures. What if Telstra is correct? The other carriers are arguing that Telstra is trying to put the squeeze on them. But Telstra argues that the model which delivered these figures was developed by the ACA and involved Telstra, Optus and Vodafone. What if the other carriers in this market cannot afford the universal service contribution? What if? Do we expect a privatised Telstra board or shareholders to cop 80 per cent of a $1.8 billion bill forever, while competitors get off with a token contribution?What this shows is the need to retain Telstra in public ownership, because only a publicly owned Telstra will deliver the kinds of services to rural and regional Australia that we demand. Telstra's figures, even if pruned substantially by the ACA, still demonstrate the enormous cost of delivering services to Australia's rural and regional areas. We are unique in this country: we are a small market in a vast country with, basically, a very small number of people to contribute to the infrastructure we have to build up.While competition will deliver lower prices and quick connections and efficiencies in the lucrative areas of that market, there is nothing except regulated community service obligation that will deliver anything like the services needed in rural Australia. But we have figures that suggest the other carriers cannot afford to contribute their share of the USO. This bill caps their contribution but does not solve the problem. Only public ownership and government directed investment by the public carrier of its substantial income will solve the problem. That is why the words of the minister in introducing this bill, `This will be an interim solution only,' ring true—because that in fact is the case.20:58:004722Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—The member for Calare—and perhaps he would like to analyse his words a little more carefully—might have actually put the government's case for the continuation of the sale of Telstra. When all is said and done, as a result of the sale of this infrastructure, the amount of money to be released into telecommunications, to be released into meeting the needs particularly of rural and regional Australia, will solve the sorts of problems the member for Calare has just been talking about.The sorts of things the government has addressed and is addressing are very important these days, as we become more used to the idea of mobile telephony, of being able to access good quality digital telephones right up and down the nation's highways, will be paid for as a result of the social bonus to come from the completed sale of Telstra. Certainly the sale of the next 16 per cent of Telstra will release a lot of money. I hope the government presses forward with its plans over the long term to sell the whole thing.At the end of the day, this bill proves another case: that is, it does not matter who owns the phone company, everyone is treated the same. The rules, the regulations, the imposts and the requirements of telephone carriers—regardless of whether they are Telstra, Cable and Wireless Optus or one of the smaller companies involved in telecommunications such as AAPT, One-Tel, Ericsson, Vodafone or Macquarie Corporate Communications—are the same for everybody. That is the key issue that the member for Calare, in joining with the Labor Party again on this occasion, fails to understand. The rules will affect everyone universally. Likewise, this bill tonight addresses the universal service obligation: a contribution from all carriers who participate in telecommunications in this country to meet the cost of providing for those non-profitable services that we expect, such as the phone box at the bottom of the hill in the member for Calare's electorate which has had three phone calls—albeit life saving phone calls—in a 12-month period.Once the completed sale of Telstra goes through, it will release a great deal of funds. If we were to turn back the hands of time and go into public ownership of this particular utility all over again, as the member for Calare has contended, nothing would improve. The overall cost of poor competition to this nation, particularly in the highly populated 96 per cent of this country, is enormous. Perhaps to settle the concerns of some people in rural and regional Australia, particularly in the far flung areas, we should buy the remaining four per cent of Australians in those rural and remote areas a satellite phone. The advantages to them in having assured communications would be great, but moreover we would see a release of funds that would retire debt. We would also see a real continuation of competition in this country. Ninety-six per cent of Australians will find that the price of calls in their areas will go down.There are plenty of aspirants in this nation today who say that 15c instead of 25c is a profitable phone call for them, if only they could get access to the Telstra local call market. Unless we continue to put pressure on Telstra as an organisation to be honest about their assessment of costs under universal service obligation, unless we continue to pursue the idea of fulsome competition, encouraging all those who wish to provide telecommunications to know with certainty that they can, we will continue to have a higher per call cost for most Australians. As I said, for the very small minority of Australians who always feel under pressure and who always feel a sense of delay in realising what their city cousins have, it would be cheaper to go out and buy them satellite phones costing a few thousand dollars each.This bill brings Telstra to book on the question of the universal service obligation. Telstra were by their public comments simply trying to do what they have always done in the past when facing a bit of competition—that is, screw their competitors into the ground and put them out of business. A $1.8 billion estimate by Telstra—85 per cent to be paid by Telstra, which they can afford by their own admission, and the 15 per cent residual to be paid by the other carriers—simply would have destroyed their business plans and ruined competition in telecommunications forever. As I have outlined already, the cost to the great majority of Australians—in fact, to all Australians—would have been unforgivable.The government instead has brought in this particular piece of legislation to set a cap on the net universal service cost for the 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000 financial years. This provides some certainty and stability for all people involved in telecommunications in this country. If, as Telstra have alleged, the universal service obligation is a $1.8 billion impost, why is it, as the member for Hinkler in his excellent contribution to this debate tonight rightly asked, that the bush is missing out on a lot of the things that it is missing out on? That $1.8 billion should have gone a lot further than Telstra have managed to achieve to date. That is a key element of the argument in favour of this bill.When all is said and done, the Australian Labor Party have a lot to answer for when it comes to telecommunications in this country. They signed an agreement which phased out in a mandatory way the use of analog phones throughout Australia, particularly in rural and regional Australia where a lot of people have invested a great deal of money in convenient infrastructure, such as personal handsets. It is disgraceful that they imposed a mandatory cut-off date without any opportunity to review whether or not it would still be realistic a few years down the track. The Howard government has managed to extend a particular operating period for analog, and that provides some respite, but there is still no escaping the fact that very soon analog simply will not work. The government's intention to use the new CDMA technology and encourage telecommunications providers to develop new technology to its fullest potential is worth supporting.It is worth knowing that it was the Labor Party that failed those in rural and regional Australia by not providing a review mechanism in that analog contract. When the Howard government put in place changes to digital television last year, we were wise enough—I guess because we looked at the failures in telecommunications which the Labor Party made in this country—to put in a review mechanism to see whether or not our assump tions about the take-up of technology at a date in 1998 were still realistic in 2005.That is the sort of thing that the failed communications ministers—the member for Dobell and the opposition leader who have both had their fingers on this particular failed analog arrangement—should have done, because new technology is developing so quickly in this world that it is difficult to know whether, five years from now, what you think is right and what you prescribe today is, in fact, going to prove to be right. At least this government—and Minister Alston needs to be congratulated on his spirited leadership on this issue—has left open the question of review.I also acknowledge the role of the member for Hinkler, the member for Corangamite and other members of the government's communications backbench policy committee. We have listened, looked at and analysed those sorts of issues, and we have had very good dealings with both Minister Alston and the minister at the table, Minister McGauran, on these sorts of issues.The fact of the matter is that if this particular piece of legislation is not passed, it is going to wreck the prospect for good competition in telecommunications in this country. It is simply going to wreck the prospect of cheaper local calls in the 96 per cent of the country that could get those cheaper local calls from good effective competition before it even starts. It is going to create a situation where companies which aspire to an involvement in telecommunications are going to find a completely out of the ballpark figure being thrown at them which will destroy their business plans. These are the sorts of things that are at stake if this particular sensible piece of legislation is not put in place today.One can look back at the Labor Party's record of wreckage and consider the analog phone disaster and the $4 billion of cable rollout cost that was imposed on this nation. Labor's plan to bring in competition was, `Go and build another telephone line.' It would be like saying to Lindsay Fox, `Go and build another Hume Highway if you want to compete with TNT between Sydney and Melbourne.' It is that sort of nonsensical arrange ment that the Labor Party left this government to try to fix up—a $4 billion legacy that has been factored into Cable and Wireless Optus and their aspirations for better competition in this country.It is a statement of fact that people involved in pay television and telecommunications are running a business plan that has a bracket around every year's results, for some years to come. They are running at a loss, and they are projecting smaller and smaller losses as the years progress so that perhaps there is a year of profit to come in a handful of years time.This government supports the competition that these aspirants wish to offer. This government supports the notion of furthering that competition into areas such as local call markets and making it possible for those who wish to provide cheaper local calls to do it. There are some aggressive attempts by different companies at the moment to advertise and seduce people in some ways by the ads. The One-Tel company commercial comes to mind where they simply say, `Sign up to us and we'll provide you with a cheaper call.' Most of it, though, is long distance and overseas. It is the local call market which is the big one that needs to be cracked.These sorts of matters can be addressed only when the whole of the telecommunications industry is working on the same footing. That again is part of the case for why the government should proceed with the completed sale of Telstra. The benefits which will come to this nation are profound. The paying off of the great debts of this nation is an immense reason why we should be proceeding with this sale. But, moreover, all people in this nation should rest assured—as this bill shows today—that all telecommunications providers and people involved in the industry are governed by the same rules, and all have to make a contribution to matters such as this universal service obligation which is contained in this bill. I commend this bill to the House.21:11:004724McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHURVH4CorangamiteLP10—I am delighted that the opposition is supporting the Telecommunications Laws Amendment (Universal Service Cap) Bill 1999 . It goes to show to Australians that, with sensible legislation, both sides of the parliament can support it, and support it unreservedly. I noticed the member for Calare put up some populist arguments. I notice he has left the House. I have some difficulty understanding whether he is actually supporting the legislation, but I will read his speech carefully afterwards and come to some conclusion.This is always a difficult issue. To make an assessment of the CSO that governments have to provide in the case of telecommunications—as in the bill before the House—and in the case of Australia Post, which I will refer to later, the question is how much that particular entity should provide for a non-profitable service and whether the government should be subsidising that. In the case of Australia Post, the question is whether it should come from the operation of that entity or, in the case of the universal service obligation coming from the telecommunications carriers, whether Telstra should carry the bill or whether those other operators should contribute. That is the fundamental issue before the parliament and, as we have seen over the years, that creates considerable debate about how much and who should pay.I do accept the view that has been expressed by other speakers that it is important that Telstra, as the major key player in the telecommunications industry, should not become a dominant player and that there should be genuine competition between Telstra and the other communications companies so that we do not reach a position like that in the UK where British Telecom has become a dominant player, the other operators are lesser players and there is not genuine competition.The objective of this particular piece of legislation is to ensure that there is a fair and equitable allocation of the CSO and that Telstra does not become a dominant and overriding player. I do acknowledge those interested members in the parliament—the member for Mitchell, who represents regional Australia and a certain urban fringe; the member for Gippsland who, obviously, has a good understanding of these particular problems in his electorate—and I note the very good comments of the member for Hinkler.I will just define in simple terms what is before the parliament and why we should have a universal service obligation. It is to ensure that all Australians—be they rural, regional or city—have reasonable and equitable access to telecommunications and Internet services. It guarantees that a standard telephone service and payphone services are available to all Australians no matter what their location—whether it is Alice Springs, Bairnsdale or in the electorate of the member for Mitchell.This government has made the commitment of a guaranteed standard of untimed local calls for all Australians. Another guarantee is that Internet access will be at local call cost anywhere in Australia. The government's plan is to strengthen the universal service obligation so all Australians have access on demand to what is technically described as a 64 kilobit per second download service. That is a bit technical, but it gives a clear understanding of what the bill is about. These services will be provided to all Australians who are in the obviously unprofitable areas. In the case of Australia Post and Telstra, there is a tendency not to provide these services because they are not profitable, and so remote and rural Australians would not receive these services in the normal course of events.SD4CADMANMr Cadman—That is unfair.VH4McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHUR—As the member for Mitchell says, that is a very unfair situation. The coalition government is totally committed to ensuring that regional Australians receive similar services to those of their city cousins. The aim of this bill is to ensure that at the end of the year Telstra puts in a claim for fulfilling its CS obligations and that the Australian Communications Authority assesses this claim and then allocates the cost to the other operators. The Australian Communications Authority is an independent body which has been set up to ensure transparency in working out the universal service obligation cost. The Telstra cost, plus that of the other operators, will be worked out at the end of the financial year.The carriers are asked to lodge their returns within 90 days of the end of the financial year. The Australian Communications Auth ority must then review all this information. The Communications Authority then puts the money into trust and the moneys are then paid to Telstra. The Australian Communications Authority is working with Telstra—the main player, as we all know—C&W Optus, Vodafone and the telecommunications consultancy firm Bellcore to build a computer model to calculate the net cost of the universal service obligation. Typically, the non-Telstra part of the industry pays about 15 per cent of the net universal service cost.We have an interesting problem. Telstra is covering the cost and, as other speakers have alluded to, there has been a debate about the figure. In the past, Optus, Telstra and Vodafone agreed with the cost that was put forward. In 1993-94, the carriers agreed on a figure of $230 million, to be increased by the CPI each year. By 1996-97, the figure had risen to a mere $252 million. Since 1993, the carriers have worked on a new model for working out the cost and the main players seem to be happy enough.However, in September 1998, Telstra agreed to a new model. This was an interesting development from my point of view. Suddenly, Telstra came up with a claim—and the member for Mitchell would be interested to hear this—of $1.8 billion. Suddenly, it went from $250 million to $1.8 billion. The ACA now has to assess this remarkable change in claim because the government has a view that that is rather destabilising to the industry, to say the least. It puts tremendous competitive pressure on carriers other than Telstra.If Telstra's claim that the CSO is $1.8 billion is upheld, then the other competitors would find their budgets and profitability severely disadvantaged. The government is saying that we should cap the universal service obligation at $253 million and not $1.8 billion. It seems reasonable in anyone's language that this figure, which is hard enough to work out in the first place, should be capped by legislation. If the industry could not agree after discussions with the authority, that would apply. The cap would apply to 1998-99 and 1999-2000. If there were a lower figure, that would apply. I think the govern ment is being reasonable about this. It is trying to look after all the companies if it possibly can.The integrity of the universal service obligation will be maintained in the new rules under this legislation. The Communications Authority will assess these claims in a transparent manner. They have to be published in the Gazette so everyone will fully understand them. I wanted to raise that question about the modelling and the establishment of the universal service obligation.I had the privilege of serving on the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communications, Transport and Microeconomic Reform and it produced a report called Keeping rural Australia posted. That report looked at Australia Post's community service obligations in regard to the standard letter rate. That raised a number of fundamental policy issues about how Australia Post calculated the CSO and how it would be paid for. The members of the committee travelled around Australia investigating that authority and how a letter that was posted in Sydney could be delivered to Oodnadatta, Alice Springs, Carnarvon and Darwin at the same price of 45c as it cost for it to be delivered from one part of Pitt Street to another.The interesting thing we learned on that particular inquiry was that it was unclear what the best model was for calculating the CSO. For instance, Australia Post had a calculation that provided a community service obligation of $65 million. This calculation was based on the avoidable cost method—that is, the net cost that would be provided if the business did not provide the community service obligation. In simple terms, they would be $65 million better off. Another calculation was through the fully distributed costs methodology. That would bring about a CSO of $137 million. Yet another approach was the stand-alone methodology, which calculated the cost of providing the CSO at $155 million. So the fairly simple operation of delivering a standard letter around Australia created a lot of debate by Australia Post and the committee on how to calculate the CSO.We have this remarkable situation before the parliament with Telstra suddenly moving from $250 million up to $1.8 billion, but what is the methodology and how do you do it? We in the committee that looked at Australia Post's CSO recommended that Australia Post incorporate the community service obligation into their running costs, that it be identifiable but not be put on budget. So Australia Post were committed to remaining profitable and part of their commitment to country and rural people was to deliver that standard letter anywhere around Australia for 45c.It is interesting that the competitors of Telstra are complaining that this figure of $1.8 billion for the universal service obligation is a wild ambit claim by Telstra, and that it is unfair. They are suggesting that a number of improvements can be made to the way in which the service can be delivered, that satellite telephony rather than copper wire networks could help reduce costs and that the subsidy per line would drop from $3½ thousand to $540. That is a remarkable change. They are saying that the highest single line subsidy would drop from something like $83,000 to $1,000. So there are some interesting figures that support the argument that the government should legislate to make sure there is a comparatively level playing field in drawing up the CSO.C&W Optus is saying that the number of lines that Telstra claim would require a subsidy would fall from nearly 500,000 down to 330,000 through the use of advances in cheaper technology, that moving into newer technology away from copper networks would make a remarkable change. The introduction of satellite technology, which all members would be aware of, would obviously be cheaper.So we have a situation in which the government has seen fit to introduce this legislation to bring about a more competitive telecommunications marketplace. The objective of the government, in a very difficult area, has been to maintain a level of competition in a complex, modern technology where new companies are trying to compete with the giant of Telstra, which other speakers have alluded to.This legislation is fair, it puts a cap on the CSO and the independent authority is able to estimate a reasonable amount as to what the CSO is costing the communications carriers. I suggest a model for Australian conditions which ensures that Telstra, as the big player, along with the other competitors, shares the load—unlike the model of Australia Post, which carries the total load of the cost of the standard letter to every household in Australia, where some of the other postal operators do not make a contribution to the CSO.So we have an interesting model here where Australia has developed this possibility whereby, in a competitive market, all players contribute a figure. Obviously there will be considerable debate on what that figure is. But the bottom line is that rural and remote Australians, along with their city friends and cousins, will receive new and updated services. This legislation will protect their rights and make sure that there are competitive services from all the communications carriers.21:26:004727McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPArts and the Centenary of Federation10—I wish to thank all members who have contributed to this worthwhile debate on the Telecommunications Laws Amendment (Universal Service Cap) Bill 1999 . It has been very interesting and I think all members who have participated in it have brought something to it. Whilst we do not agree with everything that was said by members opposite, the fact is that they did put their point in a very direct and lucid fashion.May I remind the House and anybody listening to this broadcast—there are always quite a few people—what exactly it is that we are talking about. What we are discussing tonight is how we fund the universal service obligation for the telecommunications industry. The definition of the universal service obligation, USO, is provided for us in the act. The main object of the universal service obligation is to ensure that all people in Australia, wherever they reside or carry on business, should have reasonable access on an equitable basis to, firstly, standard telephone services; secondly, payphones; and, thirdly, prescribed carriage services. So tonight we are discussing legislation as to just how we fund this universal service obligation.Firstly, the Australian Communications Authority, the ACA, determines a methodology for determining the cost of the USO, based on certain principles. A methodology was developed over several years and a final way to do it was determined in September last year. Secondly, Telstra is required to submit its claim to the ACA within a certain time frame specified in the legislation. Telstra's claim for the 1997-98 financial year, using the determined methodology, was submitted in September of last year. Thirdly, the ACA must assess Telstra's claim and make a determination of the universal service obligation cost for the relevant financial year. The ACA is currently assessing Telstra's claim in consultation with the industry and is expected to finalise its assessments in about June this year. Fourthly, once the ACA has determined the universal service obligation cost, all carriers in the industry are then required to make a payment in proportion to their revenue, that is, their market share, in a previous year. Those moneys are then paid to Telstra.The best way to sum this up is that Telstra had 85 per cent of the market share in the 1997-98 financial year, so it contributes 85 per cent of the cost of the universal service obligation which, remember, is a cross-subsidy so that all Australians, wherever they live, have access to a standard telephone service and a payphone service.I might turn to the individual contributors to the debate. First off was the member for Perth, the shadow minister for communications. He made an interesting contribution. He supports the legislation but does suggest that, when the bill is in the Senate, Labor senators will move an amendment that more information about the universal service obligation claim needs to be made available earlier. The government will consider that amendment when it is finally moved in the Senate.The second thing the member for Perth spoke about was competitive selection tendering for the universal service obligation. He indicated his interest and indeed—if I understood him correctly, and I do stand to be corrected—his support in principle for the idea of tendering of the universal service obligation. We are committed to exploring tendering of the USO because it holds a promise of reduced costs and more competition. For the information of the member for Perth and the House, the government will shortly be releasing a discussion paper seeking comments and indications of interest, particularly from companies which may be interested in bidding to be the universal service provider.The third thing the member for Perth raised—principally at least amongst several other comments he made—was a number of questions directed at the government. I am happy to advise the member for Perth that the Australian Communications Authority, the ACA, will report to the government by 30 June, as I said a short while ago. The Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts will conduct a review regarding future USO funding arrangements and, drawing on advice from the ACA's final assessment into the 1997-98 cost claim, announce the new arrangements in the second half of this year. The government will enact any legislation before the 2000-01 financial year starts. The review, I hasten to add, will be open to public consultation.The member for Hinkler spoke extremely well—not surprisingly, given his longstanding interest and involvement in telecommunications issues—on the universal service obligation. He raised the issue of the government's election commitment to upgrade the USO to include a 64 kilobyte per second digital data service.As the honourable member knows, during the election campaign the government made a commitment to legislate to include the following in the USO: firstly, access to ISDN on demand for 96 per cent of the population; and, secondly, for the four per cent not able to access ISDN on demand, the provision of an on-demand Internet based asymmetric satellite service that delivers a satellite down link service comparable to a 64 kilobyte per second service, and reimbursement of up to 50 per cent of the price of purchasing the necessary satellite receiving equipment. What has happened to the government's commit ments in this regard? We remain committed to these digital data commitments and we will be announcing how to implement them in due course.The member for Hinkler was followed by the member for Calare. The member for Calare tried to establish a moral equivalency between the Labor Party and the Liberal and National parties on this question of the closure of the analog network. There is no moral equivalency here. The Labor Party knows only too well that it signed away the analog system in 1992.Mr Lee interjecting—XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURAN—The member for Dobell—who was the minister for communications at the time—interjects, `Why didn't you renegotiate the contract?' Firstly, we came to power