1999-05-123913REPS513701999-05-12Mr SPEAKER(Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Committees51375137513709:30:005137Slipper, 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 Clayton (Eastern Precinct) Development Works, Vic.CSIRO proposes to consolidate the Victorian activities of its divisions of manufacturing science and technology, mathematics, information science, information technology services and petroleum resources at its Clayton site in Victoria. The consolidation and rationalisation of accommodation for CSIRO throughout Australia and replacement or refurbishment of outdated, substandard facilities are key elements of the CSIRO property management plan.The project will enable CSIRO to vacate sites at Preston and Syndal, freeing up these sites for sale. It will also relocate staff and resources from leased premises at Carlton and Clayton into accommodation at the Clayton site, which is owned by CSIRO and is located adjacent to the campus of Monash University.The Clayton site is one of CSIRO's largest sites and is occupied by more than 700 staff. It is the organisation's major Victorian site and the centre for CSIRO research into mineral, forest products, molecular and polymer science, manufacturing science and technology, and mathematical and information sciences.The development will provide approximately 7,000 square metres gross floor area of new building accommodation, together with another 7,000 square metres of refurbishment in the 35-year-old, outdated and substandard `David Rivett' laboratories and provide accommodation for over 370 staff. The work will provide laboratories, offices, process and technical bays, research support facilities and staff amenities. The project has a budget of $28 million. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction is expected to commence early in the year 2000, with completion scheduled for mid-2001. I commend the motion to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills5137r7225137Consideration resumed from 11 May.Senate's amendments—(1) Schedule 1, item 14, page 6 (after line 4), after the Table of Subdivisions, insert:Guide to Division 4646-1 What this Division is about This Division allows a deduction, over 21/2 years, for capital and non-capital expenditure you incur in acquiring or developing software for your own use. You may choose to pool such expenditure. This can help you to work out your deductions if it would be hard to attribute your costs to individual projects separately. The Division also allows an immediate deduction for expenditure on software, incurred before 1 January 2000, to ensure that a computer system attains Year 2000 compliance. Immediate deductions are also allowed for minor expenditure and for expenditure on software that you decide never to use. [This is the end of the Guide.](2) Schedule 1, item 14, page 6 (lines 19 to 34), omit all the words and examples after paragraph (c).(3) Schedule 1, item 14, page 7 (after line 13), at the end of section 46-15 (after the example), add: (2) This Division also does not apply to *expenditure on software if: (a) you can get a deduction for the expenditure under a provision of this Act (including section 8-1) outside this Division; and (b) the *software was acquired or developed other than principally for you to use to perform the functions for which it was acquired or developed. Example 1: You incur capital expenditure in developing new software to use in controlling your mining operations. You would consider selling other similar businesses a licence to use the software, but this has not influenced your decision to develop it. This Division still applies to the expenditure, even though Division 330 (Mining and quarrying) might otherwise have applied to it, because you developed it principally to perform that function in your business; not principally as a product to sell to others.Example 2: You incur expenditure in developing new software principally to sell to the general public, but you also incidentally plan to use the software in your own business. Assuming that the expenditure is also covered by section 8-1 (General deductions), this Division does not apply to it, because you developed the software principally to sell it to the public; not principally to use in-house. (3) To avoid doubt, expenditure is excluded from the scope of this Division if it is covered by either or both of subsections (1) and (2).(4) Schedule 1, item 14, page 7 (line 16), after "if", insert "(having taken into account the effect of section 46-15)".09:34:005138Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—I move:That the amendments be agreed to.The amendments will ensure that all expenditure on software will be deductible, either within new division 46 or elsewhere in the tax law. Following the original introduction of the bill into the House, the government received representations that there may be a small number of cases where taxpayers may not be able to obtain a deduction under any provision of the law, including new division 46, for expenditure on software. This would be an unsatisfactory outcome and the amendments will address that situation. The amendments represent yet another area where the government's commitment to consult on the new regime for software expenditure has provided a workable outcome.09:36:005138Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—These amendments were raised in the Senate following the expression of concerns that there could be a number of cases where taxpayers might not be able to obtain a deduction under any provision for expenditure on software. The opposition supported those amendments in the Senate and we intend to support them here also for the same reasons. They will ensure that all expenditure on software will be deductible either within the new division 46 or elsewhere in the tax law. In saying this I again record the opposition's concern that there is a flaw in this bill that no provision has been made for any software problems which get revealed when the year 2000—that dreaded year—comes in. It is our view that if businesses find, once Y2K happens, that they have some problems which need to be addressed then there ought to be a six-month period of grace in which they could still attract the benefits available through this depreciation legislation. We regret that the government has not seen fit to pick up our position on that. It is an issue that may need to be revisited at that time. We will be supporting these amendments.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills5138r7395138Debate resumed from 11 May, on motion by Dr Kemp:That the bill be now read a second time.upon which Mr Lee moved by way of amendment: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."10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.09:37:005139Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—It is interesting to follow in this debate the member for Lawler, who spoke late yesterday afternoon on the subject of the Higher Education Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 , particularly with respect to VSU because the member for Lawler coincidentally was the final President of the Australian Union of Students, that organisation that failed in the mid-1980s. There are some semblances of comparison between the member for Lawler and the last emperor of China, because he and she both presided over a vast, morally bankrupt, scandal ridden, inept and ultimately failed organisation—namely, in the case of the member for Lawler, the Australian Union of Students.This was an organisation, Mr Speaker, which during its time—probably not under the member for Lawler; hopefully, she would not have entertained such appalling practices—funded organisations like the Palestine Liberation Organisation and the Communist Party of Malaya, declared that marriage was a form of prostitution and gave money to the Shining Path organisation in Peru. This is the sort of organisation that the member for Lawler associated herself with as president in the 1980s. It was a mark of great victory for the non-Labor side of politics that, as students, they were able to defeat and ultimately close down the Australian Union of Students.But, turning to this bill, the idea of compulsory associations strikes at the heart of every Liberal. All citizens should be free to choose whether or not they belong to an association. For too long university students have been denied this fundamental right. The bill pres ently before the House corrects this inequality and delivers the right to freedom of association to students. The coalition government, with the help of the Labor member for Dickson, has already extended the right of non-compulsory unionism to workers through the Workplace Relations Act 1996. The act did not benefit students, as they are not employees of the universities, but they are still entitled to the same right of freedom of association as is every other Australian, and yet the Labor Party and the student unions are trying to deny them that same right.The coalition government is, on the other hand, committed to asserting the rights of students to freedom of association in the higher education sector. We believe that students should not be compelled to fund organisations that they do not support. Students deserve to enjoy the same rights on campus as they do off campus, and this legislation will ensure that they enjoy that right. Indeed, student unions are about the last group still claiming that they are entitled to compel people to belong to them. If the Labor Party wishes to participate in genuine policy development, it cannot continue to hoodwink Australians into believing that employees and students are incapable of understanding and protecting their own interests without the compulsory involvement of unions.This bill also provides students with greater choice over what goods and services they buy. Consumer choice in what goods and services you can purchase is a right expected by most Australians. Student unions on most Australian campuses compulsorily acquire from students, as a condition of enrolment, an up-front fee to pay for services they may not need or wish to use. The fee can range from $90 to more than $300, as at Monash University, and over the course of a four-year degree it can amount to more than $1,000. Unlike HECS—the Higher Education Contribution Scheme—the student union fees cannot be deferred until such time as a student is financially able to pay them back, and they are the same for every student.The timing of the fee is usually the time when students can least afford it. At the start of an academic year, students have many substantial and often competing costs such as textbooks and stationery. For some students, particularly those from rural areas, there are also accommodation costs such as tenancy bonds and furniture purchases to consider. Voluntary student unionism will put money back into the pockets of students so they can decide what sorts of services they want to spend their money on. Under the current system, the system that Labor supports, students do not have that choice. On most campuses, these decisions are made by the student body at the whim of the student union. Students deserve to enjoy the same consumer rights to purchase only the services they want on and off campus, and this legislation will ensure that they have that fundamental right.At present, on most campuses students are forced to fund sporting facilities regardless of whether or not they play sport. Similarly, students are compelled to contribute to student entertainment irrespective of whether they have the time or the inclination to participate. At most universities it is mandatory for students to subsidise the regular publishing of union newspapers even though they may not read or subscribe to their views. What happens to students who challenge this compulsorily acquired up-front fee? Put simply, they are denied the opportunity to graduate at a university. This legislation will remove the last compulsory up-front fee charged at university entry to most Australian students.But Labor's double standard on this is well documented. The 1998 election platform for higher education stated that `up-front undergraduate fees are undesirable' but then they contradicted themselves by also saying they opposed giving students freedom of association and supported the compulsory acquisition of student money. It is a case of complete hypocrisy. The Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs recently illustrated this point when he quoted the member for Werriwa saying:I first read the document—the higher education policy—in the car going from the Frankston launch to Melbourne to go home. Clearly the Labor Party has so little regard for his views that they chose not to even bother to give him the policy before the launch of the document. It is little wonder that the increasingly frustrated member for Werriwa has gone to the back bench—but only, I would imagine, for the meantime.There is only the one compulsory up-front fee for most students, and the Labor Party stands behind that policy. There is no confusion with the coalition government's position. The bill before the House will remove a financial hurdle to higher education for students on low incomes. It is a much better system to allow students to manage their own financial affairs. Individual students are the ones who are best placed to know their own financial priorities. They are certainly better placed than the officials of student organisations. Voluntary student unionism will also lend itself to the financial flexibility of allowing students to spread their expenditure over the year, better reflecting the fact that their income is also spread over the year.At present, most student unions are unrepresentative and unresponsive to the needs of the students they purport to represent. The legislation before the House will improve this situation by ending the monopolistic and uncompetitive features of student unions. The structures that are currently in place force students to pay for services they do not need or wish to use.Compulsory student unionism also fails to recognise that the nature of university campuses has changed dramatically over the last decade. There is an increasing proportion of students who study part time or externally and are forced to pay for services they cannot use. In some instances, external students can be paying well over $200 a year for those inaccessible services. The failure of student unions generally to cater to the needs and interests of this increasing niche market is just one example of why we need to change the current arrangements. The challenge for student unions is to be responsive and representative of student needs. The status quo has certainly not achieved this.The Western Australia state government sought to find a better system in 1994. Volun tary student unionism was introduced by that state in 1995 and, despite a brief disruption to its operation caused by the former Labor government's scandalous abuse of taxpayers' money through the notorious SOS legislation, it has proved to be successful. It has meant that student unions in Western Australia have had to be smarter in how they utilise their resources and in what they offer students. In Western Australia, the experience has been that student unions are following the student dollar by offering a range and a quality of services which are likely to be of value and benefit to students. For example, in 