almost four years later and in the meantime a great deal of money—hundreds of millions of dollars—had been invested by carriers in the digital network. Secondly, our legal advice, as the member for Dobell must know, was that it would cost the government billions of dollars in compensation to renege on his binding contract.So we did the best deal possible given those legal constraints—which was that the analog system, or the AMPS system, would only be phased out when you had a CDMA system which gave reasonably equivalent coverage. That is what we are doing and that is what I want to assure the member for Calare, who rightly raised this on behalf of his rural constituency, about. The government has an agreement that CDMA must provide reasonably equivalent coverage before an analog base station can be closed down. Along with all rural members of the government, I am rightly proud that we negotiated that settlement with the carriers.Bear in mind that CDMA technology is equivalent in standard to digital, so we get all the benefits of digital. We get the benefits of the digital handset. We get the security of line. We get the call diversion. We get all the other message and communications benefits of digital. So why should people in the country be lumbered with the analog system, which is largely outdated now, except admittedly in terms of reception?The member for Dobell had a number of talents and successes as a minister, but this was not one of them. This is something that will be engraved on his headstone—his political headstone, I hasten to add. As minister for communications, he sold out the analog system. Really, I think the member for Calare ought to be congratulating us rather than suggesting that we are no better than the Labor Party, which had sold out the analog network almost four years before we came to government. We have made the best of the situation by providing reasonably equivalent courage and by upgrading the analog handset capacities and facilities to that of digital.The member for Calare also asked, rightly so, what would happen if the cost of the universal service obligation is $1.8 billion as Telstra initially claimed. We have found that the first consultant's reports prepared for the ACA in its examination of the issue indicate that the cost is likely to be significantly less than $1.8 billion. All carriers, in any event, share the cost of fulfilling the USO in proportion to their telecommunications revenue. Tendering is to be examined as a method of giving a chance for other players in the industry to contribute to the delivery of universal service. As the member for Perth noted in his speech, this will give a better assessment of the cost of delivering the USO.The member for Calare was followed by the member for Moreton, who made his usual erudite and detailed comments. Again, he is somebody who has a life career's background in telecommunications. He brought a different perspective to the issues, and mostly on behalf of his urban constituency. So I thank the member for Moreton for his work here this evening.The member for Corangamite followed the member for Moreton. What I would like to say about the member for Corangamite is that he gave a landmark speech. Anybody who wants to know how deeply committed the government is to the provision of rural services as we move towards the further privatisation of Telstra should read the speech of the member for Corangamite. It was detailed. It was thorough. It was strong on behalf of his constituency. The member for Corangamite noted how deeply committed the government is to providing good services to rural areas. He is somebody who is prepared to fight on behalf of his constituency, not blame anybody else, and to provide the necessary leadership in his constituency to convince people—and it is not always easy, we all know that—that the government's plans for further privatisation are sensible and in their interests. I do thank the member for Corangamite for his very useful analogy with the difficulties in calculating the costs of Australia Post's community service obligations. There are considerable parallels with Telstra's claim about its universal obligation costs.In conclusion, I would wish to thank the House for its support for this bill. I reiterate that this is only fall-back legislation in case the industry cannot reach agreement on this issue of costing the universal service obligation. For now, the government will continue to seek industry agreement for a $253 million cap for the 1997-98 financial year as well as a cap of some kind for the next two financial years to provide certainty while the government reviews the universal service obligation funding arrangements.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.4730Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr McGauran) read a third time.Bills4730r7394730Debate resumed from 11 March, on motion by Dr Kemp:That the bill be now read a second time.21:40:004730Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—For most of the 99 years we have had something called the Australian parliament, our nation has relied on agricultural and mining exports. In the last 50 years, our nation has tried to develop our manufacturing base. In the last 15, our manufacturing industries have been transformed from the inward looking, protected backwaters they were when Dr Kemp, the current Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, was advising Malcolm Fraser as Prime Minister and the then Treasurer, John Howard, on our national economy.In the last 15 years, we have transformed Australia's manufacturing industries into industries that are leaner, that are more export oriented or dependent on using innovation, that are not afraid of a floating Australian dollar, that are not held back by a banking system put to sleep in those Fraser years and that are not dependent on government handouts. In the last decade or two, we have seen many Australian companies develop great expertise in exporting services in the fields of engineering and construction, in health care, in accountancy services to Asia, in tourism—international visitors coming to use the Australian tourism industry—and in the way that we have developed many of our knowledge based industries, and there are many industries that rely on the development of clever computer software or the development of products that generate income through the licensing of intellectual property. We have seen a great transformation in all these industries.As the pace of change accelerates, the one thing we can be certain of is that in the next 15 years, the next 50 years or the next 100 years our future will depend like never before on how well we educate and train the next generation of Australians. Whether it is through the quality of education they get at school, at TAFE or, most importantly, at university, the investment our nation makes in education will determine what sort of a country we have. The better our universities, the more we will understand ourselves, our history, our culture, the medical research opportunities and the ways we can improve our manufacturing industries even further.All of that depends on the quality of our universities. In many ways, understanding the challenges that face our nation in the future also depends on how well we can question and debate issues, and many of those debates often start on our university campuses. In purely economic terms, better universities produce better graduates, and those better graduates will be better able to make the discoveries, to develop the research and to help make Australia a more innovative society. Better education now also means that we will have more high quality, high wage jobs in the future.The Howard government has never understood that. How could Dr Kemp, the minister for education, claim to understand the importance of education as an investment when one of the government's first decisions was to slash federal funding from the universities and TAFE? We had $840 million slashed from university operating grants. We had a reduction in the forward projections for fully funded university places of $21,000. We had increases in the Higher Education Contribution Scheme, HECS, of $2,258 a year if you made the decision to study maths, science or engineering—massive increases to discourage those Australians who made the decision to try to make a contribution to our society.We have had half a billion dollars cut from student income support, placing more financial burdens on the shoulders of students and their families. We have had the government also cutting $240 million over four years from the forward estimates for TAFE. When you consider all of this, it basically means that under the Howard government we have seen a six per cent cut in investment in public education between 1996-97 and the year 2001-2002.You may well ask why we are considering the Higher Education Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 here tonight with a record like that, with a record of the government having slashed massive amounts of money from education. Why aren't we debating how we can provide more assistance to our schools, our TAFEs, our universities—how we can provide them with more resources to provide quality education in Australia? Instead of debating those real issues we have the government seeking to introduce legislation to attack student organisations.The real reason that this legislation is before the House tonight is that the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Dr Kemp, lost half of his job after the last election. For better or for worse, it now means that the minister can focus all of his time and all of his attention on education. And, rather than take up the fight with his ministerial colleagues for a better deal for university and TAFE funding, for a better deal for more funding for schools, he has launched an ideological attack on student associations. This vindictive and destructive legislation is this minister's attempt to win back attention and to curry favour with a Prime Minister who has lost confidence in him.This legislation, this so-called voluntary student union legislation, has more to do with the minister for education's sliding position on the cabinet top 30 than with any real concern about students and their welfare. For years we have had the government claiming—and, in fact, the minister for education was claiming this—that this was a state government issue. In fact, the coalition policy document for the 1996 election contains under the heading `Student Unionism' the following statement, `The coalition recognises state jurisdiction in this area.'So up until the 1996 election we had the government saying, `It is up to the state parliaments as to whether or not they should bring in voluntary student unionism in their state.' We had the federal Liberal Party saying that it was an issue for Mr Kennett and the Victorian government to decide what happened in their state, that it was up to Richard Court and the Western Australian parliament as to what the rules would be in their state.Only two things have changed since 1996 when the Liberal Party policy was, `The federal coalition recognises state jurisdiction in this area.' Only two things have changed. Firstly, the minister for education, Dr Kemp, stuffed up the Job Network. He made a complete hash of the abolition of the Commonwealth Employment Service and of the introduction of his Job Network, which has been a complete and utter disaster in providing services to young Australians and to people who are looking for work.Mr Truss interjecting—MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—The Minister for Community Services at the table interjects, `Not if you are looking for a job.' It is a pity that, like the Minister for Employment Services, the minister at the table has not been listening to the people who are out there at the job face trying to provide services to young Australians looking for a job. You might well say, `If Dr Kemp did not stuff up the Job Network, why was it taken off him? Why did he lose half of his job if he was such a great success?' It is common knowledge that the Prime Minister has lost confidence in this minister.GT4TRUSSMr Truss—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. This legislation is about higher education. It has nothing to do with the Job Network, and I ask you to draw the member for Dobell's attention to the issues before the House.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Quick)—There is no point of order. This is a wide-ranging debate. I think the shadow minister is relevant.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—Thank you for your protection, Mr Deputy Speaker, from this scurrilous attack by the Minister for Community Services. I was just making the point that in 1996 the government policy was, `This is a matter for the state parliaments.' And only two things have changed since 1996 when their policy was that it was up to the states. The first thing is that Dr Kemp stuffed up the Job Network. The second thing is that student associations had the temerity to oppose this government's cutbacks in federal funding for universities.The student organisations, the student unions, the student associations and the student guilds were the organisations that were out there campaigning most strongly against this government's $840 million cut in federal funding for universities. And it is for that reason that we believe that this legislation is vindictive. It is a revenge attack on student organisations for strongly opposing those cuts in federal funding for universities.And in some ways it fits into a pattern. When the Combined Pensioners and Superannuants Federation spoke out strongly against this government's federal funding cuts to nursing homes, when they opposed this government's federal funding cuts to aged care programs, Dr Wooldridge removed their funding. So the Combined Pensioners and Superannuants Federation can no longer produce their national newsletter, their national organisation has lost the funding that they had previously been provided with by the federal Department of Family and Community Services. Also, when the Australian Youth Policy in Action Coalition spoke out strongly about this government's changes to Youth Allowance, they had their funding abolished.There is a clear message going to any organisation, whether it is the pensioners association or AYPAC or student unions—if you oppose this government's attacks on young people, on students or on any other group in the community, then your funding is placed at risk; if the Howard government does not like what you are saying, then all of your funding is cut back. So the reason for which this government has introduced this legislation, this so-called voluntary student union legislation, is that it is a vindictive attempt to get revenge on student unions because they opposed this government's cuts in federal funding for universities.Many of the members of the coalition seek to portray student associations as being in some way ALP organisations. Senator Tierney wrote to the Herald the other day alleging that student unions made donations to the ALP at the last federal election. I am sure my colleagues on this side of the House will remember the many occasions on which the Australian Union of Students, AUS—the former national organisation of students—and the current National Union of Students have run campaigns against Labor governments.OT4CHARLESMr Charles—Which one?MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—The introduction of HECS, if you cannot remember. If the member for La Trobe does not know anything about this issue, he should refrain from making stupid interjections. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am sure that, with a memory like yours, you know the number of occasions on which the National Union of Students and its predecessor organisations have run campaigns against Labor governments. They are quite prepared to speak out strongly and impartially in favour of what they believe is in the interests of students, and they have demonstrated that by running campaigns against Labor governments more often than they have run campaigns against Liberal governments.OT4CHARLESMr Charles—What a lot of rubbish!MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—The member for La Trobe dismisses that as rubbish. I challenge him to get the Parliamentary Library to do some research for him so that he does not mislead the House when he speaks in this debate. If he does not know the history to this debate, then his contribution will be as sensible as his interjections. In no way whatsoever can anyone sustain the argument that student organisations have not been loud and vocal in the defence of what they believe are the interests of students. Whether there has been a federal Labor government or a federal Liberal government, they have been outspoken in the way they have sought to defend the interests, as they see them, of students.As I said the other day on the MPI, I suspect that if some of the student organisations in some states were not called student unions—if they were all called student associations or student guilds—then we would not be having this debate at all. The government is obsessed with the word `union'. As I mentioned the other day, we fear for the future of credit unions, rugby union clubs and the European Union, given this government's obsession with that word `union'. We believe that student unions, student associations and student guilds have a legitimate role in speaking out on behalf of students when federal governments seek to make decisions about funding for universities or about funding provided to students on income support. They have a legitimate right to speak out on behalf of students. They have a legitimate role in speaking on behalf of students on campus if vice-chancellors or deans are looking at making decisions. For example, at UNE recently there was a decision by the Vice-Chancellor and the Council of the University of New England to close down one of their engineering courses. The student union at that campus spoke out strongly in opposition to that decision and it was overturned. That is a very clear example of students speaking out in the interests of a small number of their members but a small number that were going to be badly disadvantaged by a decision on that campus. So that is also a legitimate role that that local student union played.They have also got the right to organise services on behalf of students. In some campuses, they have the student union looking after the cafeterias and sporting facilities. On other campuses, there is a university union which has nothing to do with the student political activity that organises and constructs buildings and makes sure that services are there for the students. All of that is a legitimate role for a student association on a university campus. And what this government does in seeking to attack student unions and student associations is to deny student unions their legitimate right to organise.We believe that, even if this government is against the political activity of students, it has never understood that 95 per cent of the money raised from the compulsory student fees goes towards activities totally unrelated to the student association's political activities.OT4CHARLESMr Charles—It is totally inefficient.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—The member for La Trobe interjects that it is totally inefficient. He obviously does not understand the needs of his own constituents who may be students attending universities. If he did understand that 95 per cent of the money raised went towards providing services to students, then the government's obsession with student unions would not result in legislation such as that before the House tonight.Let me remind the House that organisations like the Australasian Campus Union Managers Association have done some work looking at the services provided to students right across the country. ACUMA conducted a survey of its member organisations in February this year to ascertain the likely effect of the VSU legislation on the various service providers on the campuses. Forty-six separate campus service organisations replied to the questionnaire, representing campuses in both urban areas and the bush and covering all states except Western Australia where they already have VSU under state legislation.This is a list of the services that ACUMA found would be affected by the VSU legislation: accommodation, activities and recreation programs, advocacy, advisory governing boards, student appeals, cafeteria bars, child care, cinemas, clubs and societies, diary, employment and careers, graduation support, help desks, student accident insurance, legal advice, student media, student development courses, social events, faculty development, meeting rooms, lounges, libraries, study rooms, orientation weeks, information publications, radio, short courses, postgraduate support, tax service, dental care, SRCs, student associations and welfare. And in the sport and recreation area we have: camps, clubs, intra- and inter-university competitions, equipment hire, fitness centres, insurance, recreation programs and also sports fields and facilities.Is it any wonder that ACUMA goes on to calculate that the number of jobs lost if this legislation is passed is more than 2,400? It is no surprise, given that so many people are employed in providing those services to students on campuses right across the country. We simply say to the government that when you put the boot into student associations you are putting the boot into services like child care, legal advice, housing assistance and sexual counselling. You are putting the boot into the provision of food in the cafeterias. You are putting the boot into the jobs of the people who work behind the counters in the cafeterias. You are undermining the provision of sporting facilities on campuses.You are also going to make it more difficult for bands to play at universities. We think it is also very important, when it is getting more difficult for clubs and pubs to provide venues for new and emerging bands, that the university circuit should be one of the crucial places in this day and age where young bands can get a chance to become well known and to make their names. In putting the boot into student associations, you are also undermining the opportunities for young Australian musicians and people involved in bands.Is it any wonder that members of the government's own backbench have been speaking out against this legislation? We have had the member for Kennedy—OT4CHARLESMr Charles—Not me!MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—The person sitting behind you has. We will get to her in a minute. What we wonder is whether the member for La Trobe is still in the majority in the government party room because we know that there has been an increasing number of members of the government backbench who have been expressing their concerns about the impact that this legislation will have in their electorates. The member for Kennedy said that he was worried about the potential impact on universities in rural and regional areas and the loss of essential services. He went on to say:I would have thought a good 10 or 20 (MPs) at least are very concerned about this particular aspect of it.My good friend the member for Gilmore said on Radio Illawarra:If the university needs extra funding for their services and they have been doing it through fees with their students, then so be it. That's the universities' business, that's not the Government's business.We thank the member for Gilmore for making it clear it should be the universities' business. It should not be the federal government interfering and stopping the University of Wollongong having a compulsory fee to fund the services for people in the Illawarra. We are also quite pleased that the Liberal Tasmanian members of the Legislative Assembly carried a resolution last week, which said:That this House expresses its concern at the Federal Liberal Government's attempts to outlaw compulsory student services and amenities fees and notes the detrimental effect that such a move would have on the ability of student unions to provide a wide range of essential services.The member for La Trobe might still be in favour of the legislation, but every Liberal member of the Tasmanian Legislative Assembly agreed to this resolution. It was passed unanimously, without dissent, in the Tasmanian Legislative Assembly.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—That is a tautology.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—It may not be. It was passed without dissent and we also then conclude that it was unanimous. That is why we make the point that it was unanimous and without dissent and therefore represents the views of all Liberal members of that Tasmanian Legislative Assembly.The member for Groom understands that the cultural centre in Toowoomba is managed and constructed by their local student association. The member for New England has to work out what his position will be on this legislation, given that they had no cinema for many years and it was only because of the student association that they have a cinema back in Armidale. The member for Page has to work out what his position will be, given that in Lismore the student association is contributing one-third of the cost of a new swimming pool. All of these are good examples of how student associations in many country towns provide a substantial economic boost to a region. They provide access to facilities that otherwise would not be available for many people.Many vice-chancellors have already spoken out about their concerns about what the impact of this legislation will be. The Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee issued the following statement:`Voluntary Student Union' legislation introduced into the federal parliament today by the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Dr. Kemp, poses a threat to the continued viability of campus based education in Australia.John Niland, the President of the AVCC, said:The legislation confuses two distinct issues—one irrelevant and one dangerous. First, it seeks to make voluntary the membership of any student association, yet this is not an issue because membership of student associations is already voluntary.That is a very important point. It is already voluntary in the overwhelming majority of universities across the country. He continues:Secondly, it seeks to make voluntary the payment of any fees for amenities enjoyed in common by students.This second aspect of the legislation will undermine the quality and even the viability of our university communities just as surely as legislation to allow voluntary payment of local council rates would undermine local communities anywhere. It is a very fair comparison. If we made local council rates voluntary in our communities, local councils would receive much less revenue. They would have less money to spend on essential services for a community. If only one in five Australians paid their local council rates, there would be only one-fifth of the amount of money available for garbage collection services, only one-fifth of the amount of money available to look after the parks and gardens and local roads. That is what this government is trying to do to university campuses. They are trying to make sure that, as in Western Australia, the revenue of student associations and student unions is cut by 80 per cent, meaning a massive reduction in services to students. An article in the Australian of 17 March states:Melbourne's Alan Gilbert, who is close to the Coalition Government, attacked the Bill as a "devastating threat" to the educational experience of campus students.Sydney's Gavin Brown—Vice-Chancellor of the University of Sydney—said the Bill elevated self-interest over common welfare.The article continued:University of Queensland chancellor and former Queensland Liberal deputy premier Llewellyn Edwards—a highly regarded Australian on both sides of this House—condemned the move as "unacceptable" and said he "stood shoulder to shoulder" with students in opposing the Bill.A former Chief Justice of Australia, Sir Gerard Brennan, made a few remarks about this when he was inducted as the new chancellor of the University of Technology in Sydney. An article in the Age of 19 March states:Federal Government plans to ban compulsory contributions to student organisations are an attempt to take away the independence of universities and diminish dissent, according to a former Chief Justice of the High Court, Sir Gerard Brennan.The introduction of voluntary student unionism could threaten vital elements of tertiary education and turn democracy into "a hollow incantation", Sir Gerard said yesterday. Millicent Poole, Vice-Chancellor of Edith Cowan University, knows a lot about what voluntary student unionism has done to student unions in Western Australia. Members of the government claim that in Western Australia where VSU has been introduced services are more relevant to students because of the introduction of voluntary fees. I am sure the member for La Trobe will make that claim in a few minutes. Vice-Chancellor Millicent Poole from Edith Cowan University made the following remarks:. . . there's a whole raft of activities that have just disappeared from West Australian universities—because of VSU. She goes on to say:. . . I think this would be considered as a fairly draconian intrusion into university management and governance.She is referring to the government threatening to reduce funding to universities if they do not follow this government's dictates. The minister also claims that in some way there are Australian students who are not going to university because of the added financial burden of paying a $200 compulsory student activities fee. He actually made this claim in an article in the Australian on 26 February. He said:A few may have to drop out or defer their courses; many more will have to borrow or delay other necessary expenditure.This is allegedly because of the student fee. The problem that Dr Kemp, the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, has with this is that he is part of the government that massively increased the HECS charges to all students. If someone enrols today to do a three-year arts course, they will be paying an extra $2,574 during their three years of study. If they enrol in a maths, science or computing degree for three years, they will be paying an extra $6,774 during their studies. If they wish to study vet science over five years, they will be paying an extra $15,290 because of decisions this government has taken.The point I make is that Dr Kemp claims that people are discontinuing their studies because of a $200 fee, yet his government increases the cost of a degree for someone doing vet science by $15,000. It is for that reason that we on this side of the House are opposed to the legislation. I move a second reading amendment in the following terms:That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:"The bill be withdrawn and redrafted to provide for removal of the items which seek to impose voluntary student unionism, which will damage the interests of students, communities and the nation as a whole by(1) undermining the independence of universities by imposing political conditions on Commonwealth grants;(2) reducing student representation in an attempt to silence opposition to higher education funding cuts;(3) slashing services available to students, such as child care, legal and employment advice, cafeterias and sporting facilities;(4) placing a further financial burden on universities; and(5) putting at risk community services, facilities and employment, particularly in regional areas."These are the reasons why we believe this legislation should be opposed. These are the reasons why we are moving this second reading amendment. This government has never understood that by cutting back funding for universities and TAFE colleges it is cutting back on investment in the future of the nation, an investment in the future of young kids at school, young Australians who want to get the best possible start in life by putting a lot of years of their lives into studying at university and TAFE. It is these people's futures that are at risk as a result of dangerous and vindictive legislation such as that which is before the House tonight. These are the reasons why the Labor Party will oppose this at every possible opportunity.