1994 the University of Western Australia student union offered 27 different types of services under compulsory student unionism, but in 1997 under voluntary student unionism the same student union was able to offer 45 different types of services.Student unions have the ability to add to the unique culture of a university campus. Organising social events and activities and providing the infrastructure for a network of associations are some of the contributions that student unions have made and can make in the future. Student unions are also unique in being able to coordinate services targeted specifically for student needs. Voluntary student unionism will not only make student unions more accountable and transparent, it will ensure that they target these services to meet student needs. Under the government's policy initiative, student unions will fulfil their potential and add to the cultural dimensions of campus life while simultaneously preventing the profligate use of students' precious resources on causes or services that students neither want nor need.Under the current system of compulsion, student unions provide so-called services such as newspapers which have in the past, in very recent times, explained to readers how to inject themselves with heroin, how to successfully shoplift and how to get away with drink-driving. This is the system that Labor stands behind and wants to protect.Opponents of voluntary student unionism claim that the government is silencing student dissent. This is a gross distortion of the situation. The legislation before the House makes absolutely no reference to the silencing or restricting of freedom of speech. The fact is that universities are the cradle of leadership. There will always be student politicians and they will always be vocal and controversial. The opportunity to represent, to put forward ideas and to participate in the political process is what motivates student politicians, not modest honorariums—although in some cases they are not-so-modest honorariums.Opponents of voluntary student unionism attempt to draw a correlation between taxes and student union fees. It is a superficial argument. Income earners are generally means tested to determine if they are in a financial position to contribute to the Treasury, which in turn finances things of universal benefit. With student union fees there is no means testing. Every student pays the same fee regardless of their station in life. Student union fees are not means tested or tiered in terms of liability. The poorest university student is liable for the same amount as the wealthiest.As an adjunct to that argument, it is worth noting that, in Western Australia under voluntary student unionism, emergency loans and guild loans are still available at Edith Cowan University and the University of Western Australia respectively because those universities have decided that that is a service they want to provide their students and they want to subsidise that service out of their profit making services. That is exactly what student unions should be making the decisions about.Many advocates of compulsory student unionism say that students currently have a form of voluntary student unionism in the shape of an option to be a conscientious objector, but they ignore the fact that the fee still has to be collected although it can be paid to a charity rather than the student union. But if you do not pay the fee you cannot graduate at the end of your university term. When I was at university, we had a student called Brendan Harradine who refused to pay his student fee and took the matter as far as the Supreme Court of South Australia. It was found that, if he did not pay the fee, he would not be able to collect his degree and practise as a lawyer—an absolutely despicable state of affairs.Opponents of voluntary student unionism also peddle misleading arguments when they contest that student union fees are not applied for universal benefit. What do student unions do for part-time or external students in rural areas to justify fees of up to $200 or $300 a year? The benefits are not universal and, under compulsory student unionism, are applied to a mixture of worthy or in fact unrepresentative or indulgent interests.The 1998 edition of The Australian Good Universities Guide to Australian Universities indicated that more than 150,000 Australians are studying externally through universities. At four of Australia's 38 public universities, there are more external enrolments at undergraduate level than on-campus enrolments. At Central Queensland University, which has its main campus in the member for Capricornia's electorate, 56 per cent of enrolled undergraduate students are studying externally. Nearly 80 per cent of postgraduate students at Central Queensland University are external students. So how can the compulsory fee be described as universal for all of those students, part time or external, who are not even on the campus to use the services—so-called—for their benefit?YT4SCOTTMr Bruce Scott—Great point.9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE—Thank you. These figures are just scratching the surface. Part-time and mature age students are a significant group who do not always have direct access to the supposedly essential services provided by student unions. Australia is competing for fee paying external or full-time international students. The emphasis of their choice will be on the quality of education and the cost. We cannot expect to be completely competitive if we continue to slug external, part-time international students with union fees of a few hundred dollars a year. How can we justify asking external international students to pay compulsory fees to subsidise cafeterias, campus newspapers and entertainment for the rest of the student body, which they cannot access?Recently I was speaking at the Adelaide University on the subject of voluntary student unionism and, after a rather willing debate stacked with proponents of compulsory unionism, a German international student came up to a group of resistance people who were haranguing me and made the point that in Germany they have all the facilities for students that are provided at Australian universities. They have the campus life, the cafeterias and the sporting associations—they do all the things that we do—and they have never even considered having a compulsory fee to fund student unions. They just expect that students will be able to raise the money or that students will spend their consumer dollar in such a way that those services can be provided. He was bewildered that we still held to this outdated view that compulsion was required to have students participating in service provision. Senator Natasha Stott Despoja has been very vocal in her support for compulsorily charging fees of between $90 and $350 a year. She claims to stand up for the interests of young people but in the next breath wants to slug university students with the only compulsory up-front fee that most students have to pay at university. A trademark of Senator Stott Despoja's career has been her ability to create a dislocation between appearance and reality. She argues that reforming compulsory unionism on campuses will contribute to a psychological disincentive for young people to participate in tertiary education. Is there any wonder that the public are taking her less and less seriously? In considering where to study, students are far more likely to consider factors such as the reputation of the particular faculty and the university, the curriculum of the particular course of study, the possibility of postgraduate study, perhaps even the geographical location of the institution and, of course, the likelihood of getting a job after they have