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Is the amendment seconded?83LGILLARDMs Gillard—I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.22:10:004736Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4LaTrobeLP10—Might I say that I have looked forward to debate on the Higher Education Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 from the moment the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs introduced it into the House. It is my normal wont to address no more than three issues in a debate of substance in 20 minutes, but tonight I want to cover 10: (1) compulsion, (2) voluntary membership as a right, (3) undesirable consequences of compulsory student unionism, (4) financial imposts, (5) objects of student unionism, (6) responsiveness of student representative organisations, (7) the WA model, (8) the Victorian model, (9) competition in service delivery, and (10) vice-chancellors' rent seeking.A student should not have to join an organisation that he or she may not wish to join to access services he or she may not wish to use and be required to pay an up-front fee that he or she may not be able to afford. In 1990 and again in 1991 I introduced into this House a private member's bill associated with membership of association. In my first reading speech on 6 December 1990 I said:In democratic societies we have long held sacrosanct the rights and responsibilities of the individual. Foremost of the rights that we hold dear are the right of free speech and the right of freedom of association.. . . . . . . . .This Bill addresses a major inequity which has existed in practice if not in law since Federation. That inequity is the right of individuals to make a choice of whether or not to join a union or a representative organisation.In my second reading speech on 16 May 1991 I said:There is, of course, no logical reason why individuals, groups of individuals, associations or companies should be compelled to join or be members of any association.I would hold that as an inalienable truth—that is, compulsion in membership is an anathema to the Australian population. We have only one remaining unit of compulsion that I know of in this society in terms of joining an association—compulsory student unionism. I am opposed to it and I will speak strongly against it. Compulsory student unionism has many undesirable consequences. It denies students the fundamental freedom to choose those organisations they join and fund, it leads to massive inefficiency in the provision of extra curricular services to students and it guarantees funding for political campaigns to student unions.There is a great financial impost on students who are required to join student unions and fund activities which they may or may not wish to utilise. The $325 a year up-front at the beginning of the year that a student is made to pay as a condition of their enrolment is money that is not going to be used buying books or public transport concession cards or a new set of clothes. For students in post-secondary schooling, the start of the year is often the toughest as all these costs come at once. The only compulsory up-front fee for university students is the student union fee. I ask you to consider that strongly: the only compulsory up-front fee is the student union fee.I have quotes from a couple of my constituents that I would like to read to the House:One young man a helper of mine during my last election campaign started an Arts/Law course at the University of Melbourne this year. He has said: "Before I enrolled I had just over $500 in my bank account—studying so hard in Year 12 meant that I never had time to earn a lot of money. After I paid my $320 compulsory union fee and over $100 for a public transport concession card I didn't have enough money to buy all of my books. I still don't have them all. I'm not interested in the university social life and am happy to take the train to uni, do my classes then return home again. Why should I have to pay for services that I am not going to use with the money I need for my books."Good question.I have the example of one young couple where the male is starting a new business and just starting to get some income and the girl is studying at university. Money had to be put aside for books and amenities fees—it became a choice between books and amenities fees. As a young engaged couple neither has any time to make use of the facilities provided by the university but are still being asked to pay. They are trying to do right thing in setting up a small business which will pay taxes and employ other Australians.The left say that the university provides all these services to the local community but it is at the expense of people who cannot even afford to buy the books they need to undertake their studies.It is a very strong argument as to why the compulsion to pay fees up-front is an inequity, and why they are a burden on young students that they should not be required to pay. The fees should, in fact, be voluntary.On all public university campuses students constitute most or all of the governing bodies of student unions or associations. The objects of these bodies are quite distinct from those of the university; indeed, many are incorporated as separate entities. This separatism is important because it means that, for a student to freely associate with the university and the student union, two separate contracts should be entered into. A student contracting with a university for an educational course should not be forced into a quite separate contract with the student union, as is presently the case. Such third-line forcing is illegal in many commercial relationships. It is deceitful of the universities to argue that students freely consent to join and fund student unions when they fail to inform students that these services are provided by student unions and restrict their freedom to decide whether or not they wish to join or fund the union.Compulsory membership does not encourage unions to be responsive to the views of all of its members. Any organisation that gets members regardless of its success obviously does not have to be genuinely representative. Compulsory membership breeds political and economic unaccountability. Office-bearers pursue political agendas that can be best described as non-mainstream with compulsory funds and no opt-out option for students who do not want their money spent that way. In accordance with the purchaser-provider model, the union board sets the rules for private sector and in-house outlets on campus and, of course, runs the in-house services free of rent and other costs. Students pay only because they have to. If they wanted to be involved, more would vote at union elections. I note the average voter turnout is only 20 per cent.I want to address two models which are on the board today, and the member for Dobell mentioned both of them. The Western Australian model, known as full VSU, prevents student unions from collecting compulsory fees from students and requiring students to join the union. Of the two models—this and the Victorian model—this is the one which is closer to the federal government's legislation. The implementation of the Western Australian model has seen a reduction in union fees and no substantial reduction in services offered to students. Some new services are actually provided on some campuses.As the minister noted in his second reading speech, the Curtin University Guild now provides a casual employment register, as well as resume writing and interview skills. It still has a child-care service for those who wish to use it, as well as funding for clubs and societies, a student diary and various other things. The University of Western Australia still has a student magazine and diary, and has enjoyed a surge of new retail outlets, including banks, an eye-care centre and a laminating service.The Victorian attempt to introduce voluntary membership of student representative organisations, known as VSR—voluntary student representation—allows students a choice as to whether or not they join the student union but still requires the payment of a compulsory fee supposedly for non-political services. This is possibly worst because students still have to pay the money but choose whether or not they want representation. There are definitional problems with what is or is not political. The fees charged to students have not fallen as their collection is still compulsory. The funding for political activities is virtually unchanged as there is no clear definition of political and member service.The University of Melbourne loses approximately $250,000 per year in its catering department. In other words, VSU has completely failed to address the economic problems associated with a non-essential business being run by the non-private sector. It allows student money to cross-subsidise loss-making catering operations and income from union operated sources to be used for political activities, thereby getting around the problem of student money funding political campaigns.Today, over the AP wire, I received notice that the NUS:. . . condemned as reprehensible a decision by Monash University to strip a campus union of control over student funds.The print-out mentions Professor John Anderson, who runs the Gippsland campus of Monash University together with the Berwick campus and the Frankston campus, and stated that Monash announced that:. . . it had ceased using the student union on its Gippsland campus to provide student services from compulsory fees, replacing it with its own Student Amenities and Services Unit.It continues:. . . Professor John Anderson said the union had built up a loss of $100,000 last year and denied the move had anything to do with the Federal Government's proposed Voluntary Student Unionism Bill.And well he might say that after last year's loss of $100,000. Quite frankly, that is reminiscent of stories I have heard over and over again in listening to this debate on the compulsory nature of student unionism and how student activists who control the money use that money to run student services—and frequently, with those services being run non-competitively, they are run at a loss.The Australian of 3 March 1999 has an article by Russell Ayres, headed `Why voluntary unionism won't work'. There, amongst other things, he states:The prime rationale for the Bill is that it will enhance freedom of association by allowing students to choose whether to belong to and fund student organisations. This argument has some merit in that some (probably most) students would prefer not to pay for the services and representation delivered by activities funded through compulsory services and amenities fees.He continues:The problem is that many (if not all) of these same students would like to continue to have access to cheap, subsidised food, community support and social services. And they certainly want their university to be aware of their interests and to have a voice in the institutions' decision-making processes.For heaven's sake, if they want low cost food, why not have competition on the campus from private service providers? Why not? In that way they will make the lowest payment. Why should they have to pay up-front student union service fees to subsidise low cost food? Those who want low cost food can either pay the cheaper prices that would occur with competition being supplied at the facility or use their money to pay more for their food than in paying up-front fees in the first place. As I have already quoted, the second point that Russell Ayres makes is that students:. . . certainly want their university to be aware of their interests and to have a voice in the institutions' decision-making processes.What the heck does that have to do with compulsion? If students want their views known, then surely they are willing to join a voluntary organisation and well and truly make their views known.Mr Deputy Speaker, I am unaware of whether anyone ever forced you to join the National Party. I am unaware of whether anyone ever forced the member for Dobell to join the Labor Party. Certainly no-one ever forced me to join the Liberal Party. What an absolute nonsense. Why do we still in this day and age have this anachronism that the only way that we can have a voice on our student campuses is if we have compulsion? It is an absolute and utter nonsense.As I have said, the last issue I wish to address tonight is that of rent seeking by vice-chancellors. The Australian Liberal Students' Federation, February 1999, states:The Vice-Chancellors . . . argue that legislation for VSU is an unreasonable intrusion on the universities' institutional autonomy (all the while ignoring the importance of the autonomy of the individual).They forget about that, and it is an important issue—the autonomy of the individual. It continues:University administrators have shown, however, that their main interest is in the convenience of passing lump sums of students' fees to student unions, with unions then taking responsibility for the provision of many services. However, this practice means that universities take no role in ensuring that efficiencies are achieved, that service delivery occurs at the lowest possible cost to students nor that the services are even delivered effectively. Put simply, the universities have sought to abdicate responsibility for such matters.A week ago Friday, I attended my youngest daughter's graduation from La Trobe University's Wodonga campus. When the ceremony had finished, all degrees having been conferred and the visiting speaker having given his address, Vice-Chancellor Michael Osborne stood to address those of us assembled. He spent approximately 10 minutes absolutely blistering me and the federal government for having the audacity to introduce into federal parliament a measure to guarantee his students freedom of association, and he was rent seeking through the entire speech.The vice-chancellor wanted more money for his university campuses. If it could not or would not be funded through the federal budget, if it was not to be funded from all of our purses—rather than from the ability of the university itself to get funds from its students, from businesses using the output of students or from others in the community such as alumni—then he demanded that there continue to be compulsory union fees in order that they could build buildings on the campus. I have never heard such a disgusting speech. At the reception or tea after the ceremony, the students said to me, `What was that all about, Mr Charles? What was it all about?' They had absolutely no idea what it was all about.I have had a number of discussions with young students at universities. There are a few who say, `Oh yeah, I think it's probably all right.' But most say, `I don't like paying up-front; why should I have to pay for services I don't use?'I will now go on to my own experience as a university student in another country—and several decades ago, I might add. Nonetheless, when I was a university student, the atmosphere surrounding the student union was one of voluntary membership. We had a newspaper. We had a yearbook. We had a diary. We had all those things. And do you know that every one of them made a profit. We had a newspaper that was produced daily, five days a week. We owned the press, we owned the whole publishing unit and we made a profit. And do you know why? Because we sold advertising. We sold advertising and produced four, six, eight, 12 sheets a day. Nobody told us what to say. We said what we liked to say, and it was totally voluntary. And yes, we were student activists, you bet your life we were, and we had a hell of a good time doing what we did. We prom ulgated whatever views each of us who wrote and edited on that newspaper wished to promulgate.But nobody said we had to belong. It was totally voluntary. There were no fees. There was no purchase price for the newspaper. We had a magnificent yearbook. You bought the yearbook if you wanted it, and it made a profit year after year, supported by voluntary student services. This debate is simply about voluntary membership, which I will always support.Debate interrupted.Adjournment474010000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 10.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn.474022:30:004740Plibersek, Tanya, MPMs PLIBERSEK83MSydneyALP00—I rise tonight to speak about the closure last October of the Waterloo post office. The post office was closed in what was called a temporary measure at that time because of a number of hold-ups, according to Australia Post. At that time, in October last year, we were told that the closure would be temporary. However, there has been no indication of when the post office might open. Repeated requests to Australia Post have produced no response from them, and the community in Waterloo is greatly concerned about this. There has been enormous community pressure on Australia Post to have the post office reopen, because it is a vital service for this area.Waterloo is a community that has a number of large public housing developments. Many of the tenants of those public housing developments experience a lack of mobility. They are not able to go to other post offices in the area. They certainly do not have cars, because they cannot afford cars. Quite often they are too old and too infirm to be driving anyway. So those public housing tenants rely very much on the post office at Waterloo, not just to undertake their normal postal requirements but also to pay their rents to the department of housing, to pay their gas bills and their electricity bills and to do their banking.At one time the Waterloo community had a Commonwealth Bank but, like many areas, they lost their bank some time ago. The Commonwealth Bank made an arrangement with Australia Post that Australia Post would continue to provide banking services to people in Waterloo. At the moment, those people do not have access to a bank. Not only is it physically difficult for these older people to walk to the nearest other post office, which is at Redfern; it is quite dangerous for them to walk a couple of kilometres to Redfern, cash their pension cheques and then walk home. The Waterloo area has a high rate of bag snatching, and a number of older people were injured when their bags were snatched as they walked home on pension day.A number of local businesses have told me that they are considering closing and relocating because they no longer have a post office to rely on. This is a very serious problem, because it means that you have a further degeneration in an inner city area with local businesses moving out and people becoming less likely to go to the area and less likely to feel safe because there are fewer people on the streets even during the day.Australia Post have said that they closed the post office because of a number of hold-ups. Indeed, there were a number of hold-ups, largely because Australia Post were providing the banking services that the Commonwealth Bank had previously provided. I have a lot of sympathy for Australia Post workers who are faced with the danger of working in this situation, but it is imperative that Australia Post provide a secure work environment for those post office workers rather than just saying, `Sorry, it is too hard to provide services to the local community.'The local community have expressed on a number of occasions how much they value their post office. There has been a series of protests outside the post office calling on Australia Post to reopen the post office, demanding the return of those services. Indeed, on Saturday, 13 March we had a very successful morning where local residents, including a number of children, got out the detergent and the wire brushes and scrubbed all the graffiti off the post office. The post office has stayed clean since that time because the local community took direct action and showed how much they valued their post office. It has become quite a local issue. There has been a great deal of pride in the direct action the community took.I think it is imperative that Australia Post negotiate in good faith on the reopening of the Waterloo post office. They have negotiated with local businesses about opening a licensed operating post office without telling the local community that this is their plan. It is important that Australia Post have a commitment to all local communities, not just profitable ones.474122:35:004741Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—Yesterday in this place I spoke about the success that Hollywood and some sections of the film and entertainment industry have had in seducing and manipulating so-called academics and people with supposed intelligence of some sort with the idea that it is quite okay for adults to have sexual relations with children. Unfortunately, in my members' statement I was not able to finish my last sentence, which should have read, `How clever of Hollywood. The theme of violence has been done to death so now they are saying, "Let's now put out the boundaries so that we can have sex with children and adults portrayed as entertainment for mass audiences to sell tickets and make money."'What is even more astonishing is the silence from our so-called feminists—those who are supposed to be concerned about the way women are portrayed, a woman's position in society and so on. How about the images of young girls and teenagers? Their silence is not only deafening but also pathetic and sickening. Here we have the Hollywood film industry commentators and the spin doctors all suggesting that paedophiles are or should be characters worth evoking sympathy from mainstream audiences. How successful they have been. What fools we are as a society to believe them, to get sucked into the vortex of their money making schemes.The movie Lolita has been described variously as a love story, a tragic love story and even a tale of morality. Oh, please! Can I at this point remind everyone that Australian law states that adults cannot have sex with a child in a paedophilic or incestuous relationship, whether discreetly portrayed or otherwise.It has been stated that the character of Lolita is as much the seducer as the one seduced—the initiator, the promiscuous nymphette. This last contention, which we have heard quite a bit lately, is particularly sickening. Whether it is the way the film interprets the character or the way that the critics have interpreted the film, it is irresponsible and illegal to portray a child or young teenager having sex with an adult, let alone contemplate the victim as being emotionally mature enough or knowing enough to take on a middle aged mature adult in an equal relationship. Have the feminists in our midst stopped to think of what this kind of portrayal does for women's rights? The loud and clear message to sexual predators is that they can have their way with underage children—boys or girls; they do not have to take responsibility for their own actions and when they are finished they can blame their victims.It took a long time for our society to wake up to the damage being wrought by the excessive diet of violence in film, music and the entertainment industry generally, that is, video and computer games. Belatedly, some attention has been paid to this issue, although not nearly enough, as we all know. Meanwhile, Hollywood and others in the entertainment industry have served up a diet of constant and increasing violence. They are now looking for some new way to shock and outrage the public all in the name of money, entertainment and big dollars for exploiting our kids—the real life victims. What do they care about art or artistic merit when they are being sexually abused?In attempts to continue pushing the boundaries of tolerance, sections of the so-called entertainment industry have decided to launch an assault on one of the few remaining taboos in our society. Thankfully, most of us still regard the idea of sex between adults and children as abhorrent. But make no mistake: there are now some sections of the entertainment industry who have set themselves the task for money at any cost. Whatever their motives, there must be a realisation that some barriers are there for a reason. There are some things to which society cannot and must not give its sanction.Some people have sought to portray this as a freedom of speech issue or a censorship issue. These matters have been openly discussed in the parliament, in the media and in the public. What has not been sufficiently discussed is the impact that the visual media has upon our lives and the responsibility that goes with this. If the film had portrayed the point of view of the teenage girl—the victim who was sexually abused—the reaction to it, I suggest, may have been considerably different. Why then are our media so mute when the character portrayed is a paedophile? Why have they been so easily duped by the fiction that a 14-year-old can happily seduce and manipulate her own stepfather? (Time expired)474222:40:004742Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—I have raised my concerns on many occasions about the government's attacks on Centrelink. On these occasions I have brought to the attention of the House the problems a number of constituents living in Shortland have been experiencing with Centrelink. I know that this is a matter that has been brought to the attention of the House by a number of members on this side. Any member who is in touch with what is happening in their electorate would be aware of the problems Centrelink clients are having. These clients are the pensioners, the unemployed people, the families trying to obtain their family benefits.Government members interjecting—83NHall, Jill, MPMs HALL—I notice that every time I raise this issue I get interjections from the other side. I can understand why. It is because there are a number of members on the other side of the House—part of the government—who are very aware of the problems that people are having in their electorates, and I feel sure that they would like to join with me and seek to have what is happening in Centrelink turned around. There have been so many staff cuts that it has led to a deterioration of service within Centrelink. I know that this is causing great angst for the staff at Centrelink. They try very hard to deliver services to the people who so desperately need the financial assistance that Centrelink can provide. The staff at Centrelink care about the fact that they cannot deliver these services and this causes them enormous stress. It really worries me that this will continue, that the people of Australia who so desperately need the assistance Centrelink can offer them will not be able to obtain it. There are the long waiting periods for interviews, there are the problems with payments and there are the problems of people receiving payments that they are not entitled to.Recently a young man came to see me in my office. Unfortunately, he had spent a little bit of time in gaol. While he was in gaol another person had been accessing his Newstart allowance. Centrelink had said to him, `You must repay this money.' He had been told that Centrelink had received no notification that he was in gaol and that the onus was on him to notify Centrelink of that fact. Therefore, the fact that somebody had defrauded him, as well as Centrelink, did not count; he had to pay the money back. The problem is that Centrelink was notified. Two weeks after this young man was interned—and I have this from the Minister for Corrective Services in New South Wales—Centrelink was notified that he was in gaol. Once again, I do not place the blame for this on the staff at Centrelink. With 5,000 more staff to go, it will only get worse. This is just not good enough. The people of Australia deserve better.Last weekend I was in a shopping centre and a card carrying member of the Liberal Party who works in Centrelink came up to me and said he was on the verge of tearing up his ticket. For three years he had worked in Centrelink and during that time the cuts to staff, the changes to policy and the increases in his workload had made it just unbearable because he really cared about delivering those services. When he went home at night he felt so stressed that he did not know how he was going to go to work the next day.The government has been looking at introducing a number of new initiatives, one of which is literacy and numeracy assessment. How is this going to be done without properly trained and qualified staff? How is this going to be done if the staff level