finished their university degree. The status of a university's student union is important only from the perspective of the student politicians who adhere to it. The compulsory nature of the university fee has no bearing on that culture. Indeed, Senator Stott Despoja's views on compulsory student unionism are at odds with the founder of her party, the Democrats, Don Chipp, who was a fervent supporter of non-compulsory student unionism. I would like to draw the House's attention to some comments made by Senator Harradine in a committee hearing on the Australian National University Amendment Bill 1984 when he said:I too am concerned about the history of payments made by certain student bodies for purposes other than the purposes for which these bodies were established, namely to protect and promote the welfare of students.He also said:Nevertheless, we are faced with a situation here in which a student could be compulsorily levied money which could be applied not for purposes associated with the rights, responsibilities or indeed the welfare of the students but for other party-political purposes or issues by ideologically motivated organisations.Senator Harradine is right. In the course of his service to the parliament he has seen successive generations of student unions fail to adequately represent and provide welfare for students. The government's voluntary student unionism policy will address the concerns of Senator Harradine. I would hope that, when this bill comes before the Senate, Senator Harradine would support the government in the interests of students and in the interests of student unions. By introducing VSU we will be helping student unions to be more relevant, more responsive and hence more popular with their students. Voluntary student unionism will allow student unions to fulfil their potential and will add to the cultural dimensions of campus life. But it will prevent the profligate use of students' precious resources on causes or services that students neither want nor need. By its very nature, VSU will make student unions more accountable and will lend itself to more transparent operations. Voluntary student unionism is about giving students choice in the associations they join and in the services they buy. I commend the bill to the House.09:56:005143Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—It is interesting to follow the member for Sturt on this issue. He has a fascinating history. Despite his opposition to the notion of automatic membership and this deep concern that he professes about the uses of students' money, the member for Sturt was elected as the finance vice-president of the Adelaide University in 1986-87. This position meant that the member for Sturt was responsible for the stewardship of the finances of the student organisation. He was responsible, like his colleague the Treasurer is for the country, for looking after compulsorily acquired funds—in this case from students. Unfortunately, we do not know if his belief in compulsion is the same as that of the member for Higgins, but in participating, holding office and exercising power he was certainly complicit in it all.The member for Sturt was paid to do this job, paid from compulsorily acquired funds from the students. Given this great concern that he expresses about students wasting money, you would have expected him to conduct himself with the utmost of professionalism in his use of it. How did the member for Sturt conduct himself? Let me quote from the campus paper On Dit of 4 May 1987, from an article titled `Give back your pay finance VP'. It reads:Students should be informed that on April 16th at the last Students Association Council meeting the Finance Vice-President, Mr Chris Pyne, had his honorarium revoked for neglect of duty.The substantive argument was that Mr Pyne quite simply was never around the office to perform this function.The article went on to report Mr Pyne's reaction:. . . Mr Chris Pyne argued that once elected the Finance Vice-President, a paid office bearer, can act as he/she sees fit.Isn't it extraordinary that here we have the member for Sturt arguing his private members motion on VSU and speaking again today saying things like `by its very nature VSU will make student unions more accountable and will lend itself to more transparent options,' given the personal contempt which he displayed for ordinary standards of accountability back in 1987? It is incredible that he can rise in this House to get stuck into `unaccountable student organisations'.Not only that but the member for Sturt is now part of a government that has jacked up fees for students left, right and centre, cut funds for university and driven up HECS leaving students high and dry. Has the member for Sturt complained about these attacks on universities? No. Did he ring up his mates at Adelaide University and ask for some space in the campus newspaper, the way he used to have, to explain why he thought back then that a $275 charge was the end of the world but that gutting universities of some $820 million, slashing 21,000 places off forward estimates and driving up HECS was all right? I think not. Why did the member for Sturt not rise up against the massive cuts to education in the same way as he did back in 1987? Because, like this piece of legislation, it is really all about politics rather than about the best thing for students.This issue came up when I served in the Victorian parliament some years ago. Although it is not easy to nail this particular furphy because `voluntary' is something that sounds good to everybody on first hearing, we did succeed in nailing it and, therefore, I think it is worth going through that particular piece of history. The key promoter of voluntary student unionism in Victoria was Robert Clark, the Liberal member for Box Hill and a former unsuccessful student politician. I wondered at the time whether he was not being impersonated by John Clark, doing a former student politician who could not leave his past behind and did not understand the real damage he was doing once he had risen to the dizzy heights of the Victorian parliament.Robert Clark had an electorate officer by the name of Charles Richardson who went into bat for him at some of these VSU debates, and I want to quote from a couple of things that Charles Richardson said in support of voluntary student unionism. He said:Nobody wants to close down the toilets in the Union Building or whatever. Those services will survive . . . They will be targeted more effectively to the students.I have to say that back then some of us male students could have targeted ourselves more effectively at the toilets at university—but I do not know how the reverse could be done. Perhaps Mr Richardson was thinking of `real user pays', `pay as you go'. In relation to toilets, this is something that we had 50 or 100 years ago. I happen to think that moving on from that has been social progress.Mr Richardson further went on to talk about the problem of `freeloaders', people getting benefits out of the union but not bothering to pay, not bothering to join—and this, of course, is a real problem with voluntary student unionism. He said:In fact though it is possible to limit most of the union's services to people who have paid. You could reserve the Union to members only like private clubs do . . . Once again this gives the game away. The Liberal side of politics have that exclusive Melbourne Club view of these things, and they just hate it whenever something is accessible to everybody. They are still hung up on exclusivity. Deep down, they still dislike what Gough Whitlam did back in the 1970s in opening up universities and tertiary education to ordinary people, such as those in my electorate of Wills. For the Liberal side of politics, voluntary student unionism is a combination of an ideological wet dream and political payback.Voluntary student unionism is no different in character from voluntary payment of taxes, or voluntary payment of council rates, or voluntary payment of Premier Kennett's infamous state deficit levy. It does not take first-class honours at university to work out the shortcomings of voluntary payment of taxes. Mr Clark was not an advocate of voluntary payment of the state deficit levy because, if people had not volunteered to pay that levy, there might not have been enough money for the additional $10,000 a year which Mr Clark got paid as parliamentary secretary to the Victorian Treasurer, being part of one of Premier Kennett's expenditure initiatives. Premier Kennett enjoys a caucus which has been either bribed or bullied into acquiescence.It is not that Victorian parliamentary secretaries are necessarily lazy or undeserving, mind you. When I was there, the Victorian parliamentary secretary for education, Stephen Elder, was running education in Victoria, which was a considerable relief for anyone who was aware of the performance of the minister, Don Hayward. It was a bit like some of the parliamentary secretaries here: saving their ministers from being discredited and making sure that the rest of the world does not have to worry about their performance.Voluntary taxation: yes, theoretically we could have voluntary taxation. The Fraser Liberal government more or less did that during the 1970s, such was the proliferation of tax avoidance—and, from leaked documents that I brought to the attention of the House some weeks ago, there are some concerns that this is starting to happen again. But voluntary taxation is the same thing as doing away with tax altogether, because nobody would pay it if it were optional—just as voluntary student unionism means no student union, the death of the student union.If tax were voluntary or non-existent, I could go and pay somebody to construct the piece of street outside of my house and pay somebody else to construct a piece of concrete next to it so that I had a footpath. I could even hire a private bodyguard to keep me safe, or at least a private investigator to recover my belongings in the event that they were stolen, and so on. A couple of hundred years ago, before welfare state or state socialism not only in Victoria but in Australia, many things did work this way. But there are problems. I do not have the time to do all those things myself—to hire the road maker or the footpath maker or the private investigator; I do not have the time to check their credentials or their workmanship or to sue them if they stuff things up. Even if my section of the road is perfect, what if my neighbour is too poor, or too lazy, or does not drive a car, or does not do his or her section, or does it in gravel instead? I do not want a patchwork quilt; I want a road that I can use.So I find, and over the years whole communities have found, that it makes more sense to pool our money and have someone else look after these things so that we can get on with our lives and get on with the things that are important to us. That is how student unions also developed at the turn of the century. The services that they provide by and large represent better value for time and money than if individual students had to do all these things themselves—set up their own bush walking club, organise the building of a swimming pool, and so on.The other possibility here is that everything gets done on a fee for service basis—and I guess the Liberal Party's health and other policies are going in this direction. It will not take too much more of Liberal Party government before ambulance drivers and doctors start asking for your cheque book before assisting you. Fee for service has some advantages. But the end result will be that less well patronised events—theatre, dance, concerts, and so on—simply disappear and universities and TAFE colleges become sadder, duller, grayer places.Lower cost can be achieved, but with that comes lower quality. If that is what you want on campus, you just bring in Ronald McDonald and Colonel Sanders; I guess they are the experts in this area. Mind you, it ought to be said that student food perhaps is not the best argument for a student union. But the student union does provide important services: free dental service, student discount club cards, the organisation of campaigns against violence on campuses and things of that character.This debate is really about whether we need student unions or whether we are better off on our own. Certainly when I was a student, I found university quite impersonal and intimidating; anything in the way of shared activities and a shared voice represented value for money.At another perhaps more sinister level, this is a proposal from a Liberal Party obsessed with power and intent on crippling opposition or any independent source of influence or authority. In Victoria voluntary student unionism came after the sacking of the Law Reform Commission—for inquiring into a closed shop of all things—the sacking of the Accident Compensation Tribunal, the sacking of the equal opportunity commissioner, restrictions on freedom of information, intimidation of the 7.30 Report and the Sunday Age, attacks on Justices Nicholson and Fogarty, getting rid of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Bernard Bongiorno, the defunding of the Energy Action Group and the Victorian Council on Problem Gambling, the sacking of all the councils and the replacement with administrators, the attacks on trade unions and the abuse of parliament.All of that came from a born-to-rule mentality and a manic determination to stamp out opposition from any and all quarters. And so it is here: the Howard government has proved to be little better. Recently I attended a protest meeting at the Coburg library concerning the Commonwealth Attorney-General's review of the function of the Victorian legal services. For those who are unaware, this review proposes a merging of the centres so that resources will be spread even thinner than they are now and a focus on the outputs so that the public interest work of the legal centres and legal services disappears.As my colleague the shadow Attorney-General, the member for Barton, has pointed out to me, the Commonwealth government spends a paltry $5 million on funding legal services. This is not about saving money; it is about stifling and suppressing dissent. And so it is with student organisations. As student organisations represent a source of criticism from time to time, this government has determined that they must be crippled and crushed. This is what this bill is all about. It is not about some benign view of giving students choice.By contrast, the National Union of Students and other student bodies used to be highly critical of the federal Labor government over HECS and other issues. Nevertheless, the Labor Party—and this is one of the conspicuous differences between us and those opposite—is big enough to take criticism and to tolerate dissent. We did not try to kill off student unions. It is this kind of arrogance and authoritarianism, a dislike of the pluralism and tolerance which, in the Labor Party's view, makes us a richer, more diverse, more successful community, just as much as the job shedding, the school closures and the like which caused Victorians to give up hope for the future of Victoria and move to the Labor states of Queensland and New South Wales at a rate exceeding 200 per day.Voluntary student unionism is nothing more than an attempt by the Liberal government to shut students up and keep them passive and in their place, egged on by former Liberal students seeking revenge after being