is going to be continually cut? Today the government announced that it will be looking at preventing people moving to areas of high unemployment. How will this be policed? Will this lead to people who are entitled to receive benefits no longer receiving benefits?This constant attacking and cutting of services in Centrelink is not good enough. It is affecting Australians; it is affecting the workers. I sincerely hope that this is not a step along the way to trying to privatise Centrelink. If it is, the people of Australia will speak in the same way as they spoke in New South Wales last weekend. (Time expired)474322:45:004743Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—I rise tonight not to canvass the constitutional preamble per se nor to give my own views on the preamble, but to comment on how the draft preamble creates a marvellous circumstance in which we can see the utter duplicity, insincerity, hypocrisy and cant of the Australian Labor Party. Members of that party have pilloried the Prime Minister over the term mateship. They have hidden behind the politically correct. They have recoiled in fear from the extreme elements of the feminist movement—not wishing to sound too blokey—but, worse than that, they have denied their own birthright. Are they too embarrassed to embrace in their nation's constitutional preamble the very values they claim to have forged under the tree of knowledge in Barcaldine?Let me take you on a little trip down memory lane to examine Labor's adulation of mateship as revealed in Hansard. In his valedictory speech as recently as 10 December last year, the Leader of the Opposition spoke of:. . . the general Australian attitude of mateship, the general Australian love and affection for their fellow human beings.The ALP thinker, the member for Werriwa, said in the adjournment debate on 30 June last year:The mateship ethos in this country has always led to direct talking, disagreement and, if need be, debate and votes and disputation. It is the Australian way of doing things.Even the glimmer twins get in on the act. The member for Lilley—an expert in Russian history, I might add—on 31 May 1995 in this place spoke of:. . . values dear to the hearts of all Australians: the values of security, of care of our fellow citizens, of mateship and, the cornerstone of our society, the family.The other one of the glimmer twins, the member for Perth, not to be outdone, was even more effusive in his adulation of the Australia Remembers program on 30 November 1995. He mentioned, `Those national traits forged in the course of those years' and then went on to refer to `courage, a sense of humour in adversity' and `mateship'.Former Prime Minister Paul Keating adds his weight to the case. At the Australian War Memorial on 14 February 1995 he said:. . . paramount among the sustaining values of Australian POWs were those indefinable bonds between them which we call mateship.And note the use of the word `paramount'. The ALP sisterhood gets in on the act as well. On 22 October 1997, Senator Brenda Gibbs said, `Mateship is, after all, a traditional Australian value.' In her maiden speech on 23 November last year, the new member for Canning said that she believed in:. . . the vision of an Australia where the spirit of a fair go and mateship can be rekindled.In her maiden speech, which was also on 23 November, the member for Capricornia said of her partner, `You're my best mate.' All three are strong ALP women, and that term is not too blokey for them.I have saved the best for last. My predecessor in this place was so fond of mateship that he devoted an entire adjournment speech to it. On 2 June 1992, Mr Courtice said that mate ship was `something that we in the Labor Party hold dear.' He also said:We are proud of this terminology. Mates and mateship go back to when people joined the Party and worked together to try to improve other people's lots . . . Great people like Henry Lawson often wrote proudly about mateship. We can be very proud of mateship.He mentioned mateship 10 times and the words `mate' or `mates' 14 times in a five-minute adjournment speech. For that I thank him. Oh dear—what hypocrisy doth a preamble make!474422:49:004744Burke, Anna, MPMs BURKE83SChisholmALP00—I rise tonight to put on the record concerns in my electorate about the problems of the gambling industry, which I think is a far more noteworthy issue for discussion in an adjournment debate. Whilst the industry has contributed to the growth in Victoria, it has not come without significant costs. In fact, the troubles of the industry have even attracted the attention of the federal Treasurer, leading to the announcement of a national inquiry into Australia's gambling industries by the Productivity Commission.In its terms of reference, the commission has been asked to report on the performance of the gambling industries and their economic and social impacts across Australia. It is my understanding that the draft report is due out in the next month, with the final report due by August. My comments on the gambling industry tonight look at three issues: firstly, the fact that the gambling industry in Victoria is in desperate need of greater regulation; secondly, the misery that has been wrought upon many individuals and families; and, thirdly, the effect of gambling on many local communities and their sporting groups.It is important to place on the record that Labor, at both the state and federal levels, does not oppose gambling. We recognise that gambling is an activity enjoyed by many people who are drawn to it for the excitement it can provide. However, Victoria does not have a responsible or civilised gaming industry. There is no adequate industry code of conduct covering basic things such as clocks on the walls and natural light. The Kennett government has taken every opportunity to promote the industry either via concessions or reduced regulatory requirements. Never before has a government been so willing to promote an industry that has caused such hardship.Whilst governments of all political colours are happy to collect revenue from cigarettes and alcohol, they do not deem it appropriate to promote them in the way that gambling has been supported by the Victorian state government. There is also a huge disparity between the locations of the growing army of gaming venues. Leafy suburbs such as Kew and Doncaster have the lowest number of gaming venues, whilst areas that are economically disadvantaged are overflowing with facilities. State Labor has recently announced a much-needed policy that freezes the number of gaming machines in circulation and provides a fairer distribution of gaming machines between suburbs and regions and between hotels and clubs.My second point relates to the huge costs of gambling on many individuals and families. The BreakEven gambling counselling service that operates in the eastern suburbs has found that, amongst its clients, 37 per cent were on social security benefits, 80 per cent reported that poker machines are the cause of their gambling problems, and 30 per cent admitted that they had committed crimes to feed their habit.Problem gambling manifests itself in many different ways. It can lead to health problems, poverty, job losses, crime and family break-ups. The misery that has flowed from gambling should not surprise anyone. Gambling, like many other forms of addiction, tends to attract the most vulnerable in our community. This is particularly the case for those on low incomes looking for the lucky break society has been unable to deliver them. A government must surely look at not just the revenue dollars that flow from an activity, but also its social cost.My final point looks at the negative impact of gambling on many communities. I mentioned earlier that one of the problems associated with the gaming industry has been the proliferation of gaming venues. This has certainly occurred in the eastern and south- eastern suburbs of Melbourne. A 1998 report on the city of Monash found that the municipality housed over 14 gaming venues and 964 electronic gaming machines. In the neighbouring city of Whitehorse, there are over 600 electronic gaming machines and eight licensed gaming venues. These figures indicate a sharp growth in the industry bordering on the excessive.In the areas of Box Hill and Mount Waverley there has been significant community opposition to this spread of gaming facilities. In Mount Waverley there has been staunch resident opposition to several attempts to install a licensed gaming facility in Hamilton Place. As yet, the various commercial interests that have tried to gain a liquor licence have been unsuccessful. This is an inspiring example of what local residents, councils and traders can do when they work together towards a common goal. I salute all of those involved and will continue to support the Friends of Hamilton Place.Another issue allied to the gaming industry has been the recent changes to the Gaming Act in relation to bingo. Recent reforms have lead to the lifting of the number of tickets bingo operators can sell and have boosted the jackpots they can offer. This has led to sporting clubs, schools and community organisations being unable to make a profit. The local Box Hill Football Club that has a proud history as the Mustangs in the old VFA competition, now the VFL, used to make $80,000 a year but is now struggling to survive. Bingo has been left behind since the advent of pokies, and some of these harsh new laws are destroying the financial viability of many clubs.This just proves that while Crown Casino has the ear of government and hefty concessions to match, it is those such as bingo operators at the lower end of the market that are suffering at the hands of deregulation. On behalf of the local community in my electorate, I await the results of the Productivity Commission's inquiry with great enthusiasm.474522:54:004745Southcott, Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—Today's papers report that a coalition which includes the Australian Council of Social Service, the Women's Electoral Lobby and the Australian Catholic Health Care Association has been formed and is asking for food, clothing and housing to be GST free.We have heard how, under a food exemption, yoghurt is exempt but not ice-cream, and there has been a two- or three-year Federal Court case looking at the definition of frozen yoghurt. We have heard about the problems overseas. When determining whether gingerbread men are exempt or not, you have to look at the size of their eyes and whether they contain a certain amount of chocolate.We need to look at the situation with clothes. Currently, in the Australian Sales Tax Guide, clothes and footwear are exempt. That includes fasteners for clothing and footwear, footwear and materials for repairing footwear. Items 75 covers clothes for human wear made of any material including glass fibre, leather, rubber or plastic. So rubber suits, glass fibre suits and leather suits are all sales tax exempt under the current system. Also covered are goods that are ordinarily used as parts for clothes, including garment shields, iron-on mending patches and cuff savers, shoulder pads and woven names and initials. So those very natty shoulder patches that you sometimes see are sales tax exempt.In 1982 the Administrative Appeals Tribunal was asked in relation to customs tariffs to consider whether Spiderman and Incredible Hulk outfits were toys, incurring a 32 per cent wholesale sales tax, or outer garments, being sales tax exempt. The goods were identified as children's dress-up clothing designed for play. Although the goods would be likely to be sold to toy departments of large stores and although the goods were `fun garments', they could nevertheless be described as articles of clothing. The tribunal held that, because of the total effect which the outfits enabled a wearer to present to the outside world, they were properly classified as outer garments and not as toys. So there you have it: Spiderman and Incredible Hulk costumes are clothing, not toys. That is an old case, but it still does apply. These days it would be a Teletubbies outfit.Last Christmas at a barbecue I saw a young child dressed in a Teletubbies costume, which would be wholesale sales tax exempt. This is what ACOSS is asking for—for Teletubbies costumes to be wholesale sales tax exempt. But if you buy a Teletubby it incurs a 32 per cent wholesale sales tax. The tribunal has also considered the meaning of `garment', having a similar meaning to clothing, and extending to things like neckties, cummerbunds and pocket handkerchiefs. This tie is wholesale sales tax exempt.What it does is highlight the fact that the wholesale sales tax system was introduced in 1930 as a temporary response to the Great Depression because income tax had dropped off. It was introduced as an indirect tax. The Australian Sales Tax Guide has a very helpful list to give you an idea of what clothes would be exempt under Labor's current sales tax legislation. It includes ties and cummerbunds. It also includes aprons, armbands, armlets, baby bags, baby napkins, belts, bibs, binders for infants, bows, brassieres, bust bodices, bust improvers, bust shields and braces. The member for Chifley and the member for Kooyong would be very happy with the inclusion of braces.It further includes caplines, caps, cap covers, capes, collars, corsets, corselets, cuffs, elastic pants, eye shades, gaiters, garters, girdles for dressing gowns or pyjamas, gloves, hair nets, hats, hat bands, head bands for waitresses and maids, hoods and jabots, which are those things that you see judges' associates wearing. It includes leg bands, leggings, leg protectors, mittens, muffs, pockets, puggarees, puttees, revers, scarfs, shawls, sleeve protectors and snoods. If anyone can tell me what a snood is, I will be very happy. Also exempt would be spats, stocks, sun hats, suspenders, suspender belts, ties, turbans, veils and walders. I do not know what walders are either.This is a 60-year-old sales tax legislation. What it means is that the only people who profit out of exempting clothing are tax lawyers with big indirect tax practices. People at KPMG or Arthur Andersen who want to specialise in indirect tax will profit from exempting clothing. (Time expired)Question resolved in the affirmative.22:59:004747House adjourned at 10.59 p.m.Notices4747The following notices were given:Mr Reith to move:That, with effect from 11 May 1999, standing order 275A be amended to readStatements by Members275A Notwithstanding standing order 275, when the Main Committee meets before 10 a.m. the Chair shall first call statements by Members. A Member, other than a Minister, may be called by the Chair to make a statement for a period not exceeding 3 minutes. The period for Members' statements may continue for a maximum of 18 minutes or until 10 a.m. whichever is the earlier. For the purpose of this standing order a Minister does not include a Parliamentary Secretary.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 Redevelopment of Darwin Naval Base Project.Mr Hockey to present a bill for an act to amend the law relating to superannuation, and for related purposes.Mr Forrest to move:That this House(1) acknowledges the significance of Murray River bridge crossings to the national economy;(2) recognises the deteriorated condition of many existing bridge crossings and their urgent need of major capital for upgrading to meet modern safety and traffic load standards;(3) commends the federal Government for its funding commitment of $44 million for upgrading of bridge crossings at Corowa, Echuca and Robinvale and a further $203 million for a new bridge and approaches on the Hume Highway at Albury and Wodonga;(4) acknowledges the Murray River Crossings Transport Economic Study which clearly establishes the regional and national economic significance of all Murray River crossings and establishes a priority for the upgrading of bridges for the first time; and(5) calls on the State Governments of Victoria and New South Wales to provide like funding for reconstruction of bridges requiring urgent replacement. Mr Costello to present a bill for an act to implement A New Tax System by providing assistance to families, and for related purposes.Mr Costello to present a bill for an act to implement A New Tax System by amending legislation as a consequence of the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999, and for related purposes.WI4REITHMr Reith—I give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall move:That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent(1) the Leader of the House making one declaration of urgency and moving one motion for the allotment of time in respect of the following BillsA New Tax System (Commonwealth-State Financial Arrangements) 1999;A New Tax System (Commonwealth-State Financial Arrangements—Consequential Provisions) 1999;A New Tax System (Wine Equalisation Tax) 1999;A New Tax System (Wine Equalisation Tax Imposition—General) 1999;A New Tax System (Wine Equalisation Tax Imposition—Customs) 1999;A New Tax System (Wine Equalisation Tax Imposition—Excise) 1999;A New Tax System (Luxury Car Tax) 1999;A New Tax System (Luxury Car Tax Imposition—General) 1999;A New Tax System (Luxury Car Tax Imposition—Customs) 1999;A New Tax System (Luxury Car Tax Imposition—Excise) 1999;A New Tax System (Indirect Tax Administration) 1999; andA New Tax System (Wine Equalisation Tax and Luxury Car Tax Transition) 1999;(2) (a) the resumption of debate on the second readings of (i) orders of the day Nos. 1 and 2 and (ii) orders of the day Nos. 3 to 12 being called on together;(b) one question being put in regard to, respectively, any amendments moved to the motions for the second readings, the second readings, the consideration in detail stage and the third readings of (i) orders of the day Nos. 1 and 2 and (ii) orders of the day Nos. 3 to 12 together; and (c) messages from the Governor-General recommending appropriations being announced together; and(3) speech time limits at the second reading stage being 20 minutes for the first Opposition Member speaking and 10 minutes for other Members speaking.1999-03-30Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Nehl) took the chair at 4.30 p.m.Bills4749r7144749Debate resumed from 25 March, on motion by Mr Anderson:That the bill be now read a second time.16:30:004749Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—The Navigation Amendment (Employment of Seafarers) Bill 1998 looks, on first glance, innocent enough, supposedly taking out archaic clauses and trying to bring in improvements as part of the reform process. However, when I sat down and read it, I became more and more concerned with its direction. It smacks of a lot of other agendas.As I understand it, this bill is the first part of a two-part review. There is a second bill to come in later in the year that will be a rewrite of the Navigation Act. For some reason, the first part singles out workers' conditions and rights for special treatment. And it is not very favourable. Rather than continuing the reform process, this bill is taking seafarers back 87 years, back to the bad old days, even to the days of press gangs or their equivalent.By this bill, we are not enhancing the protection of seafarers. This government is seeking to remove every single protection of seafarers' rights and welfare that currently exists in Australian law in the Navigation Act. This is not reform. This is a stupid grab for power from the federal government over the rights and conditions of workers. It does not save money. It does not make the waterfront more effective. It lets in foreign labour and it does away with Australian jobs.I would say that it was another attack on the industrial relations of this country. If this government wants to start another industrial war, then they are going the right way about it. Do we really want to go the same way as those countries that appear in the Ships of shame report: those terrible rust buckets that roam the world with mixed crews speaking many languages and rarely knowing what is happening? Their conditions are appalling and their rights are nil and their lives are put at risk on a daily basis.I would like to tell you a story of what can happen if an unscrupulous company is left to its own devices, Mr Deputy Speaker. A Pakistani crew from a flag of convenience ship was picked up off Australia after their ship sank. The company which employed the seamen ordered that they be dumped in Hobart. They arrived with no belongings, only the clothes they stood up in, and these were knocked about and ragged. Some had lost just about all their clothing. They had not been paid for three or six months. They had nowhere to stay except an old warehouse and they had no means by which to get home. Nobody took very much notice until the union on the wharves stepped in and, using the Australian Navigation Act, negotiated with the company for their wages, some clothes and food and an air ticket home. I remember that happening some years ago, right there in Hobart. If it had not been for the Navigation Act, it would not have been possible to help those people.Will the same be offered once this act is repealed? Will Australian seafarers face the same fate in other countries and will foreign crews still be accorded the same courtesy that they have come to respect and appreciate in the past? Is that what we want to do with our workers? If you say no, then why give unlimited access to flag of convenience ships? That is what we are doing to our workers and the workers from overseas. Neither will have access to rights and conditions if this goes through.Then they are planning to take away more jobs. The seafarers coming in after weeks at sea are then asked to unload their own cargoes. Apart from the obvious safety aspect to this, as many would be unfamiliar with the local conditions and systems—and I am sure this government is not prepared to send the whole of the world's seafarers to Dubai for training—there is a question of what happens to our local wharf labour. It would be sold to the lowest bidder, I imagine. No. Australians must say no to this further intrusion into their jobs and their children's jobs.Under this legislation would come the setting up of a second register which would allow overseas guest labour to crew Australian ships. Australians cannot compete against flag of convenience companies moving in and taking over our routes. Tracking goods to their destination will be almost impossible.Environmental safeguards on things like ballast water and offshore waste dumping will be difficult to police and the overall welfare of crews will be left to the whim of the ships masters and whatever they can wheedle out of the employing company. If you say this is far-fetched then I can only point to the reports on the ships of shame, the second of which I worked on here in the parliament. These are not idle stories; they happened, and they are still happening. And despite Mr Reith saying that we needed these sorts of regulations in the shipping industry a hundred years ago, but not today, I suggest he looks at what he is saying.Seafarers are very vulnerable even today, particularly when we cut out all the legislation that gives them some sort of security. The report I worked on observed that substandard ships and practices still exist. Crews are still being beaten, harassed, abused and deprived of basic human rights. Today that is still happening in the world of shipping.Ship operators are still very prone to breaking the law and cutting corners even if it means loss of life or the loss of a flag of convenience ship in poor repair. They have little concern for the consequences. After all, most of these ships are sailed until they drop—literally—many of them going on well past their time for breaking up, and if they can be claimed on insurance rather than scrap, it makes a tidy profit for the operator.The report had the unanimous view that much was needed to be improved, and I fail to see how removing legislation that upholds the ILO conventions and abolishes the Maritime Council will assist in this reform process. I have to look at how it would affect Tasmania—being a Tasmanian and a regional member. As a regional area we tend to be left out of the competitive markets as we are too small. We cannot attract decent airline competition, so why should ship cargo be any different?The ships that service Tasmania, the Searoad Tamar and the Searoad Mersey, of the TT Line, will lose cargo to these foreign raiders. These companies do not have a big profit margin. They cannot allow a big loss of cargo and would likely run down from their seven ships a week to virtually nil. Two hundred jobs would disappear overnight.The cargo itself would be at risk, too. When people are inexperienced in loading and unloading, cargo can be damaged. Ships that are loaded by those who do not know the ship's tolerances will be put at risk, particularly in heavy weather when cargoes are most likely to shift on board.Once guest labour is introduced in one area it will spread to others, so we would have our Tasmania tourist flagship crewed by a foreign crew that know nothing of Tasmania and probably care less. Another hundred jobs would bite the dust.One of Tasmania's greatest barriers to export progress is the movement of goods across Bass Strait. We need a fast and reliable service. If we are abandoned to the whim of foreign privateers, we will have no transport security. Our exporters will move out, our economy will shrink further and I, for one, will sheet home the blame where it belongs—to a ridiculous and unfair legislative program to get rid of the rights and conditions of workers, particularly Tasmanian workers.If reform is to be real and worthwhile, it needs to have some basic criteria. It should recognise what is unique about the industry and it should recognise what the threats are to the Australian industry from bad operators who operate substandard and illegal ships. The government has failed on this one. It has also failed to consult with all the stakeholders about the impact of this legislation. It has particularly failed Tasmania in considering the impact of changes on this state of islands so reliant on sea transport.This is terrible legislation. I think it is motivated probably out of spite after the Patricks episode and we will be persecuting our own workers further. I hope that those who have a conscience on the other side will vote against those parts of the bill that affect Australian workers. They cannot believe that this will do us any good at all, and it should be voted down.Have reform by all means, but let us remain fair. For the benefit of Australian companies and their work force and to keep the standards of living so envied by our neighbours in other countries, let us keep those things in place. Let us protect the Australian work force; let us protect the Australian transport system; let us protect the Tasmanian transport linkages. Don't let us give it away to foreign vessels; don't let us give it away to foreign crews.Don't let us bring in the foreign crews, because this is the beginning of that old episode. Once they come in on the ships, they unload the ships. Do they then drive the trucks and trains and work in the warehouses? We then set that precedent and start to set that sort of process in place. I believe there are probably people within this government who have that agenda, and that is the real agenda behind some of this legislation.There is a long way to go. I think this is very bad legislation. I think it should be voted down and not be passed. I will not be supporting the legislation in that form.16:43:004751O'Byrne, MichelleMs O'BYRNE84SBassALP00—Firstly, I wish to commend my colleague the member for Lyons on his comments on this Navigation Amendment (Employment of Seafarers) Bill 1998 . His commitment to the Australian shipping industry is certainly well known.I need to preface my comments by advising that I have a particular interest in the safety of seafarers. I am getting married on Sunday to an officer who works the Australian coast. While he is not directly impacted upon by many of these provisions as they relate to crew, he will be working in the Australian shipping industry and any impact on safety is, of course, a great concern to me.Coming from Launceston, I have another particular interest, because this is the home of the Australian Maritime College. You can never mention the Australian Maritime College without mentioning the wonderful work by the Hon. Lance Barnard in achieving such a fine institution for Tasmania. I know many people in this industry. They were at the university next door to me. Their future and their safety is very important to me.When we look at reform or changes to the shipping industry, it is really important that we look at the intentions of this government as a whole. Australia is a maritime nation. We are the fifth largest shipping nation in the world. The real question in shipping concerns the government's intentions towards the industry as a whole and the steps that they will take in order to achieve the ongoing viability of the Australian merchant fleet, if it is the ongoing viability of the industry that this government seeks.The industry needs assistance in ensuring that it can maintain the skills of its work force and its technological edge. Above all, it needs the government to provide a coherent strategy. Unfortunately, it appears that this government is only about reducing the conditions of those who work in the industry. There seems to be a belief that, if you attack working conditions, then you magically change the future of shipping.I intend to deal, firstly, with the legislation before us and the arguments of the minister, with particular reference to seafarer safety of course, and then go on to how this fits within the government's intentions for Australian shipping. The Navigation Act 1912 is the legislative basis for the regulation of ship safety, environmental protection, coastal trade, seafarer employment and qualifications. I wish to point out that it does not preclude any ship, foreign or otherwise, from operating in Australian domestic waters as long as it complies with some very simple conditions. The changes to the Navigation Act must then be seen in the context of the government's overall intention for Australian flag shipping and the use of Australian crew.The Navigation Amendment (Employment of Seafarers) Bill 1998 seeks to amend provisions of this act so that it falls in line with the Workplace Relations Act and amends the conditions of employment of seafarers in the Australian industry. This bill will have a significant effect on seafarers working the Australian coast. It proposes to abolish the system of articles of agreement to replace them with company contracts, abolish the Marine Council and significantly alter conditions of employment for seafarers. I truly believe that safety will be compromised through lessening the welfare of seafarers and in eroding the process of assessment of qualifications. It is my concern that we will find ourselves with a deregulated coast with no reference to the safety of seafarers and no reference to our environment.Change to the conditions of employment for seafarers is a two-step process for this government: firstly, this bill which removes conditions that differ from the Workplace Relations Act; and, secondly, a follow-up by a rewriting of the act. In essence, the government seeks to achieve the removal of seafarer conditions of employment and force them into a situation where they have to negotiate directly with their employer. This bill is quite clearly about attacking employment conditions for seafarers. It is not in any way about addressing realistic reform.Since the 1980s, a process of reform has been undertaken by the Australian shipping industry. Real reform must come from real consultation. It sounds particularly simple, but it is exactly what this government has failed to do. In fact, the failure of the government to consult was spelt out by the government majority report of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, which stated that:. . . the process of consultation, from the formation of the Shipping Reform Group . . . has been imperfect.We support responsible change, but responsible change includes all stakeholders.Let us look for a moment at just how far the industry has come. Average crew sizes have been reduced from 31 to 18; over $2 billion has been invested by Australian shippers since 1989; there have been over 1,000 voluntary retirements since 1987; and the age of vessels in Australia is an average of 9.6 years, which compares favourably with the international average of 16.6 years. Obviously, there have been significant improvements made to this industry and the industry is committed to further progress.I think that it is really concerning that we want to treat this industry as we would any other. It is a unique industry and those people who work within it have unique circumstances, of which I can give you quite detailed knowledge. In his second reading speech on this issue, the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business said that `Australian seafarers enjoy exceptionally good working conditions'. He went on to say that seafarer conditions should be brought into line with other industries in this country.Exactly which industry does the minister intend to compare seafarers with? Which other industry has workers who head off to work, kiss their wife goodbye and see them in three months time; who do not see their children; and who have very limited access via telephone? Which industry requires its workers to live in a confined environment with a handful of other people? It is a unique industry, it is hard work and it places extreme pressure on families.The Ship safe report pointed out:. . . a ship is not just a means of transport and a workplace. It is also a social system.Workers in this industry do not knock off at the end of the day, the end of the week or even the end of the month. The ship is their life for three months—and you cannot compare that with other industries. What this government plans to do is play around with the welfare of people in a unique environment.I intend to focus primarily upon those parts of the bill that significantly affect the level of safety on the Australian coast and on Australian ships. The Navigation Act is specifically tailored to the shipping industry. One of its primary roles is the safety of Australian seafarers and the protection of our environment. The Ship safe report identifies that the welfare of the crew has a direct impact on safety and that it in fact `constitutes a significant risk factor for ship safety'. Since 1994 over 1,200 seafarers have been lost at sea. In the first six months of 1996, twice as many human lives were lost at sea than in the whole of 1995. I am really shocked that even this government would contemplate any measure that would in any way expose people to increased risk. The shipping industry and, by extension, this government must protect the safety of seafarers and the environment. The prevalence of foreign ships on our coast already exposes us as a nation to serious risk.The Australian Maritime Safety Authority reports indicate that there are a large number of ships working the Australian coast under flags of convenience which have potentially serious safety shortfalls. This is of concern not only for the safety of those on board but for the serious risk it poses to others in port and to our environment.I am sure that everyone here is very aware of the damning evidence presented by the Ships of shame report, and my colleague, the member for Lyons, has already referred to that. This report outlined the appalling safety standards and working conditions on some foreign vessels. We have seen plenty of illustrations of what can happen to the environment when you have a marine accident. In Tasmania we all remember very well the Iron Baron, which ran aground on Hebe Reef. And I remind members of the Kirki, a ship whose bow fell off near Western Australia a few years ago because it had rusted through. We can all remember the pollution that was caused in the surrounding water as a result of that incident.A primary concern has to be the safety of the ship itself and the standard of qualifications of those who work on her. This bill will impact on certification of qualifications through the abolition of the articles of agreement which provide independent audits. The proposed replacement of statement of service from the employer is quite frightening. We need only to look at the Ships of shame report to realise how dangerous this move would be.This bill also seeks to abolish the Marine Council, a body which has the function of assessing and determining the suitability of a person as a seafarer, and of enforcing the code of conduct in relation to seafarers. It is very important to have independent assessment of skills and qualifications if we wish to have any hope of monitoring and maintaining the high standard Australia now has.The Ships of shame report has highlighted the lack of independent assessment of qualifications on foreign ships. It said:The possession of forged certificates poses problems for several reasons . . . it may suggest that a crew member does not have the requisite training and experience necessary to perform his/her tasks properly, so affecting the safe operation of the ship.The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure inquiry into ship safety refers to a crackdown by the Japanese ministry of transport which found that 25 officers on 11 vessels did not have proper qualification certificates.In fact, Captain Bolitho, previously the head of ANL, reports that qualifications can be bought for around $300. It is very much the case of stories that you hear from people who work in the industry, but many of them will tell you about the line of Chinese ships that follows the one ship that has actually got a navigator on it. If you have a storm you lose half of your ships. Whilst this is not evidence that has been presented, this is the nature of the industry, this is what these people are dealing with every day.Whilst we are talking of foreign ships, let us dwell a little on the working conditions for crews on foreign ships. The Ships of shame report found that some crews were denied adequate food, were beaten, and were not given access to appropriate medical care. Is this really what we want for workers in Australia? Is this what this government really wants for our coast? Untrained crews and poorly maintained vessels equal risk for Australia. There is only so long that you can chip away at standards before the entire thing falls apart.Captain Bolitho had this to say on the Sunday program report into Ships of shame:For two million bucks you can buy a 20-year old clapped out dry bulk carrier or tanker, with holes in the deck and no lifeboats. For another $200,000 you can get valid certificates of registration. You can then hire a cheap Third World crew with forged certificates of competency in some cases, and if the ship lasts two or three years, you have made a fortune.Captain Tom Harris has this to say in the same interview:So, in many instances, untrained crews man unsafe ships in a world fleet with an average age of 16 years, and rising all the time. The trade-off is in seamen's lives and the threat to the environment.Is this truly the situation that the government seeks for our coast?The government will tell us that this is not what this bill is about, rather, that this is a necessary bill simply to remove outdated and inappropriate legislative requirements. We are not opposing any method that will achieve this end, but we do oppose most vigorously any move to reduce conditions and compromise safety.Let us look now at this issue in a more holistic shipping context. We look at this bill at a time when there are moves about for the privatisation of the Australian Maritime Safety Authority. The authority aims to enhance the safety of seafarers and shipping and protect the marine environment from pollution. It has been in operation since 1991. In fact, its role in shipping is to prevent unsafe, unregulated, untaxed rust buckets from operating in our waters. AMSA's services are mainly paid for on a cost recovery basis from the industry and in part by Commonwealth funding which we supply as a community service obligation, something to be admired.The Australian Marine Safety Authority annual report of 1996-97 said:There is objective and anecdotal evidence that the quality of ships operating to Australia improved in recent years. This is generally accepted as being largely due to AMSA initiatives. Australia is recognised internationally as being at the forefront of world best practice in port state control and related activities.In the area of ship safety AMSA has been described as `efficient, cost effective and well managed, professional, even handed and discreet'. AMSA plays an important role in developing a culture of ship safety.There are other bodies in Australia whose commitment is also to safety and the viability of the shipping industry. In December 1998, the newly appointed Minister for Transport and Regional Services announced the establishment of a working group to `push ahead with shipping reform'. The working group on shipping reform is chaired by an officer of the department of transport and consists of highly respected members. The terms of reference are broad, ranging from the competitive nature of Australian shipping to the benefits to the economy and the concept of an Australian second register—which, of course, I have my own opinion on.The working group is due to report on the 31st of this month. That is not very long away—that is tomorrow. The information from this inquiry will have an impact on the future of shipping and it is my belief that it might have been very valuable to the consideration of this bill. It is disappointing that the material is not available in the context of not only this bill but the broader framework of the future of the industry.I now wish to spend a few moments noting a very local impact of shipping reform decisions in my electorate. As I have mentioned, I come from Launceston, the home of Australia's premier maritime training facility—in fact, a world recognised maritime training facility—that puts $40 million a year into my local economy. I have to ask one question: what will the college's future be if the Australian seafarer is destined to become a thing of the past?I am a firm believer that policy should operate within a framework, that we should set our future goals and then design steps in order to achieve them. It sounds particularly simplistic to me. Australia should be developing a holistic approach to policy and not just undermining the safety of seafarers. It is a shame that that is not the path of this government or this bill. The conclusion of chapter 6 of the Ship safe report urges the government to take what steps it can to enhance the wellbeing of seafarers. Aspects of this bill make a mockery of that request.I will conclude with a quote from Lance Puckeridge from the Sunday program report on the Ships of shame:Whenever I hear of a tragedy, whether it is one seafarer or many, this is what you think of. You think, he belonged to somebody; somebody loved him dearly and he loved somebody dearly, and to send them off just to be fodder for multinational companies to make bigger profits, who is going to stand up for these blokes.Unfortunately, it is obviously not this government, whose only concern with shipping is attacking workers.16:57:004756Hoare, Kelly, MPMs HOARE83YCharltonALP00—In August 1996 the former Minister for Transport, John Sharp, established the Shipping Reform Group. The representation of this group was restricted to employers and employer groups. The major recommendation in the group's 1997 report, A framework for reform of Australian shipping , was the introduction of company employment for all seafarers. The basis of this recommendation was to strip seafarers of traditional rights and conditions and to subject them to the provisions in the Workplace Relations Act.In his second reading speech the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, Mr Reith, said:Under company employment, the terms and conditions applying to seafarers are matters for negotiation between the seafarers and their employers. Legislative backing for such arrangements, which can be tailored to the needs of individual companies, can be obtained through the Workplace Relations Act.The ideological base of this legislation is to force seafaring workers into individual contracts or Australian workplace agreements with their employers. This ideological thrust, while of massive benefit to shipping owners, has scant regard for the unique and high risk nature of the industry. Seafarers may be subject to exploitation, their living conditions on board the ships must be regulated, and safety aspects of the shipping industry must require regulation and certification.One of the main issues of this debate is whether the conditions of employment of seafarers ought to be regulated by the provisions of the Workplace Relations Act or whether they should continue to be subject to the Navigation Act. Over the past 80-odd years, the Navigation Act has provided the legislative basis for the regulation of ship safety and the protection of the environment and has included provisions relating to seafarers' employment and qualifications.We understand the need to address some of the more antiquated aspects of the act; indeed, we are not opposing many items in this bill which address those inadequacies. Some of the aspects involved with the concept of company employment, though, include providing the employer an unrestricted right to recruit employees from any source. It also provides for employers and employees to agree on the form of individual contracts. And, regardless of current minimum qualifications, company employment gives the employer the discretion to determine any selection criteria.Let me return to the Shipping Reform Group and this group's composition. The Shipping Reform Group was chaired by Julian Manser, chief executive of the Darwin based company, Perkins Shipping Pty Ltd. The group consisted of representatives of BHP Ltd, Australian Shipowners Association, Mobil Oil Australia, National Bulk Commodities Group, ALOR Pty Ltd and Howard Smith Ltd. It is quite obvious that this government's continued unwillingness to consult with any workers who would be adversely affected by these decisions is a disgrace when we are confronted by their cosy dealings with employer groups.The report, which was presented to the minister, also included the winding back of cabotage and the establishment of a second register. These issues have been eloquently addressed by my colleagues in this debate; in particular the member for Lyons presented a graphic example. Other recommendations designed to pare down workers' entitlements and conditions included a reduction in seafarers' leave entitlements, the abolition of a separate seafarers' workers compensation scheme and provision for anticipated sackings, along with the move towards AWAs, which I spoke of previously.Let me address the issue of abolishing cabotage. Cabotage is the current situation we have in Australia designed to protect our shipping industry. Cabotage is the system whereby foreign vessels cannot involve themselves in domestic shipping. Cabotage ensures that the safety and conditions of Australian crews are maintained. It also maintains the quality of the domestic industry so that these issues are not at risk.We in the Labor Party have no general objections to reforming the shipping industry. As a matter of fact, the previous Labor government had undertaken reform of the shipping industry from the mid-1980s. Since 1964, Australia has satisfied its obligations under International Labour Organisation Convention 9 where seafarers are employed under the seafarers engagement system, which is an industry employment system.ILO Convention 9 outlaws fee charging by any person or any organisation for finding employment by seafarers. Under this convention, the Australian Maritime Safety Authority had been the public employment office which was maintained for the purpose of finding employment for Australian seafarers. AMSA was closed by this government on 1 March 1998. ILO 9 was denounced by this government on 31 August 1998 but Australia still has obligations for one year following that denunciation. As the public employment office—AMSA—stopped administering the seafarers engagement system on 1 March 1998, Australia is clearly in breach of ILO 9.The ILO, while revising Convention 9, adopted ILO Convention 179 in 1996. ILO Convention 179, while removing the prohibition on charging a fee for seafarer employment agencies, made provision for the strict regulation of the employment agencies. Australia has not ratified ILO Convention 179. This government, all too ready to denounce ILO Convention 9, will not ratify its replacement. After ILO Convention 179 is ratified, we believe then is the time to have a comprehensive review of the Navigation Act 1912 with full consultation and agreement of all relevant parties, not just with the recommendations exclusively coming from a group of employers.The use of sections 45D and 45E of the Trade Practices Act as a response to industrial action is unduly harsh and in conflict with Australia's obligations under ILO conventions on freedom of association. The refusal by this government to ratify ILO Convention 179 is just further embarrassing arrogance on the part of this Prime Minister to thumb his nose at international treaties and international organisations.This is not the first time the government has flouted international agreements, particularly in relation to the International Labour Organisation. This year sees the 80th anniversary of the establishment of the International Labour Organisation. The ILO was established at the time of the old League of Nations. Following the disintegration of the League of Nations in 1946, the ILO was one of the international arrangements which did continue.Out of 175 conventions currently endorsed by the ILO, Australia has ratified 54. This means that 54 ILO conventions have been agreed to and supported by successive Australian governments. These conventions which Australia has ratified should underlie any legislation proposed by any government on the regulation of labour. ILO conventions form the responsible and civilised bases for governments to discuss, debate and implement appropriate working conditions. If this government continues to ignore these international laws it must ask itself why these laws exist or even why the ILO was established in the first place.The main reason behind establishing the ILO was humanitarian. The rights and conditions of workers were being exploited in the late 1800s and early 1900s to such an extent that there was no consideration for workers' health, for workers' families and for workers' advancement. The preamble to the constitution of the ILO states:. . . conditions of labour exist involving injustice, hardship and privation to large numbers of people.The second reason was political: if these workers' conditions were not improved, they would, in increasing numbers due to industrialisation, create social unrest. The preamble continued:. . . unrest so great that the peace and harmony of the world are imperilled.Another motivation was economic. Again, the preamble states:. . . the failure of any nation to adopt humane conditions of labour is an obstacle in the way of other nations which desire to improve the conditions in their own countries.The ILO has set international labour standards also for seafarers. It has adopted over 50 conventions and recommendations applying specifically to seafarers because of the special nature of the conditions of their work and the special nature of the life of the seafarer. ILO Convention 179, Recruitment and Placement of Seafarers, is just one of those. This convention is the particular one that I addressed earlier. There are many issues regarding employment of seafarers addressed by these conventions. Just some of them relate to continuity of employment, repatriation, vocational training and competency certification. There are many relating to the safety, health and welfare of seafarers which again have set international standards for the protection of the health and welfare of seafarers. There are conventions concerning crew accommodation and living standards. The more recent Convention 180 relates to seafarers' hours of work and the manning of ships. This 1996 convention prescribes the maximum or minimum periods of rest on board ship as well as the staffing of ships.Australia is currently under the microscope from various international organisations, including the United Nations and the ILO. This government has been criticised by the United Nations for failing to reach international standards set for Western countries in the process of reconciliation, and its decision to dig up uranium in Kakadu is currently being scrutinised. The ILO has found that the Workplace Relations Act is in breach of international labour conventions.The Howard government and Minister Reith, whilst having not completely denounced Australia's membership of the International Labour Organisation, have reduced Australia's involvement with the organisation. This government has withdrawn a special labour adviser—a position with the ILO for over 20 years—and reduced the number of Australia's delegates to the organisation's labour conference from 16 to three.Further arrogance on the part of Minister Reith is shown in his reference to the ILO Committee of Experts' report concerning Australia's implementation of the right to organise and collective bargain convention as being `simply incorrect and gratuitous'. That report was in response to the government's Workplace Relations Act and expressed serious concerns about major parts of that act.These concerns included the wide range of categories of employees which could be excluded from the termination provisions of the act. Specifically, that committee of experts wanted to see that employees of small business were protected. So what did the minister do? He flew in the face of this international committee and introduced legislation—which after rejection he and the Prime Minister have vowed to reintroduce—to exempt small business from unfair dismissal laws. Talk about not providing protection for workers in small business and stripping them of their rights to have decent recourse when faced with unfair dismissal.The concerns also included the fact that the act did not protect union activities. As a matter of fact, the act blatantly outlaws union activities. This international expert committee requested the government:. . . to take the necessary measures to ensure that workers are adequately protected against discrimination based on union activities, including negotiating a collective agreement at whatever level the parties deem appropriate.And what was the minister's response to this request? He sent in the balaclava-clad thugs and vicious Rottweilers onto the wharves of this country in direct contravention of the tradition of arbitration and conciliation that this country had enjoyed for over 100 years.The committee concluded that the preference by this government for individual contracts as opposed to collective agreements is inconsistent with the requirement of article 4 of ILO Convention 98. As I have previously stated, Minister Reith's position in this legislation, by refusing to ratify ILO Convention 179 immediately following the government's denunciation of ILO 9, further emphasises this government's arrogance in refusing to acknowledge or act upon the concerns of the ILO's Committee of Experts.Australia may be an island continent `free to be proud' but we are part of a global community and, being a Western democracy, we are viewed as a pillar of that global community in relation to human rights and the upholding of international labour standards. Some may also believe that Minister Reith's comrades in arms, Rio Tinto, acknowledge the importance of these international labour standards and human rights, because on page 7 of the Rio Tinto 1997 Annual report to shareholders a commitment is made to rights of its workers to belong to trade unions. However, the 1997 stakeholders report, Rio Tinto tainted titan, states:But in reality Rio Tinto is on record as seeking to prevent its workers from belonging to trade unions or collectively bargaining. This puts Rio Tinto in breach of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and of international standards on freedom of association and collective bargaining.I seek leave to table that report, Mr Deputy Chair.Leave granted.83YHoare, Kelly, MPMs HOARE—As the Labor spokesperson on industrial relations stated in the House last week, there are some aspects of this bill which we do support and many which we oppose. As I have stated, the Navigation Act does need to undergo a comprehensive review, but with consultation and support from all relevant parties and not in the piecemeal manner currently before the parliament.Finally, this amendment bill is yet another example of the Prime Minister and his minister for workplace relations attempting to whittle away the rights of Australian workers. Seafarers are workers who have special requirements in their workplace, yet not even they remain far enough offshore to avoid this government's disgraceful and continuing attacks on workers.17:14:004759Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON8T4ReidALP00—The genesis of this legislation, the Navigation Amendment (Employment of Seafarers) Bill 1998 , lies in the pronouncement of the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business before a Perth businessman in late 1998: `Never forget the history of politics and never forget which side we are on. We are on the side of making profits; we are on the side of people owning private capital.'This legislation, despite attempts to describe it in terms of international competitiveness, despite the propaganda said about it that it might be about bringing efficiencies to the industry or about reducing the cost of government organisation, is essentially about reducing conditions in this country for yet another part of the work force. Quite frankly, the essential thrust of this government shows a lack of faith in the Australian people, a lack of faith in our training institutions, and a belief that this country cannot compete against those in other countries on low wages and conditions.The legislation has a number of aspects. It abolishes articles of agreement and it ends the Marine Council, a body which has had a powerful influence in regard to the assessment of people's skills and a code of conduct. Section 424(5) of the current act states:The Marine Council shall inquire into and report to the Minister upon any matter rising out of or relating to this Act which the Minister refers to the Council for advice.They are very wide requirements indeed.Under section 47 of the Navigation Act, one of the main functions of the Marine Council has been determining unsuitability for the industry and investigating complaints regarding that code of conduct. Quite frankly, most people in this country would believe that they are very real and necessary purposes in an industry of this sort. We must ensure that people do not fail and then walk down the road to another company, hop on a boat and resume operating in the industry.It would seem that the only credible reason that the government is so determined to abolish this council is the presence of some union representation, admittedly minority union representation, within the body. As we well know, the government seems to rely heavily upon the advice of the shipping reform group which, of course, lacks any union representation. In that group the work force lacks any ability to have a say in process. That body, chaired by Julian Manser of Perkins Shipping, with representatives from Mobil Oil, the Australian Shipowners Association, Howard Smith Ltd and the National Bulk Commodities Group, certainly is a home town jury in regard to the nature of this industry.For all we know, those kinds of companies could be leading players in the secret donations that are going to the coalition through the Greenfields Foundation. Quite frankly, appointment to this body and active support for the government's policies might be crucially related to the government's determination to stop the Australian people from knowing the nature of the loan of $4.6 million to the coalition.Something that particularly concerns me in this debate are the comments of the member for Corangamite on 25 March 1999 when he stated:There was a situation—dreadful, it was—where the seafarers on Australian-built ships on the Australian coast had to be Australian residents—frightful—again, a