perpetual losers in student politics. After we fought the good fight in Victoria, the government were forced to amend their legislation. But they did end up with a hastily cobbled together compromise riddled with anomalies. So we have a situation where overseas students could achieve representation but not local ones and students could run their own TV or radio services but not newspapers. So student cultural activities were all right but not student political ones. It was a bit like Eastern Europe before the Berlin Wall came down. We ended up with a situation where the students were taxed but did not have a right to effective representation—the exact opposite of what this government is claiming for its legislation.Claude Forell in the Age some years ago belled the cat in a piece on voluntary student unionism. In the article, after asking why the government was doing all of this, he stated:The clue is to be found in a leaked Liberal Party education policy committee document which said: "We do not want compulsory moneys flowing out to anti-Kennett and anti-coalition campaigns and other fringe activities of the hard left."He went on to say:So there we have it. This is not about lofty principles of free association. This is about preventing by law the possible allocation of small fractions of student funds by their elected representatives to political causes of which the Kennett Government disapproves. Even the financing of student newspapers is suspect, and therefore excluded.Claude Forell went on to say:Well, boo-sucks to that. University and college administrations are quite capable of determining campus needs and ensuring that student unions are properly constituted and accountable. Student communities should be entrusted to elect representatives to act in their collective interests—which may include political campaigns.We may not always like what they do or say, but that's not the point. The . . . Government has no business to impose its own politically-motivated curbs on academic autonomy and student democracy. We have also heard that voluntary student unionism has been introduced in Western Australia. Let me point out a couple of consequences of that. It has led to reduced employment services at Curtin, it has forced the closure of the disabled students department, the part-time external and mature aged department, the women's department, the sports library, the tool library and student loans, and the guild income has been slashed from $3 million to about $100,000 a year. That is not about voluntary student unionism; that is about the destruction of student services. That is precisely what will occur in other universities and tertiary institutions if this legislation goes through and is successful.I point out to the House that the bill states that it will `make voluntary student unionism a condition of Commonwealth grants to higher education institutions'. What is voluntary about this? It is compulsory to be voluntary, so where is the choice being given to universities? This is no mere semantic point, because the universities themselves do not support this and do not want it. I have no doubt that if it comes to pass it will do the universities immense damage. It displays on the part of the government a contempt for the best interests of students. The best thing for students would be for this government to stop meddling in student affairs, to abandon this legislation and to allow students to decide themselves what they want from their student organisations. This legislation is akin to putting a gun to universities' heads and saying, `Do as I say or we stop your funding.'This is an offensive interference in university affairs and it should be comprehensively rejected by this parliament. It reflects Liberal Party paternalism towards young people: `We know what is best for you. No, you cannot manage your own affairs.' We see this with youth wages, with the proposition they put up there. They are prepared to support discrimination based on age alone, whereas we say that wages ought to be based on skills and experience rather than age. They put this forward in their approach to the youth allowance. They put this forward in their approach to drugs. Once again, we get that paternalism from a party which is out of touch with the world of young people and indifferent to their right to manage their own affairs.10:15:005147Southcott, Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—Just to summarise the speech of the member for Wills, he was saying that he believes the government should respect the autonomy of the universities to compel students to join a student union. What he was saying is that we need to have compulsion to join a student union, otherwise under a voluntary system you will have something like an Eastern European totalitarianism regime. He is saying that we need compulsion to avoid becoming totalitarian. That is an Orwellian argument. It comes down to a fundamental problem that the Left have always had: they have never been able to reconcile freedom with organisation. The government is offering the same rights to university students that anyone else in the community holds, that is, the freedom of association. University students will be given a choice of whether to join or not to join.Touching on another point that was raised, the member for Wills said that he was opposed to voluntary taxation. He did not think voluntary taxation was a good idea. What is wholesale sales tax, which they support? What is excise? What is the whole indirect tax base? That is an area in consumption where people actually do have some choice. What we have heard from the Labor side is a defence of student unions. But that is not the issue here.No-one has a problem with the role of student unions. The issue is that of compulsion. The Australian Labor Party's argument goes something like this: the student unions are so good we need to compel everyone to join. That is a totalitarian argument, saying, `These unions are so good we need to compel students to join. We cannot actually give people a choice of whether to join or not to join.' The fundamental question here is not the role of student unions. The fundamental question here is: why should university students be denied the fundamental right of freedom of association? It is undemocratic for one group in this community to be denied freedom of association. The reasons I believe in voluntary student unionism are those, on the point of principle of freedom of association.Student unions and the Labor Party in their approach to this do not take account of the fact that not all students are full-time undergraduate students. We now have more part-time students than ever before; we have more external students than ever before; we have more cross-institutional students than ever before; we have more mature age students than ever before. Not all of them want to join the student union. Why do we need to compel them? Under voluntary student unionism, student unions will become more responsive to students' needs. They will not die if they offer students what students want.The government is not introducing VSU—voluntary student unionism—to destroy student unions or to silence one of its most vocal critics. We believe in voluntary student unionism because we believe in freedom, and deep down the Left does not. We believe in freedom of speech and freedom of association. These are fundamental principles of liberalism, which the Liberal Party stands for. We believe that a well informed debate is healthy and natural; that is why we are encouraging debate in areas such as industrial relations, tax reform and the private health system.In this debate on voluntary student unionism I have heard many unionists and present and former student union