closed shop arrangement. They did not let anyone come in, so they had to have a temporary visa. Now at least there will be some capacity to employ skilled seafarers under the auspices of the Ships of Shame who have been well trained in the Philippines and who we have made sure have bona fide certificates of competency. Why shouldn't the shipping industry of Australia enjoy the benefit of these well trained international personnel who have tickets of competency from the Philippines training school and other reputable areas who could come and enjoy the better conditions here on the Australian coastline? Doesn't that really indicate the thrust of what they are trying to do? We have enough problems in this country with Philippine credentials in regard to our immigration policy. One of the reasons that waiting times are so long in that country, in regard to people entering under the independent category, is the very pervasive presence of false documentation.Quite frankly, it is very interesting. This is a government which, every time they get an opportunity in question time, try to appeal to the One Nation constituency. They are trying to indicate they are tough. They are trying to indicate they are cracking down on migrants and cracking down on people who are trying to rort the system. They are trying to indicate they are protecting Australian jobs. And they are trying to indicate that they are making sure that people are not out there ripping off our social security system.But the member for Corangamite said the justification for this legislation was basically to throw Australian workers out of their jobs, to make sure we did not have to run around getting them work visas, he implied—let's make it so liberal that they can just walk in and take any possible Australian job. If we wanted a real indication of what this was about, it was certainly shown by the member for Corangamite's contribution. He was quite keen to comment about his own involvement in the investigation of this industry. He professed to be one of the experts on the government side in this particular debate. He was certainly indicating what this was all about. As I said earlier, they have no faith in the Australian people, they have no willingness to protect their jobs and they have no concern with their employment.Essentially, the other ingredients of the legislation deny a reality that is well known to most people in this country and the Western world. If we look at our literature, Moby Dick and a variety of other novels trace the particular nature of the waterfront. If we look at the Academy Awards in the last few years, we again see the dangers in shipping. We witness every day newspaper articles talking about the proliferation of piracy around Indonesia and Malaysia. In the National Geographic this very month there is an article on the sinking of the Exxon Valdez, the environmental danger that was encountered by the Alaskan coastline and the improvements there.Everyone else in the world seems to know the particular nature of this industry and the particular problems that people face. This government is determined to say that this work force, with people at sea by themselves, unprotected and basically unconnected with the rest of the country, are essentially to be treated like everyone else. The member for Corangamite—to cite his contribution again—said that anyone on a boat is just like someone going to work in a Geelong motor factory, that it is just the same kind of situation. These people are separated from their families, they are separated from the support of the Australian community, they are essentially very distinct, and everyone else in the world knows it except this minister and those who are guiding this legislation.The legislation denies the reality of a significant number of government reports—and, as other speakers have noted, the last one of those reports had a government majority. Those reports acknowledge the problems of just opening up this field to slapdash no-controls competition from foreign work forces and ships that are flying flags of convenience. We have heard about the reality from other contributors. They have cited US professors who have knowledge in this field. They have quoted ILO reports on the ease with which people can get false documentation. Quite frankly, I think everyone must question why this is so great for Australia; why we have to spend our time making sure that the requirement with regard to articles of agreement will be thrown out the door; why we are going to abolish the Marine Council; why the need to produce section 17 certificates to the proper authority is going to be abolished?We know that a number of government reports and reports to this parliament by committees that investigated the industry for many months made comments such as those in the Ship safe report. That was a report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure. At page 43 of its report of August 1998 it said:. . . a ship is not a means of transport and a workplace. It is also a social system.The same report, at page 51, said:Attention should be paid to a ship as a social system as well as a means of transport and a workplace.Another aspect of this legislation is about seamen left on shore, and it basically undermines and reduces their conditions with regard to sick leave. Once again, it does not look at a few realities of the industry: the fact that people have, in recent years, been pushed and required by the union and by the employers to make claims for any illnesses that are compensatable under the Seafarers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act. Basically, there has been a reduction of the possibility of abuse of the system—and it is true that in the past there was some abuse of this system.But we are talking about people who are outside of Australia, who are subject to what perhaps might seem like minor illnesses and minor problems but which do not have proper medical treatment in the short term if they by the time they return to this country are far more serious. Without the protection of section 132, many seafarers will not have any income support during such treatment and recuperation periods, which periods result from the fact that these illnesses had not been treated. Inevitably, they will be forced to seek sickness benefits from the federal government. It simply is not good public policy to force a community to bear these costs when they are properly the responsibility of the shipping employers—those same shipping employers who were employed by this government to come up with a report with a recommendation that goes to undermining conditions.In conclusion, this legislation is not about anything other than basically reducing conditions on Australian seagoing vessels. It foreshadows the penetration of that part of the work force by overseas competition. We know the scandalous events around the world—the treatment of these people in foreign ships. To basically say that that is the future of the Australian seagoing work force is something that the Australian people would have very grave concerns about.17:27:004762Sidebottom, Peter, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM849BraddonALP00—Judging by some of the provisions contained in the Navigation Amendment (Employment of Seafarers) Bill 1998 , it is little more than a continued ideological attack on trade unionism in general and the maritime workers union in particular. Under the guise of introducing greater flexibility to the industry, the government is using the principle of individual contracts between seafarers and their employers as a means of removing seafarers' conditions. That it will compromise their safety and the safety of Australia's fragile marine environment does not seem to count.Members on my side of the House will not be surprised, of course, to find that, although Mr Anderson, the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, is now responsible for the legislation, his hand was not the instigator. The 1998 bill is the work of none other than the man who presided over the debacle on Australia's waterfront during 1998; the same minister who shamelessly sided with Patrick against its own work force; the man who not only took sides in the dispute but unashamedly helped devise a battle plan against the workers. The minister for undercover and covert operations! The same minister who seems to take considerable pride in un-Australian industrial relations practices. The same minister for `insensitivity' who slipped into Burnie during the last election and suggested that redundant workers pack their bags and head to Queensland if things did not improve in the region. The electors of Braddon did not forget his disgraceful record in regard to the waterfront dispute, and I echo their sentiments.Is it any wonder then that anyone coming upon this bill would become suspicious of its underlying motives. The problem we have is that what Mr Reith says and what Mr Reith does are two different things. It is with this in mind that I would like to go through some of the aspects of the proposed amendments. I believe we will see worsening employment conditions that pose serious safety concerns, again not only on board the ships that ply our coasts but for our marine environment.Seafarers have been employed under an industry rather than company employment system known as the Seafarers Engagement System—SES—or the roster. This was established in 1964 and is operated by placing seafarers on a register, and then being assigned to available ships based on the order of registration. The SES gives effect to Australia's international obligations under International Labour Organisation Convention No. 9. The government gave notice of denouncing this on 31 August 1998 but, in so doing and not ratifying ILO 179, it is in contravention of ILO Convention 9.The SES was administered by the Australian Maritime Safety Authority—AMSA—until closed by this government on 1 March 1998. The move to company employment and removal of the Australian Maritime Safety Authority in administering the SES is a further contravention of ILO Convention 9. The actual terms and conditions under which seafarers are employed on Australian ships are regulated by the Navigation Act 1912. These conditions will be abolished or amended under the bill.ILO Convention 9 deals with the supervision of articles of agreement and the provision of facilities for finding employment for seafarers. Article 2 of the convention establishes that the business of finding employment for seafarers not be carried out for pecuniary gain and directs that the ratifying country prohibit and punish such violations. Article 4 requires that a public employment office be established and maintained in order to find employment for seafarers without charge. Item 9 of the bill, which repudiates articles 2 and 4, will also mean that Australia will be in contravention of ILO Convention No. 9, article 2.Let us look at some of the government's proposed amendments and repeal provisions. The government wishes to abolish the system of articles of agreement contained in ILO Convention No. 22 and replace them with company contracts between the employer and either an individual seafarer or entire crew. The articles of agreement traditionally set out in some detail the obligation of seafarers and the shipowner and provided both with certainty as to conditions of employment. The repeal of this obligation will have several consequences. There will no longer be a requirement, for instance, for the employer of seafarers to be the shipowner. This provision, along with item 5 which removes the prohibition on labour hire firms supplying seafarers, makes it possible therefore to have labour hire firms employing seafarers and supplying these to shipowners. The problem here is that labour hire firms, unlike shipowners, may not necessarily know much about the industry and are unlikely to have a high incentive to ensure that the seafarers are of the highest trained quality.This is no idle reservation. It has been well documented in other countries that such practices lead to poorly skilled and trained seafarers being hired by labour hire firms who win contracts to supply labour from shipowners. Inevitably, this has had serious implications for occupational health and safety on foreign ships. The seafaring industry has risks that are inherent to the unique nature of the industry, as has been tragically demonstrated by past disasters. The absence of appropriately qualified, trained and responsible seafarers on board a ship can lead to safety breaches and such breaches have the potential to lead to multiple loss of life.Another consequence of removing the obligation for articles of agreement is that AMSA will no longer be able to have access to contemporaneous records of service of seafarers. It is intended that employers will keep such records and inform AMSA as need of service. Given that AMSA will have no ability to independently check the information, employers such as labour hire firms can manipulate the employee records without fear of independent random audits of service based on the articles of agreement transmitted to AMSA every time a seafarer commences work.In the Ships of shame report on ship safety by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure of December 1992, it is constantly reiterated that the quality of crew training is a central factor in maintaining ship safety. It is therefore imperative that a seafarer be adequately certified as qualified for the work performed and that adequate training be provided and scrutinised by an independent party. The effect of this bill will be to interfere with the certification of a seafarer's qualifications by abolishing the articles of agreement system and the discharge system. These systems provide for an independent audit of the seafarer's qualifications.The bill proposes that in future an employer will provide a statement of service containing prescribed information relating to that employment. The information is required for the purposes of calculating service to meet the requirements of the International Maritime Organisation's Convention on Standards of Training Certification and Watchkeeping. Concerns have been rightly raised in relation to any possible abuse of the proposed new system of calculating service. For example, will any employer rigorously inquire into a seafarer's qualifications or will they simply accept those certificates on face value? It is highly improbable that an investigation of doubtful certificates would be carried out if an employee is willing to work for less pay. The Ships of shame inquiry heard evidence that:. . . the possession of forged certificates poses problems for several reasons . . . (it may) suggest that a crew member does not have the requisite training and experience necessary to perform his/her tasks properly, so affecting the safe operation of the ship.The 1998 Ship safe report expressed concern at what it called:. . . the continued availability of false certificates and the lack of appropriate certificates held by some crew members.It has been reliably reported that for as little as $US300 it is possible to purchase qualification certificates and that internationally there are many sailing on worthless papers.Research submitted to the inquiry into the Australian Maritime Safety Authority annual report of 1996-97 indicated that the major cause of ship accidents had been human error or substandard actions. Safety is a key aspect of life on board ships. This is not only a question of proper training and qualifications; it is also about recognition of what is termed the social aspect of life at sea.As is often mentioned in maritime industry investigations, the seafaring industry is unique. Seafarers live in a working environment quite removed from that experienced by any other employee. The industry is dangerous and the exploitation of overseas crew members is widespread and well documented. The industry, in my view, needs regulation as well as competition.The three Ships of shame reports into ship safety by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure highlighted the working conditions of crew members and their treatment by owners and ships' officers. The committee heard evidence that the extent of this maltreatment extended to things such as bashing of crew members by ships' officers; denial of food and provision of inadequate food; under- or non-payment of wages and overtime; maintenance of two pay books, one for show, the other real; inadequate accommodation and ablution facilities; sexual molestation and rape; depriving access to appropriate medical care; and crew members being considered as `dispensables'.The first report noted:. . . crews from non traditional maritime nations are those which work in inadequate conditions, are poorly paid and whose living quarters are substandard . . . mistreated crew members are reluctant to complain as they will be black listed by crewing agencies and will be refused work as a seaman . . . crew members have often had to pay a fee to crewing agencies in order to secure employment and are reluctant to jeopardise their job security because of unemployment at home and the substantial investment made. This fee can be as high as $US 4000.I notice that Minister Reith in his second reading speech said that detailed employment provisions in the current act were probably justified by conditions in the shipping industry 100 years ago. I submit, given the damming evidence about crew welfare presented to the Ships of shame reports, that this is in fact an ongoing, contemporary problem. Indeed, in the Ships of shame—a sequel inquiry of 1995 it was noted:Substandard ships and practices still exist, crews are still being beaten, harassed, abused and deprived of basic human rights.The 1998 Ship safe report concluded:. . . in all the focus areas before the committee in this inquiry, crew welfare appears to have progressed the least in the 1990s and much remains in need of improvement.My side of the House contends that many of the government's amendments are inimical to achieving this aim, both in terms of securing genuine welfare provisions and monitoring qualifications and seafaring conditions.While accepting the need for competition in the industry, we do not accept that this means watering down seafarers' conditions by accepting the possibility of minimum international standards, and certainly not at a time when safety and other standards for seafarers have deteriorated to the extent outlined in the reports I have mentioned throughout this speech.Dismantling the fundamental standards of protection that exist already does not make sense. Items 3, 13, 27 and 48 refer to the Marine Council that was established under section 424 of the Navigation Act 1912. The council's principal role is to assess the suitability of people for employment at sea. Serious breaches of the code of conduct are referred to the council which considers the person's suitability for engagement as a seafarer. The Marine Council reports through the Australian Maritime Safety Authority's annual report. It is the intention of the bill to abolish the Marine Council and its functions, but this has serious implications for seafarers' working conditions.The bill is based on seafarers changing their employment status to that of permanent full-time employees of shipowners. The government expects employers to take over the role of the Marine Council in determining matters related above. The independent third party will no longer exist to determine the question of the suitability of a seafarer.Criticisms of this bill rightly highlight the potential conflict of interest inherent in the situation. Surely the employer's incentive to ensure quality crew is tempered by a desire to have low-paid flexible workers. Unfortunately, the bill does not require permanent ongoing company employment.Further casualisation of the work force continues to occur in the shipping industry, yet this work force will no longer be regulated. It is feasible that those who have in the past been deregistered, or who in the future commit acts which would lead them to be deregistered, will not be legally prevented from working as seafarers.The current system for training, registering and monitoring seafaring skills, medical health and conduct has led to Australian seafarers being regarded internationally as amongst the best and safest in the world. The Marine Council has played an important role in Australian seafarers attaining this hard-earned reputation. It is strange policy to abolish a successful instrument and replace it with nothing.Item 9 of the bill will remove the provisions that prohibit the demanding or receiving of a fee for providing a seafarer with employment. I notice that Minister Anderson in his second reading speech claimed that abuses such as crimping were only relevant in the days of sailing ships. Evidence before the 1996-1997 annual report of AMSA made it quite clear that crimping is, in fact, relatively widespread. In the MUA submission to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communications, Transport and Microeconomic Reform in mid-1998, it was stated that the lifting of the prohibition meant that jobs could be filled on the basis of ability to pay rather than on merit has exists under the current Navigation Act. The MUA submission is worth quoting. It states:. . . the removal of this prohibition can only lead to the encouragement of under-skilled seafarers bidding to obtain positions on ships. It also opens the possibility of third world labour bidding to be placed on board Australian ships.Item 10 of the bill will remove a longstanding prohibition on ships crews handling cargo or ballast whilst in an Australian port. The MUA is right to argue that the proposed amendments pose a threat both to their members and to the environment. Cleaning ships' holds is a vexed problem because such routine operations on board ships are a bigger polluting menace than accidents like oil spills. Given the government's intention to deregulate the labour market in the industry and gut the oversight functions of the Marine Council, the potential for environmental problems flowing from this only increases. The handling of cargo is dangerous and skilled work. Safety and expertise are essential. Removal of the prohibition will leave the way open to seafarers who are not trained in stevedoring skills being required to attempt such work.It is as plain as day that the government's intention is to water down the employment conditions of seafarers. The application of the Workplace Relations Act in this unique and dangerous industry is doing little more than returning the industry to the old days when individual seafarers were at the mercy of the shipowner or manning agent.The Workplace Relations Act is hardly a raging success at the moment in industries and amongst workers with nothing like the social and safety constraints of seafarers. It really defies credibility to suggest that comprehensive equity of contract could exist between seafarer and employer in this industry under the deregulated conditions intended by this legislation.I come from an island with a long and proud maritime history and industry. Its reliance on the sea for its commerce, transport and recreation is enormous. Anything that impinges on this must be scrutinised carefully. Marine safety is paramount. Tasmanians must feel secure that the ships that ply our waters are safe, the crews manning the vessels are well-trained, and that on board practices are of the highest international standards. The introduction of more flag of convenience ships in the name of competition and deregulation, and an open seas policy, is more reason to worry than to be thankful.Maritime reform has occurred and continues to occur. Deregulation for ideology's sake is not reform and, in this bill's case, is little more than a ruse to attack the conditions and collective strengths of Australian seafarers.Finally, the current Navigation Act provides a sound, transparent and internationally acceptable standard for a sound and well-regulated shipping industry. I believe that is the very basis on which to negotiate more flexible and enterprise based employment arrangements between the parties involved.17:44:004767Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—Like all longstanding legislation, the Navigation Act 1912 needs to be reviewed from time to time to modernise its provisions. Such revision should aim to enhance the operation of the industry, its efficiency and application. The bill before us, the Navigation Amendment (Employment of Seafarers) Bill 1998 , goes beyond those objectives. It reflects the manic hatred of the government in general, and of the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business in particular, towards Australian seafarers, their families and their union. The minister's message on this occasion has been delivered by the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, whose help he has enlisted to do his dirty work.Instead of introducing reform that will be beneficial to the seafaring industry, the government has chosen to introduce legislation that is yet another attack on the working conditions of workers within the industry. We have a government that, in their obsession to destroy the Maritime Union of Australia, are prepared to destroy the shipping industry. They are committed to destroying the jobs of MUA members, and they hope that by doing this they will destroy the union. They will not succeed, but they will damage the industry in the process, hurt many families in their vendetta against the union and hurt Australia's economy.We saw the government's determination to weaken Australia's shipping industry soon after it came to office when it abolished the PAYE tax exemptions that had been legislated by the previous Labor government—legislated to put Australia's international trading vessels on a more competitive basis with overseas shipping competitors. Under Labor's legislation the employer retained the PAYE tax component of crews' wages on Australian flag vessels whose majority activity was international trade. That was very important and is something that this government has moved to move away from. Similar legislation and benefits are available to shipowners and operators in most of our competitor shipping nations.Since this government abolished the Australian PAYE tax exemptions we have seen a steady reduction of the Australian flag fleet. BHP's Iron Pacific, one of the world's largest coal carriers, at 229,000 tonnes, and well known at the port of Newcastle—which is in the Hunter, where I come from—was soon sold off to the Bergesen line of Norway. Our tanker fleets are reducing. Howard Smith Ltd have left the shipping industry but for towage. Bit by bit, the government has been successful in destroying Australia's shipping fleet.The antagonistic policy of this government towards Australian seafarers and Australian shipping is in stark contrast to that of our Western trading partners. The United Kingdom, the European Commission, the Netherlands government and the Norwegian government all recognise and seek the valuable contribution that the shipping industry makes to the seagoing and shore based sectors of their economies.The current United Kingdom government saw, when it was in opposition, the British merchant flag fleet decimated by the Thatcher government. The British used to rule the waves. Today the British flag fleet is around 250 ships. But the Blair government has listened to the United Kingdom's shore based, maritime related service providers and is working to reclaim some of the shore based business Britain has lost. Like its EC partners, the UK knows that where the `ship control' goes, so goes the related service business—that is, without `ship control' industries, services like maritime insurance, maritime law, towage, training, education, ship management, ship repair and stevedoring will disappear. These are services lost to the UK, and services that we stand to lose if this government is allowed to continue its vendetta against the MUA at the expense of our shipping industry. We certainly stand to lose a lot. Britain now knows the value of shipping and all its related shore based services and is anxious to regain lost business.In Norway, a maritime forum has been established to bring together the efforts of its members to build a bigger business share for Norway. The maritime forum is open to all Norwegian companies involved in the maritime industry. Norway is a small nation of 4½ million people, but it has built up professional skills and competencies over decades. Industry gets backing and leadership from shipping companies and the government. Its seafarers are recognised for their skills and competence by all, and the Norwegian seafarer is an integral element vital to the whole of Norway's maritime industry. It respects and looks after its workers and it appreciates that only by working together with the workers in the industry can it achieve the strength and the competitiveness that it needs to be a successful maritime nation and have a successful maritime industry, which is in stark contrast to what this government is seeking to do here in Australia.Under this government, Australia's shipping industry and its seafarers, who are recognised worldwide for their skills, are denigrated, demeaned and denied the fiscal support that is provided by governments to our competitors. In fact, despite the government's rhetoric, we have seen the minister for workplace relations in the previous parliament with his henchman, Mr Darren Gillespie, dedicate their efforts to destroying the jobs of Australia's seafarers. And behind the scenes, no doubt, this is still going on. Do not for a moment think that the agenda has changed. The purpose of every piece of legislation that this government introduces in this area is to destroy the union and to attack the conditions of workers and—in doing so, it is destroying something that is very precious to us here in Australia.The EC, the European Commission, has also recognised the value of a strong presence in shipping for its economies. It, like Britain, has realised that, through research, the contributions to the EC economies from shore based maritime related services far exceed seagoing contributions. As I said earlier, these services embrace everything from design, building and repairing a ship to managing, financing, insuring and crewing a ship.The Netherlands government is similarly striving to grow its maritime related trade. Mr Nieunepoort, head of the maritime transport section of the ministry of transport, public works and water management of the Netherlands, said in a speech recently:Although it is a global industry, the shipping industry can add significantly to national economies. The footlooseness of the industry demands a proactive government.It demands a government that has got a commitment to the industry; it demands a government that cares about developing that industry. He made the point that cost reduction in many cases has meant safety reductions and older ships. The average age of the world cargo fleet was less than 10 years in 1970 and 1980. By 1993, it was 17 years and, in 1999, it was 18 years—more ships, older ships and undermaintained ships. This is the future. This is the vision of this government: this is their vision for our shipping industry and for our economy.Mr Nieunepoort said that the price of shipping is too cheap and that real rates of return are too low, not permitting any sort of real innovation. We all know that, without innovation, industries die. They do not thrive. You need innovation for an industry to develop. In the shipping industry, innovation is clearly not playing the role it does in other industries.The former member for Shortland, the Hon. Peter Morris, chaired an inquiry—and I know it has been quite extensively mentioned in this debate—that produced the Ships of shame report.QI4PRICEMr Price—A seminal report.83NHall, Jill, MPMs HALL—Yes, definitely, a seminal report. The report has received acclaim throughout the world and has highlighted a number of problems in the shipping industry, problems that have been reiterated by speaker after speaker. This report detailed the treatment received by seafarers, the threat that these ships pose to the environment and the atrocious conditions under which the seafarers work.The changes that this government is proposing are yet another attack on workers in the maritime industry. They are designed to strip workers of their rights and conditions. They are designed to put Australia's fleet in line with those ships of shame. Mr Reith wants to create an environment where the ships of shame can flourish in Australia. This government is preoccupied with destruction of the MUA. As long as this government—QI4PRICEMr Price—Or any other union.83NHall, Jill, MPMs HALL—Yes, as the honourable member and my colleague says, `And any other union.' It has a vendetta against unions. In doing that, it is losing sight of what the MUA is there for. It is there to promote industry, to look after everybody within the country. As long as this government can crush the maritime union, it does not care what the cost will be to the workers, to the families, to the environment, to Australia's reputation, or to our seagoing or shore based shipping industries.Government members interjecting—83NHall, Jill, MPMs HALL—I hear members on the other side of the House joining with me and agreeing with what I am saying. The Netherlands has developed a maritime cluster of which shipping is the nucleus. Of the added value of the Dutch shipping industry, 70 per cent was related to shore based activities and 30 per cent was related to shipping activities—and that is seafarers' wages. Yet this government seems to believe that it is all related to the workers—to the seafarers' wages and conditions. The Netherlands has an industry package which includes fiscal benefit measures which are working to maintain the presence of the Netherlands flag on the world's seas. Its government knows that more ships mean more employment, not only for seafarers but also ashore, something that this government has not realised. It has not realised that if it destroys our seafaring or our maritime industry it is going to cost many jobs not only within the industry but also in associated industries.Here in Australia, despite the rampage of this government against our shipping industry and its seafarers, people who see the value of Australia's maritime related services have formed an Australian maritime network. Its objectives are to grow Australia's maritime related services by increased promotion, efficiency and competitiveness, rather than seeking to grow the maritime industry by attacking it. As the fifth largest market in the world on a cargo-distance carried basis, Australia should have a steady shipping and maritime related service industry, yet Australia's share of its shipping trade by towage was only 3.4 per cent in 1997-98.QI4PRICEMr Price—Disgraceful.83NHall, Jill, MPMs HALL—Disgraceful, yes—absolutely disgraceful. By value it was slightly more at 3.9 per cent in 1997-98. More than 40,000 Australians are employed in maritime related services. Over 10 per cent of the jobs require maritime experiences, jobs like tug crews, port staff, et cetera. Many of the shore based jobs are in professions such as law, accountancy, insurance, management and training. These are all jobs that will be impacted on by this government's vendetta and preoccupation with attacking and destroying this industry through its union. If it could work with the union and with the workers within the industry, the industry would thrive. But, as long as it goes down the track of constantly being preoccupied and driven by its ideological hatred of unions, it is going nowhere.With the exception of the Hon. Ralph Hunt, the former National Party minister for transport and a predecessor of the current Minister for Transport and Regional Services, coalition ministers for transport have continually denigrated Australia's shipping industry. They have waged a concerted campaign against the industry, demeaning its employees and, decade after decade, have committed to the promotion of foreign shipping interests. There can, and should be, a better future for Australia's maritime related industries.This government, under this Prime Minister and this Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, is pursuing the Thatcher policy of destroying its indigenous shipping industry. The agenda of this government is transparent. When it seeks to abolish the system of articles of agreement, a system that is of vital importance to seafarers, a system that ensures their rights on ships and in ports throughout the world, it is moving against the rights of workers.I can understand why the government is pursuing this agenda. It is driven by its philosophical opposition to unions and workers, in particular the Maritime Union.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—It is all about free choice.83NHall, Jill, MPMs HALL—Once again I hear the member on the other side agreeing with me and saying, yes, he is driven by this philosophical opposition to unions and, in particular, the Maritime Union and its workers.We only have to look back to 1998 to see the extent to which this government is prepared to go in its persecution of the union, and unions generally. By trying to destroy the MUA it is destroying the lives of workers. It is attacking workers, attacking families, attacking ordinary, everyday, average Australians. It is those people who will be disadvantaged. It is the people who vote that this government is attacking. Every condition of workers within the system and, in particular, those in this fine maritime industry, is under attack by this government.What we should be doing is working with the workers—working to enhance our shipping industry, working to go forward into the future, and working along with that maritime network that has been established to make sure that we do have a strong, healthy maritime industry where there are jobs created, not only in the seagoing area but also in the shore based area. We should be working to ensure that the insurers, the shipbuilding industry and the ship repairing industry continue to thrive.Unfortunately, this legislation does not do this. Unfortunately, this is bad legislation. Unfortunately, this bad legislation is driven by an ideological hatred of unions and, in particular, the Maritime Union, on the part of this government, which is determined to persecute the workers, persecute the union and persecute their families. It is not like what is happening in the Netherlands where they are working together to strengthen the industry. Rather, this government is attacking the workers and the union to the detriment of the industry.Motion (by Mr Slipper) agreed to:That further proceedings on this bill be conducted in the House.Bills4771r7184771Debate resumed from 11 February, on motion by Mr McGauran:That the bill be now read a second time.18:04:004771Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—I am very pleased that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration is in the House again. I hope he will be most generous in his remarks.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—He is hardworking.QI4Price, Roger, MPMr PRICE—I do not know whether I could go that far. I am speaking on the Youth Allowance Consolidation Bill 1999 . This bill proposes to incorporate two disallowable instruments and one set of regulations dealing with aspects of Austudy into the Social Security Act 1991, to address technical issues arising out of implementation of the youth allowance package and to make consequential amendments relating to the commencement of the youth allowance. It could more properly be called, I suppose, the Youth Allowance Balls-Up Bill, because that is what it is really trying to fix up.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Not quite correctly described.QI4Price, Roger, MPMr PRICE—Euphemistically described—I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker. One of the points I want to make is that it has always surprised me that the Howard government has really attacked two distinct groups in our society. I have never understood why. The first group is the elderly, and we all know the infamous—849SIDEBOTTOMMr Sidebottom—They are vulnerable.QI4Price, Roger, MPMr PRICE—Vulnerable people, people who have made a marvellous contribution to Australia, and it has absolutely viciously attacked them by the changes to the nursing home arrangements. And even though the government has backed down, and the responsible minister in Tasmania lost his seat, it is still the case that, regrettably, some older Australians are being forced to sell the family home as a result of these changes. I have to say that it was this group that I thought gave the Howard government outstanding support in 1996, and it always gets a majority of the votes of this group. Why the government has, in such an unrelenting way, attacked them I will never know.The second group, of course, is young people—the future of the country. On the one hand, it is those who have made a contribution; and the second group is the youth of Australia, those that are going to make the contribution to Australia, our future. Here we are on the edge of the new millennium, the new century, and what is the group that we single out? Young people. It baffles me. I am one who believes we should rejoice in our young people, we should nurture them, we should give them some assistance and then look forward to all that they can achieve in the future.I have already spoken about one proposal that I find absolutely beyond the pale, and that is that, if you are an unemployed youth and you are illiterate, you get a cut in your social security unless you go and fix your literacy problem. I have not met one person in my electorate who is illiterate who chose to be illiterate, who made a deliberate choice to be illiterate. We have the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, the Hon. David Kemp, time after time, in question time tell us all that he has done about literacy. Yet we still have a major literacy problem in Australia.I have said before that the danger with people who cannot read and write is that, if you saddle them up to a course and they do not succeed, you have probably lost them forever. And that is a tragedy. Usually, not always but usually, people who present with a literacy problem have a whole variety of other problems. So, if we see this as an exercise in trying to encourage the private sector, yes, you may be able to have groups who are very good at treating literacy. But, if they do not come to grips with the other problems, you have lost them. It is not as though we have some really new initiatives in terms of literacy and eradicating illiteracy. We do not have, for example, a national system of re-entry centres for young people who dropped out of school at an early age to go back into a different environment, to tackle their education and bring them up to scratch.It is really an element of wedge politics—that is, withdraw the sympathy for someone who cannot read and write, and punish them: if you do not fix it up, then you are in trouble; you will not get your full entitlement to social security. It is ironic because I think the Australian people want us to tackle, in a very bipartisan way, some of the important issues, such as literacy. I think if you talked to members of parliament, leaving aside their party affiliations, we could come up with some really good proposals. But it would take money. You cannot talk about these problems and talk them away; you actually have to invest.Another proposal that is caught up in this common youth allowance particularly affects my electorate—and, again, the minister for education. How many times in question time have we heard that the Labor government ignored vocational education? This is an absolute misstatement of the facts. Did we do enough in vocational education? We all agree we should have done more. But what is the government doing with this common youth allowance? It is saying to people who probably have left school at year 9 or year 10, `Unless you return to school, you don't get any of this assistance from the government, whereas you previously would have.'Encouraging people to have a good and full education is something that I think all honourable members can agree about. But is it the case that Minister Kemp and the Howard government have ensured that in every state and territory of this Commonwealth we have subjects that will be relevant to these people that we are pushing back into school?849SIDEBOTTOMMr Sidebottom—There was no money there.QI4Price, Roger, MPMr PRICE—I agree with my learned colleague. He says that not one extra dollar has gone to the state education systems for this measure. In my own state, it is true that the department of education has vocational education subjects in years 11 and 12. But the problem is that they do not actually lead anywhere. I will use apprenticeships because that is the easiest example I can give. Queensland, for example, has a system where you actually start your apprenticeship in years 11 and 12 and do not miss out on your other general education. If you want to enter the world of work, you do it through the subjects that have value on the TAFE side and hold credentials with employers in Queensland.Did Minister Kemp, who has so unctuously, repeatedly, said that we did not do enough or that we neglected vocational education, say of this measure, `I'm aiming for a national system. I can recognise the good that is being done in Queensland and we are going to encourage all the states and territories to do this'? Of course that is not the case. That is mere rhetoric. It is really wedge politics. It is singling out young people and making them the victims and ensuring that the rest of the community look down on them.When I chaired a review into Austudy, one of the legitimate concerns expressed by coalition members was that they did not like people going into years 11 and 12 for the purpose of collecting Austudy—I might now say `common youth allowance'. I accept that. I think there is nothing worse than warehousing young people and not adding to their development. They are not being challenged, they are not adding to their development and, in a sense, they are no better off vis-a-vis the work force by being in school.What are we doing to schools in my electorate and other working-class electorates and, I dare say, some rural electorates? We are forcing people back into schools who really do not want to be there. They are not being offered subjects that they consider to be relevant and that will lead to a job. I am sure that the Labor Party will be coming up with a very robust policy as far as this is concerned. I just want to make the point that it is really sad that we are singling out young people and victimising them by failing to follow up with dollars to allow systems to adequately cope, let alone making sure that the systems are offering worthwhile subjects.I ungenerously, or impolitely, referred to that Austudy report. I notice that schedule 3 of this bill, which repeals the Social Security (Family Actual Means Test) Regulations 1998 and replaces them with similar provisions in the Social Security Act, has the effect of bringing forward some of the recommendations about people's capacity to pay that were adopted as a result of the Austudy report. We all know—and I am not saying that these measures were 100 per cent successful—of the Volvo syndrome; that is, uni students going to university driving a Volvo but in receipt of Austudy.We tried to look at the actual capacity of the family to pay. I am not critical that the recommendations are there. But, when we proposed them, Treasury said that it was absolutely impossible for us to do anything about the situation and that it was wrong that we should propose this in relation to Austudy on its own. Although the Labor government—or Labor Minister Dawkins at the time—was a bit scathing about it, they were subsequently implemented.It is a bit hypocritical that the recommendations have been adopted in this area. But, for example, when we look at child support—at women who have a legitimate claim to some child support from those people who do have assets and who are able legitimately to minimise their income and avoid paying any child support—and compare it with the regulations about the common youth allowance, we say we cannot implement it with child support. I think that there needs to be a degree of consistency, and, surely, here is the example. Whilst I have normally been associated with the concerns of non-custodial parents, I have always known of this group of women—and it is overwhelmingly mainly women—who are married to small businessmen, professionals and self-employed who have the capacity to minimise their taxable income, thereby completely avoiding and evading their responsibility. So it is really only working-class people who are caught up in the Child Support Scheme. If you are self-employed or wealthy, there is no problem at all.I want to say something about Centrelink. I really admire efficiency in the Public Service. I have confessed previously that, in reality, I came to this place as a public servant, having worked for Telstra. But I am amazed—it is a sort of a coming out, I might say, but I have done it before—that an organisation like Centrelink, which can accept a $150 million cut to its budget, can have some 5,000 people slashed from its payroll and we say, `The same standards will be maintained; no problem at all.' I remember the old system. There was nothing particularly dignified about it, but it is true that we used to have queues at the former Department of Social Security. Those queues were annoying for some people, but there was a degree of solidarity, I suppose, in that, if you were in that queue and you looked ahead of you and behind you, you knew that other people were in a similar boat. The queue provided a degree of solidarity, I suppose. But then we went to this great interview system. It says that, if you are a Centrelink client—or customer, I think they prefer to be called—you are anonymous; that is, there is no queue and, when you walk into that office, you are on your own. But, rather than providing a superior service—Mr Sawford interjecting—6K6ELSONMrs Elson—A personalised service.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The member for Chifley should ignore his advisers on both sides of the chamber.QI4Price, Roger, MPMr PRICE—I thought that the honourable member opposite was making the point that they do try to provide a personalised service, and I guess that there are some advantages about having interviews. The point I want to make is that queues are very visible, but how do you tell if the appointment system is taking a week, three weeks or four weeks? It is very anonymous.In terms of this personal service, I must say I got quite offended that the minister, with a great deal of fanfare, went and opened the new Tuggeranong Centrelink office. I am not against him opening it; I think that was great. But I have to say that in Mount Druitt the Centrelink office was located in two separate buildings—the accommodation was awful. We actually have a new Centrelink office. Do you think the minister would come to Mount Druitt to open the office? Do you think the minister would send an underling? I have had Minister Kemp send a staffer of an upper house Liberal member in the New South Wales parliament to open a school extension in my electorate. I must say I was offended by that. I guess, if I had a preference, I would rather they not open it in that fashion.If we are talking about a physical environment, which is important to clients of Centrelink, what is the shame in opening the office in Mount Druitt? Does the minister think I will bag him? No, I welcome that office. I think it is a distinct improvement, especially for the clients of Centrelink, but also the staff. I have been there a number of times. But why is it that he will open some offices but not others? Are we in Western Sydney, or in my electorate, beyond the pale? Don't we deserve it? Don't we merit it? I know members opposite may refer to some of the games we play in government, but I do not believe in that. I think offices should be opened and I think local members of whatever persuasion should always be accorded a degree of courtesy. I must say that when I had the modest position of a parliamentary secretary I was always a stickler for observing the courtesies.In my electorate, I have to say there has been a reduction in the number of staff, with 10 staff lost from Mount Druitt and seven from St Marys. I am hard pressed to report to the parliament that the service has remained the same. I have infinite sympathy for the staff trying to deal with the demand—that is, the number of clients they have to deal with. I think that sometimes, when we are dealing with public service entities, private enterprise efficiencies and models are not always the best gauge to go by. Sometimes we have to accept a premium for providing a public service to people. I am astounded how we are maintaining this myth that Centrelink is going to be able to sustain a $150 million cutback and maintain the same level of service.We ought to get rid of the rhetoric. I think in New South Wales there is a message—I would use more colourful language, except that you are in the chair, Mr Deputy Speaker Nehl—that the general public do not like politicians not telling the truth or not being up front with people. They know that the service has been degraded. So I am very grateful to have had the opportunity to speak on this bill. It does affect a lot of my constituents whom I hold in high esteem and I sincerely hope we can start `investing'—to use the rational economic term—in young people. They are certainly worth it, and the cost-benefit return is going to be enormous, especially investing in people that might not be considered to be top of the pile.Debate (on motion by Mrs Elson) adjourned.Main Committee adjourned at 6.24 p.m.Answers to Questions in Writing4776The following answers to questions were circulated:4776(Question No. 113)1134776Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 23 November 1998:Did the Minister, his or her predecessor or his or her Department appoint a (a) former member of the Commonwealth Parliament or (b) member of the secretariats of the national offices of the Liberal Party of Australia, National Party of Australia, Australian Labor Party, Australian Democrats or Australian Greens as a (i) statutory appointment,(ii) consultant or (iii) other appointment to government boards or posts between 30 April 1996 and 31 August 1998; if so, in each case, (A) what was the person's name and the position to which he or she was appointed, (B) to which political party was he or she affiliated, (C) what remuneration was involved, (D) was the appointment (I) full-time, (II) part-time or (III) casual (E) what fees were applicable and (F) with respect to (I) travel allowance, (II) vehicles, (III) telephones and (IV) attendance fees, (aa) what entitlements were claimable, (ab) how often were entitlements claimed and (ac) what sum was paid under each entitlement.4776Vaile, Mark, MPMr VaileSU5LyneNPTrade10—The Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:The following appointments were made during the period 30 April 1996 and 31_August 1998:(A) Mr Bruce Lloyd was appointed a member, Natural Heritage Trust Advisory Committee, on 20/11/97, under the Natural Heritage Trust of Australia Act 1997.(B) National Party of Australia (former Member for Murray, 1971-96)(C) Sitting fees of $247.00 per day plus travel costs and travel allowance, are paid in accordance with the Remuneration Tribunal determination.(D) Part-time.(E) see (C)(F) (I)—(IV) and (aa)—(ac):TRAVEL ALLOWANCE:3/12/97$175.003/3/98$175.0010/6/98$211.25VEHICLES:3/12/97$203.303/3/98$208.6510/6/98$208.65TELEPHONES:NilATTENDANCE FEES:3/12/97$247.003/3/98$247.0010/6/98$247.00(A) Mr Christopher Puplick was announced as Chair of the National Task Force on Whaling on 30 September 1996.(B) Liberal Party of Australia (former Senator for New South Wales, 1985-90)(C) Sitting fees of $285.00 per day plus travel costs and travel allowance are paid in accordance with the Remuneration Tribunal determination. (D) Part-time(E) see (C)(F) (I)—(IV) (aa)—(ac):TRAVEL ALLOWANCE:8-9/1/97$115.0014-15/3/97$200.008/4/97$50.00VEHICLES:23/10/96$26.5020/11/96$81.008-9/1/97$85.8314-15/3/97$54.508/4/97$83.10TELEPHONES:NilATTENDANCE FEES:23/10/96$285.0020/11/96$285.008-9/1/97$570.0014-15/3/97$570.008/4/97$285.0025/2/98$285.0024/9/98$285.00 (not yet processed or paid)Other paymentsIn his capacity as Chair of the National Task Force on Whaling, Mr Puplick was invited by the Government to be a member of the Australian delegation to annual meetings of the International Whaling Commission (IWC).IWC49 held in Monaco, in October 1997TRAVEL ALLOWANCE: $151.72 per day (SES rate for France) for 9 days.IWC50 held in Oman, in May 1998TRAVEL ALLOWANCE: $156.25 per day (SES rate for Oman) for 7 days.(A) Mr David Connolly was appointed as Chair of the Ministerial Advisory Group on Oceans Policy in August 1997.(B) Liberal Party of Australia (former member for Braddon)(C) Sitting fees of $285.00 per day plus travel costs paid in accordance with the Remuneration Tribunal determination.(D) Part-time(E) See (C)(F) (I)—(IV) (aa)—(ac):TRAVEL ALLOWANCE:2-3/12/97$65.0029-31/3/98$50.4029-31/3/98$78.3822/4/98$63.39VEHICLES: 30/1/98$79.7622/4/98$96.90TELEPHONES:NilATTENDANCE FEES:15/10/97$285.0013/11/97$285.0030/1/98$300.0024/2/98$300.00Other paymentsMr Connolly was paid out of session fees for approved work out of session:12/9/97—$300.00; 13/11/97—$480.00; 3/12/97—$1020.00; 1/1/98—$300.00; $6,10,28—29/2/98and 23/2/98—$720.00.4778(Question No. 148)1484778McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 24 November 1998:Will he provide up-to-date information on the number of aborted take-offs at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport since the answer to question No. 1734 (Hansard , 2 March 1998, page 151).4778Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Airservices Australia has advised that complete recordings are not available on the number of rejected take-offs at Sydney Airport since the answer to question No 1734 which dealt with aborted landings.4778(Question No. 154)1544778McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 24 November 1998:(1) Has he received submissions, representations, correspondence or other communication from Qantas Airways Limited or Ansett Australia claiming additional costs that have been incurred by the airlines as a result of the implementation of the Long Term Operating Plan (LTOP) for Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport; if so, (a) who made the submission representations, correspondence or other communications and (b) what additional costs were claimed to have been incurred by those airlines.(2) Has his attention been drawn to Australian or overseas research identifying language differences between foreign pilots and air traffic controllers as being a significant safety issue.(3) What steps has the Government implemented to address the issue referred to in part (2) in view of the complexities of the LTOP.4778Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Honourable Member is mistaken if he thinks that I am going to provide him with any information about correspondence that I may or may not have received. LTOP is Government policy, and we are pursuing it vigorously.(2) No.(3) The Air Operator's Certificates issued to foreign operators to permit them to conduct international commercial flights into Australia contain a condition that the pilot in command, and any other crew member making a radio transmission from the aircraft, must be able to read, speak and understand the English language.The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has advised that a number of incidents where language differences have been a factor have been reported through the Airservices Australia Electronically Submitted Incident Reporting System. CASA has written to the operators concerned in these incidents to remind them of the condition contained in their Air Operator's Certificate. In one case of repeated incidents, CASA found it necessary to pursue the matter further with the operator and the regulatory authority of the country concerned.CASA inspectors conduct random inspections of foreign operators at their first port of call in Australia. During these inspections the inspectors assess the pilot in command's ability to understand and speak the English language.Failure of an operator to comply with the conditions contained in an Air Operator's Certificate could result in suspension or cancellation of the certificate.4779(Question No. 184)1844779McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 24 November 1998:(1) Has the Rockdale Medicare office been closed: if so, (a) was the decision to close made by (i) himself, (ii) the Health Insurance Commission (HIC) or (iii) himself in conjunction with the HIC and (b) what facts and circumstances were considered in reaching the decision.