leaders tell us about the benefits of students unions, but I have not heard any compelling or definitive reasons about why membership of a student union should be compulsory. It is highly likely that members of the Labor Party on the opposite side of the chamber have raised and will raise peripheral issues of student union membership; these issues are not the point. The central question is not the value of student unions but why membership should be compulsory. Students are being denied the fundamental right of freedom of association.Critics of voluntary student unionism have said that it is wrong to confuse student unions with trade unions. I would ask the ALP: if students unions are not trade unions, why do we have so many trade union officials listed on this paper to speak on the debate? There is plenty of cross-fertilisation between trade union officials and student union officials. The ALP are advocating the continued use of a traditional union tool, that of a closed shop. Nowhere else in the work force does this still exist, yet it is all right to continue it in the universities. The ALP has spoken of the benefits of student unions. That is an argument which is consistent with voluntary student unionism. These are the types of benefits student unions should be promoting to attract new members when voluntary student unionism is implemented.I believe that student unions have a place. They have an important role in lobbying for and representing their members and providing services for students. For example, the University of Adelaide union have just introduced the trial of a smartcard which can be loaded and used to pay for parking meters, for photocopying and so on. This is an example of the innovative role of a student union. But it is not an argument in favour of compulsion; it is an argument to say that people should at least have the choice.Some universities do have conscientious objection clauses which allow you to opt out of student union membership, but this year was the first time I had actually heard about them; they are not publicised. When students receive their invoice for their fees, their enrolment notice and so on, they are informed that failure to pay outstanding union fees will result in them being placed in bad financial standing with the university. That means you cannot get your results and you cannot graduate. I do not believe that is fair.Unlike the member for Melbourne, I can declare some consistency on this issue. Ten years ago, I argued that clinical, medical and dental students should be able to pay a reduced union fee because they were not on campus to access student services. It was very much an argument in favour of user-pays and it was very much in support of the principle that people should actually have a choice to pay for what they use. It was opposed by the Left who were, 10 years ago, staunch defenders of compulsory unionism. They still are, 10 years on, staunch defenders of compulsory unionism. I still have the letter I wrote to all Liberal Club members asking them to support it, in view of their support for voluntary student unionism, as the first stage—being described at the time as the thin edge of the wedge—of voluntary student unionism.Everyone would agree that student unions do enrich life for university students. That is not the point. The point is that students should at least have a choice of whether to join or not. Voluntary student unionism was implemented in Western Australia in 1994 and there has been no substantial effect on the services offered to students by the student guilds and the universities. In fact, there has been a reduction in union membership fees. It is up to the student unions themselves to promote the benefits of student union membership and to be responsive to student needs. They should not be relying on compulsory union membership for their members.I studied medicine full time in the mid- to late-eighties and, more recently as a candidate, I did economics part time. I would say that when I was studying full time I would have joined voluntarily the student union. I received a lot of benefits through associations with clubs, including sporting clubs, societies and so on. But I would have also said that when I was working and studying part time I probably would not have joined if it were voluntary—I had a lot of other things to do—and I think people should be given that choice.Compulsory student union fees were introduced when most university students were full-time undergraduates. As I have said before, there are more part-time, more external, more cross-institutional and more mature age students undertaking university courses than ever before. There are more postgraduates. Why should all of them be compelled to join a student union? Not all of them have the time or the inclination to get involved in university extracurricular life. Why should they subsidise other students, especially a student political elite? It returns to the point that, if students do benefit from union membership, why do you have to compel them to join? Why can't students have choice? One of the recent editions of Adelaide University's On Dit was almost totally dedicated to letters from university students stating their opposition to voluntary student unionism. They do not seem to have grasped the point that under VSU all of them will still be able to join the university union. If the amount of students who have written to this newspaper is reflective of the student population, the union will survive and thrive. In fact, one of the letters in the university student newspaper was from the President of the Adelaide University Labor Club. In an Orwellian attack which is all too typical of the Labor Party, she argues in the same letter that it is acceptable for the Adelaide University Student Union to ban the Liberal club from distributing pro-voluntary student unionism material and also says in the same breath that the Liberal government is crushing `free speech'. This is Orwellian.Mr Deputy Speaker, in case you do not remember, two months ago the Adelaide University union banned, during orientation week, the Adelaide University Liberal Club from distributing VSU material in the union building. They cannot say, `That's okay but we think the Liberal government is trying to crack down on free speech.' Nothing could be further from the truth. In actual fact, in the same newspaper the Resistance Club—hardly a traditional ally or supporter of the Liberal Party—condemns the ban by the Adelaide University union.One of the arguments that has been used against VSU is that sporting clubs will be decimated. You may remember the shadow minister asking a question without notice of the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs on 23 March relating to VSU legislation placing at risk the Year 2000 University Games at Ballarat. For the shadow minister's information, the 1999 Australian University Games will be held in Perth, so the Australian University Games are being held in a VSU state. During the 1998 University Games the University of Western Australia travelled all the way to Melbourne and won the award for the `spirit of the games'. Remember, this is a university from a VSU state. The award was for having a very successful team and for their enthusiasm and great attitude.Highlights of the University of Western Australia's performance were the winning women's water polo team and the men's water polo team coming fourth. Another university from Western Australia, Edith Cowan, came third in the men's tennis. Last year the Australian universities' men's rowing eight for the New Zealand challenge was made up of students from Edith Cowan University and the University of Western Australia—not bad for a VSU state. I believe