(2) How well was the office patronised and how did it compare to similar offices which have not been closed.(3) If he consulted the HIC on the decision, (a) what was the nature of consultation, (b) when did the consultations occur and (c) did the consultations occur in the context of a predetermined Government policy as to which Medicare offices should be closed.4779Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes, the Rockdale Medicare office closed on 10 October 1997.(a) The decision to close the Rockdale Medicare office was made by the Health Insurance Commission. I endorsed this decision.(b) The criteria which were taken into consideration when identifying Medicare branch offices for closure included:. Claiming patterns including cash service workloads (ie less than 400 daily average Medicare cash services);. Proximity to other branch offices (within 12 kms);. Capacity to redeploy staff; and. Leasing and other property issues.(2) The answer is at Attachment A.(3) (a) The HIC advised me that it proposed closing the Rockdale Medicare Office along with 42 other metropolitan offices, all of which met each of the selection criteria.(b) The consultation occurred prior to my announcement of the closures on 13 May 1997.(c) The Government decided that no Medicare offices in rural Australia would be closed. The HIC determined the selection criteria based on this decision.ATTACHMENT ANEW SOUTH WALESBRANCH OFFICE NAMETOTAL PATIENT SERVICES 96/97ROCKDALE78,698BANKSTOWN200,003BLACKTOWN220,304BONDI339,604BROOKVALE404,266BURWOOD136,343CAMDEN120,302CAMPBELLTOWN243,863CASTLE HILL246,871CHATSWOOD403,514EASTWOOD244,615ENGADINE127,821FAIRFIELD128,573HORNSBY346,872HURSTVILLE190,980KOTARA247,622LIVERPOOL208,023MARTIN PLACE284,214MIRANDA247,622 NORTH RYDE254,389NORTH SYDNEY205,266PAGEWOOD144,363PARRAMATTA182,960PENRITH299,753RICHMOND151,882ROSELANDS145,115SPIT JUNCTION239,853SPRINGWOOD119,300UMINA166,168WARRIEWOOD214,038WYNYARD449,881YORK STREET314,7914780(Question No. 185)1854780McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on24 November 1998:Is it a fact that most private health insurers used to provide for domestic nursing care but have now removed coverage from their policies.4780Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:No.4780(Question No. 188)1884780McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 24 November 1998:(1) Further to the answer to question No. 2832 (Hansard , 25 May 1998, page 3625), has his attention been drawn to reports that waiting times for customers at Medicare offices have significantly increased since the recent closure of a number of Medicare customer services centres.(2) Will he conduct an urgent review of waiting times for Medicare offices in New South Wales.4780Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The closure of metropolitan Medicare Offices did increase customer traffic in neighbouring offices that remained open. However, workload and administrative procedures have been adjusted to meet the resulting demand. Occasionally there are high levels of customer traffic that produce long queues. These queues do not necessarily translate into lengthy waiting times and in most cases the time does not exceed 10 minutes. Medibank Private has now opened its own network of offices and agencies and from 1 July 1998 Medicare Offices no longer have to deal with lengthy private health insurance inquiries, sales and payments.(2) No. Waiting times in Medicare Offices are continually monitored and procedures adjusted where necessary. Normally waiting times will not exceed 10 minutes even during the peak lunch period.4780(Question No. 240)2404780Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, upon notice, on 30 November 1998:(1) What award or other provisions for Defence Reserve leave apply to Telstra employees.(2) Has Telstra management indicated that Defence Reserve leave is under review and that it is proposed to restrict each employee to a maximum of two weeks leave each year.(3) Is it a fact that the system of common induction training for the Army which was introduced by the Government requires new Army Reservists to be absent from civilian employment for up to seven weeks.(4) Will the circumstances described in the previous parts of this question discourage Telstra employees from enlisting in the Army Reserve; if so, is this consistent with the Government's intentions for the Army Reserve.4780McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauranXH4GippslandNPArts and the Centenary of Federation10—The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) and (2) Telstra has advised that its employment policies were recently reviewed under a policy simplification process. The resulting policy on Defence Reserve leave is as follows:30 days paid leave (inclusive of Saturdays and Sundays) per calendar year may be approved.In addition to the above, a staff member may also apply for Annual Leave, Long Service Leave, Leave Without Pay, Rostered Day Off or Flexible Hours Leave.Management approval of leave for the absence of a staff member from the workplace is discretionary having regard to the balancing of customer needs, the achievement of the area's work objective and the individual's request.Defence Reserve Leave policy has been with Telstra and its predecessors since January 1951.(3) Common Induction Training (CIT) for all Army recruits, both Regular and Reserve, comprises recruit training and Initial Employment Training (IET). In accordance with Competency Based Training and Assessment principles, both Regular and Reserve soldiers must be trained, and achieve, the same competencies if they are to be employed in the same workplace.Currently, the delivery of the recruit component of CIT requires all Army recruits, both Regular and Reserve, to undertake a common recruit course that consists of 45 days, that is six weeks and three days, of continuous training.(4) Telstra policy has various leave provisions which may be available to staff members having regard to the operational requirements of the company.The revised Telstra Defence Reserve Leave provisions would provide a simpler and more flexible Defence Reserve Leave system, with no loss of leave day quantum. Although staff, only once, would need to apply for leave additional to Defence Reserve Leave to undergo Common Induction Training, the total revised package is unlikely to significantly discourage Telstra employees from enlisting in the Army Reserve.4781(Question No. 341)3414781Bevis, Arch, MPMr BevisET4BrisbaneALP00 asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 8 February 1999:(1) How many employees in the Minister's Department have their principal conditions of employment set by (a) an award, (b) an industrial agreement, (c) a certified agreement and (d) an Australian workplace agreement. (2) What is the classification of each person in the Minister's Department employed under an Australian workplace agreement.4781Fischer, Tim, MPMr Tim FischerDG4FarrerNP10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (a) Nil(b) Nil(c) As at 4 February 1999, 504 Austrade employees have their principal conditions of employment set by certified agreement.(d) Nil(2) Nil.4781(Question No. 343)3434781Bevis, Arch, MPMr BevisET4BrisbaneALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 8 February 1999:(1) How many employees in the Minister's Department have their principal conditions of employment set by (a) an award, (b) an industrial agreement, (c) a certified agreement and (d) an Australian workplace agreement.(2) What is the classification of each person in the Minister's Department employed under an Australian workplace agreement.4781Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1)(a) and (b) There are no employees of the Department of Transport and Regional Services who have their principal conditions set by an award or an industrial agreement.(c) and (d) There are 804 employees whose principal conditions are set by a certified agreement and 35 employees whose principal conditions are set by an Australian workplace agreement. These figures represent staff within the Department of Transport and Regional Services employed under the Public Service Act 1922.(2) The classifications of those covered by an Australian workplace agreement are Senior Executive Service Bands 1, 2, and 3.4781(Question No. 348)3484781Bevis, Arch, MPMr BevisET4BrisbaneALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 8 February 1999:(1) How many employees in the Minister's Department have their principal conditions of employment set by (a) an award, (b) an industrial agreement, (c) a certified agreement and (d) an Australian workplace agreement.(2) What is the classification of each person in the Minister's Department employed under an Australian workplace agreement.4782Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) There are no employees in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade whose principal conditions of employment are set by an award. There are 62 short- and fixed-term employees whose principal conditions of employment are set by an industrial agreement—namely, the Continuous Improvement in the Australian Public Service Enterprise Agreement 1995-96. That Agreement determines rates of pay and various other entitlements, but provisions of the Australian Public Service Award and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Agreement 1994 also apply to this category of employees (e.g. access to parental leave and hours of duty). 1810 of the Department's employees are covered by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade's certified agreement, and 136 employees have their conditions of employment set by Australian workplace agreements.(2) Of the officers in the Department employed under an Australian workplace agreement, one is at Executive Level 2; 95 are Senior Executive Band 1 officers; 31 are at Senior Executive Band 2 level; and nine are Senior Executive Band 3 officers.4782(Question No. 352)3524782Bevis, Arch, MPMr BevisET4BrisbaneALP00 asked the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 8 February 1999:(1) How many employees in the Minister's Department have their principal conditions of employment set by (a) an award, (b) an industrial agreement, (c) a certified agreement and (d) an Australian workplace agreement.(2) What is the classification of each person in the Minister's Department employed under an Australian workplace agreement.4782Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KempBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) No employees in the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs have their principal conditions of employment set by an award. All employees in the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs (approximately 1,600 in total) have their principal conditions of employment set by an industrial agreement. Of all employees covered by an industrial agreement, there are approximately 1,430 employees in the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs who have their principal conditions of employment set by a certified agreement and 170 employees who have their principal conditions of employment set by Australian workplace agreements. [This includes approximately 300 employees who have been mapped to the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business (DEWRSB) as part of the Machinery of Government changes announced on 18 October 1998 who are yet to transfer to DEWRSB: 43 employees who have their principal conditions of employment set by Australian workplace agreements; and 257 who have their principal conditions of employment set by a certified agreement.](2) The classification of each person in the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs employed under an Australian workplace agreement is either Senior Executive Service Band 1, Senior Executive Service Band 2, Senior Executive Service Band 3 or Executive Level 2.4782(Question No. 373)3734782McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 8 February 1999:Is the Government or the Health Insurance Commission acting to prevent professional sportsmen and sportswomen from obtaining Medicare benefits; if so, (a) what action is being taken and (b) in what circumstances will professional sportsmen and sportswomen be precluded from obtaining Medicare benefits.4782Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:There is no action being taken by the Government or the Health Insurance Commission to prevent professional sportsmen and sportswomen from obtaining Medicare benefits.4782(Question No. 406)4064782Andren, Peter, MPMr AndrenKL6CalareIND00 asked the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 10 February 1999:(1) Was Tasmar, a drug used to treat Parkinson's Disease, withdrawn from sale in Australia on the basis of new evidence; if so, what was the evidence.(2) Has he received correspondence from sufferers of Parkinson's Disease who wish to continue using Tasmar despite the risks. (3) Is it a fact that Tasmar continues to be sold in the USA with additional warnings enclosed in the package.(4) Under what conditions would he allow Tasmar to be re-released for sale in Australia.4783Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) took the decision to cancel the registration of Tasmar (effective 25 January 1999) following a thorough review of the safety of the product. This was undertaken because of reports of a number of cases worldwide of serious hepatic (liver) injury, including three deaths. The TGA concluded that the product was not safe under the approved use, taking into account the hepatic effects and the possible occurrence of neuroleptic malignant-like syndrome. The TGA sought the advice of the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee (ADEC) before taking the decision to cancel the registration of Tasmar.Prior to consideration of Tasmar by the ADEC, the sponsor was invited to justify why the registration of the product should not be cancelled. The safety information on the product, including the response from the sponsor, was reviewed by the TGA and then considered by the ADEC. The Committee recommended that the registration of Tasmar should be cancelled due to its association with serious, unpredictable and possibly fatal hepatic toxicity. Monitoring liver function may not protect against the development of these severe hepatic effects. The Committee considered that the risk/benefit balance for the product was unfavourable and it was not possible to restrict the indications adequately to permit its continued safe use. Regulatory action similar to that taken by Australia has been taken by the Regulatory Authorities in the European Union and Canada as a result of the same concerns over the serious hepatic effects. Tasmar has been withdrawn from the market in these jurisdictions.(2) Yes.(3) Tasmar has not been withdrawn from the market in the United States (US). However, in consultation with the US Food and Drug Administration, Roche Laboratories Inc. has introduced into the US prescribing information for Tasmar a boxed warning pertaining to the hepatic effects of the product and has taken the unusual action of requiring written informed consent from the patient prior to Tasmar therapy. The European Union and Canada have, like Australia, withdrawn the product from the market.(4) For Tasmar to be re-released for sale in Australia, the sponsor, Roche Products Pty. Ltd., would be required to submit to the TGA an application to register the product. For such an application to be approved, it would need to be supported by adequate data to demonstrate the quality, safety and efficacy of the product for the indications proposed in that application. In particular, evidence would be required to demonstrate that liver monitoring is able to detect hepatic changes and to predict adverse hepatic events. Evidence of the true incidence of hepatic injury associated with Tasmar, as well as data that would enable prediction of factors which render people susceptible to adverse hepatic events following treatment with Tasmar, would also be required.4783(Question No. 407)4074783Lawrence, Carmen, MPDr LawrenceXS4FremantleALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 10 February 1999:How many children (a) with disabilities and (b) suffering from diabetes became ineligible for child disability allowance in (i) 1994, (ii) 1995, (iii) 1996, (iv) 1997 and (v) 1998.4783Truss, Warren, MPMr TrussGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—The Minister for Family and Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(a) Information on the number of people whose Child Disability Allowance (CDA) was cancelled prior to 1 February 1998 is not available. From 1 February 1998 a total of 20,400 CDA customers were cancelled in the course of a review to confirm ongoing eligibility prior to the introduction of new assessment arrangements. Of these cancellations, 7,900 resulted from the non-return of review forms—some of these customers have since contacted Centrelink and had their payments restored.Information on cancellations of CDA payments granted from 1 July 1998 is not yet available. Given that few eligibility reviews have been required since then, however, the number of cancellations in this group will be very small.(b) Information on CDA cancellations by medical condition was not collected prior to 1 July 1998. Information by medical condition on 1 July 1998 is not yet available.4783(Question No. 410)4104783Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MacklinPG6JagajagaALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 11 February 1999:(1) Has the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee considered the listing of Aricept (donepezil), a drug for the treatment of memory loss, as a pharmaceutical benefit item; if so, (a) when and (b) what did the results of clinical trials presented to the committee by the manufacturing company show.(2) Are long-term clinical trials being conducted to ascertain the long-term effectiveness of Aricept in the treatment of memory loss; if so, (a) where are they being conducted and (b) when are they expected to be completed.4784Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (a) The Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) considered an application for the listing of Aricept (donepezil) tablets 5 mg and 10 mg at its meeting on 5 and 6 March 1998.(b) The results from the pivotal study, at twenty-four weeks, show that the use of Aricept resulted in some small benefits to patients, but the relevance of these benefits to patients' long-term health was uncertain.The PBAC concluded that, in the absence of details on longer-term patient outcomes and because of its modest efficacy, Aricept had not been demonstrated to offer acceptable value for money.The application was therefore rejected with the advice that to enable further consideration, the results of longer-term clinical trials which are designed to assess the impact on the quality of life of the patients; the quality of life of the carers; the progress towards institutionalisation of patients (ie the time it took patients to go into an institution); and the use of other health care services would be required.(2) The Australian sponsor for Aricept has advised that long-term clinical trials (greater than six months) are being conducted with Aricept to ascertain the long-term effectiveness of this drug in Dementia of the Alzheimer's Type (DSM-IV)—popularly known as Alzheimer's Disease.Memory impairment is one of the manifestations of Alzheimer's Disease, and improvement of memory is one of the criteria assessed in clinical trials.(a) These trials are being or have been conducted in a number of countries around the world, including Australia.(b) A number of these long-term studies have already been completed and final study reports have been submitted to the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) for review. Other long-term clinical trials are currently ongoing and are expected to be completed in 1999 or 2000. Studies are also being conducted with Aricept in patients with severe Alzheimer's Disease. 4784(Question No. 430)4304784Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 16 February 1999:(1) How many breaches of the (a) Occupational Health and Safety (Commonwealth Employees) Act and (b) Defence Force Disciplinary Act involving health and safety matters affecting Australian Defence Force personnel were reported in the last year for which statistics are available.(2) What (a) action was taken, (b) fines were imposed and (c) compensation was paid in respect of the breaches referred to in part (1).4784Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (a) Defence does not collect statistics in the form requested by the honourable Member. The chain of command in Defence has responsibility for providing a safe working environment and in discharging the duty of care Defence has as a Commonwealth agency under the OH&S (CE) Act. Comcare conducts regular audits and investigations of Defence establishments to ensure compliance with regulations made under the Act.(b) Actions taken under the DFDA that may involve health and safety matters affecting ADF personnel are reported in the Judge Advocate General's annual report in a range of categories, and cannot be specifically identified in the form required by the honourable Member without expenditure of considerable resources.(2) No specific statistics are available to answer this question, however(a) Over and above the Defence Organisation's internal inspections and audits, Comcare undertakes audits. In 1996/97 10 planned investigations and 23 reactive investigation were conducted by Comcare. In 1997/98 9 planned investigations and 31 reactive investigations were conducted by Comcare. Once Comcare audits a Defence facility, a report of their findings is produced. This is passed to Defence, which takes action to rectify and respond to the findings. Head Defence Personnel Executive formally responds to Comcare advising what actions have been or will be taken by Defence as a result of the report. Comcare may also exercise their right to revisit an establishment.(b) The fines imposed as a result of DFDA cannot be directly attributed to health and safety matters without individually examining all ADF charge sheets and determining the specific circumstances relevant to the incident and this is not considered practical. (c) Compensation paid as a result of breaches of the DFDA cannot be determined without a time consuming and expensive review of all individual compensation claims.4785(Question No. 447)4474785Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, upon notice, on 18 February 1999:(1) Has the Minister's attention been directed to evidence given to the Longford Royal Commission about the failures of the fire hose couplings used at Esso's Longford plant.(2) Since the answer to question No. 2176 (Hansard , 24 September 1997, page 8454), what progress has been made by the committees of the Australian Fire Authorities Council in reviewing the couplings in use by member agencies and funding their replacement by the STORZ-type couplings.4785Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPDefence10—The Minister for Industry, Science and Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) I am aware of the evidence given to the Longford Royal Commission about the alleged failures of the fire hose couplings used at Esso's Longford plant.(2) At the request of the Australian Fire Authorities Council, Standards Australia has drawn up a project to develop an Australian Standard based on the European STORZ-type coupling.4785(Question No. 453)4534785Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin ThomsonUK6WillsALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 18 February 1999:(1) Did the Acting Prime Minister make a statement on 7 January 1999 referring to the expected approval of a tax rebate under the Infrastructure Borrowings Tax Offset Scheme for Melbourne's Citylink extension project.(2) Does the project require an environmental assessment; if so, (a) has it been conducted and (b) what form of assessment was or will be used.4785Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes(2) Yes. The Citylink Extension proposal was designated by my Department on 23 December 1998 under the Commonwealth Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 (the Act). The Department of the Environment and Heritage, which administers that legislation, is currently seeking details from the proponent regarding the proposal and the level of environmental assessment undertaken by the Victorian Government. Upon receipt of this information, the need for further environmental assessment under the Act will then be considered.4785(Question No. 469)4694785Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 9 March 1999:(1) Did the McMahon Government close the Australian Consulate in Dili on 31 August 1971; if so, is he able to state the reasons for the closure.(2) Which persons served as consuls in Dili and between which dates did each serve.(3) Were persons referred to in part (2) previously employed by Commonwealth departments or agencies; if so, in each case, (a) between which dates and (b) in what capacity were they employed.4785Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes. The closure was a result of a Government decision to reduce departmental expenditure. It also followed the establishment of an Australian Embassy in Lisbon in December 1970. The new Embassy was able to perform many of the functions previously carried out by the Consulate, especially with regard to liaison with the Portuguese authorities.(2) Australian Consuls in Dili, and their dates of appointment, are as follows: Group Captain D. Ross (5 November 1941); Post evacuated June 1942; Group Captain C. Eaton (1 January 1946); H.D. White (18 October 1947); Post vacant 24 June 1950; N. McE Elliot, Vice Consul (7 January 1951); Post vacant 26 February 1952; F.J.A. Whittaker (4 November 1953); W.A. Luscombe (27 November 1959); J.S. Dunn (24 January 1962); D.W. Milton, Acting Consul (12 August 1964); J.D. Colquhoun-Denvers (16 December 1965); M.F. Berman (27 November 1968); G.W. Shannon (20 January 1970); D.W. Milton (14 January 1971; Post closed 31 August 1971.(3) Yes. My Department does not currently have the resources to undertake research into personnel records more than 25 years old.4785(Question No. 471)4714785Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 9 March 1999:(1) On what dates and in what circumstances have Australian Ministers, other than Prime Ministers, had discussions with the Presidents of Indonesia.(2) In which cases does his Department have records of the discussions.4786Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:In order to answer the Honourable Member's question, extensive research would be required into Departmental files over a period of many years. In view of my Department's work on other priorities for the Government, including the preparation for publication of historical documents on Australia's relations with Indonesia concerning East Timor, it does not currently have the resources to undertake this research.4786(Question No. 472)4724786Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 9 March 1999:(1) On what occasions have there been recorded votes in (a) the Fourth Committee and (b) the General Assembly of the UN on the question of East Timor.(2) On each occasion how many members (a) voted in favour, (b) voted against, (c) abstained from voting and (d) were absent.(3) On each occasion what position was taken by (a) the permanent members of the Security Council, (b) the members of ASEAN, (c) Australia, (d) India, (e) Japan, (f) New Zealand and (g) Portugal.4786Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:In order to answer the Honourable Member's question, extensive research would be required into the publicly available Official Records of the United Nations General Assembly over a period of many years. In view of my Department's work on other priorities for the Government, it does not currently have the resources to undertake this research.4786(Question No. 476)4764786Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 9 March 1999:(1) Further to the answer to Question No.12 (Hansard 11 February 1999, page 2437) concerning social security entitlements for New Zealand citizens, what is the Government doing to alleviate the burden on Australian taxpayers caused by the imbalance in pension payments under the international social security agreement between Australia and New Zealand.(2) Did the Prime Minister raise the matter referred to in part (1) during recent bilateral discussions with the New Zealand Prime Minister; if not, why not.4787Truss, Warren, MPMr TrussGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—The Minister for Family and Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable Member's question:(1) Both the Australian and New Zealand Governments are interested in ensuring that the Social Security Agreement operates fairly. As part of any revision, Australia is committed to achieving improved financial outcomes.(2) During the Prime Ministerial visit to New Zealand on 20-22 February 1999 the Prime Minister and his New Zealand counterpart announced the formation of a Prime Ministerial Taskforce. One of the issues to be addressed is the Social Security Agreement between the two countries. The Taskforce has been established and work on the issue is progressing.4787(Question No. 490)4904787Burke, Anna, MPMs Burke83SChisholmALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 10 March 1999:(1) What were the waiting lists for non-emergency surgery at (a) Box Hill Hospital and (b) the Monash Medical Centre during (i) 1996-97 and (ii) 1997-98.(2) On most recent data, what are the waiting lists for health card holders seeking dental attention in the postcode areas of (a) 3128, (b) 3129, (c) 3125 and (d) 3147.4787Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) This information is not collected by my Department. The honourable member may, however, wish to request the information from the Victorian Minister for Health.(2) This information is not collected by my Department.