that under VSU there will be no difference in the number of members joining a sporting club. Why would there be? After all, university members now have the choice of whether or not they join a sporting club. Why would there be any difference?Ten years ago, I was the President of the Adelaide Medical Students Society. Membership of that society was voluntary, but most students joined because they knew they would benefit from their membership. We did receive from the union a grant of $1,000, but we were in no way dependent on that grant. While the grant was appreciated, it was actually relatively small compared with the amounts of money that we raised for charity and that we raised in various functions. The society was self-reliant and raised something like $2,000 for charity, which was much greater than the grant that was received from the union.Compulsory student unionism has also encouraged a situation where waste and inefficiency are unchecked. In 1987 at the University of Adelaide the most popular club to join was the Days of Our Lives Club. It was the largest club. It had over 600 members. It was formed for the explicit purpose of seeking a union grant for kegs to run a party. That was the way it worked. In 1988 it was the Chocolate Appreciation Society. Again, the impetus was to get as many people signed up at $2 on their books and they would get a grant which was based on a per capita basis. The aim of the Chocolate Appreciation Society was to hold a party where chocolate was served. Both of those are examples of clubs that were formed under the rules just to get a grant from the union. Clubs like that might be dependent on their grant from the union. Most thriving clubs—sporting clubs, societies—at universities would not be dependent on their union grant. So it is compulsory student unionism that has created this grant dependency.Even if you accept the extreme argument that no-one will join a union if it is voluntary, which would be an indictment of student unions, I do not believe it will affect clubs and societies, because most of them are not reliant on their union grant. Most of them do not depend on their union grant. I think it is only fair that university students should have the choice of whether to join the student union. Proponents of compulsory student unionism assume that once VSU is introduced then all student services will cease. If those services are meeting the needs of students, students will fund them. I commend this bill to the House.10:32:005150Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—We all come to this place with different intentions, different ambitions, different visions, with a sense of great things, with the aim of doing big things for the nation. Different members of this House obviously have different views on many issues, but most of us are driven by some sort of ambition about some issues, some grand themes, some great visions for the future of our country. Some want to pursue issues of poverty, others wish to enhance the rights of women and some would like to make the Australian economy more vibrant, more productive and more efficient.The Higher Education Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 actually relates to the vision of one member of this House—the Treasurer. And what a grand, sweeping and noble vision it is; the vision not of improving the lot of ordinary Australians, not of abolishing poverty, not of tackling unemployment, not of improving the efficiency of the Australian economy, but one of the great crusades of all time in Australian political history, the crusade to wipe out student unionism! Such is the great vision of the Treasurer!We all do have our visions, as I have said, and I will get to one of mine, one of the things that I am passionate about, which I think is relevant to this issue, later in this contribution. But what we are dealing with here is narrowness of vision, narrowness of interest, nastiness and the continuation for purely petty ideological reasons of a conflict that has occurred over the past 20 years or so. It has been very valuable to the Treasurer in his battles for advancement within the Liberal Party. It has been a vehicle through which he has pursued the interests of both himself and his various lieutenants—although, of course, it is worth pointing out that his major lieutenants in the faction of the Liberal Party in Victoria who are obsessed by this issue appear to be in decline as a result of the increasing strength of the Jeff Kennett faction in Victoria and are suffering regular defeats now on important issues.I have had the dubious privilege of watching the evolution of this `great vision' and the obsession of the Treasurer on this issue for over 20 years. I had the dubious privilege of being an employee of the Melbourne University Student Union in 1977 when the case brought by the then Treasurer of the SRC and Liberal Club member Robert Clark was initiated. He is now a state Liberal MP and a member of the Costello faction. But what we have seen since that time is a regular sequence of assaults on the institution of student unionism led primarily by the Treasurer but also by others such as his good friend Mr Kroger and various people around the country.It has been a tremendous vehicle for the Treasurer to win support within the Liberal Party and particularly from people like Malcolm Fraser and others. During the late seventies and the first half of the eighties it was a badge of honour for the Treasurer. It was a vehicle through which he was able to bring himself to the attention of many others. It has become a very important part of the Costello mythology. I emphasise the word `mythology' because essentially that is what it is. If you believe the stories, then brave Sir Peter went out to battle on his white horse and slayed the evil dragons of the Left in the student unionism area.Of course, the truth is a little different. Yes, he did win one or two elections in the Monash Association of Students in the late 1970s. But within a year or two the Left were back in control, and by the time the Treasurer had departed the campus nothing had changed. He left no legacy, no change in the political power structure, no change in the way that the place operated. In 1979 he tried to set up a breakaway national student union and failed. This effort went on for about six months and ultimately collapsed into dust. Although the Australian Union of Students did go out of business in 1984, it was fairly quickly replaced by the National Union of Students. And, of course, if you listen to the rhetoric from opposite, you will find that they believe that nothing really substantially has changed. Yes, there has been legislation in various parts of the country, in some cases similar to the legislation before the House today, which reflects the voluntary student unionism obsession of the Treasurer and some of his cohorts. But in many cases this is phantom legislation as, indeed, one of the Treasurer's strong supporters, Senator Synon, pointed out in her maiden speech, and I will return to that in a moment.But it is interesting to note how much the mythology on this issue has diverged from the reality. Of course, it has a direct parallel, which I am sure the shadow minister for industrial relations is aware of, which is the mythology about the Treasurer's role in the famous Dollar Sweets case where he carried the bags for the senior barrister, Mr Alan Goldberg. But, of course, the subsequent recording of that has been that the Treasurer actually won the case and somehow the QC who actually prosecuted the matter and successfully handled it has been written out of history.In looking at the level of achievement that has occurred on this great crusade so far, the major example of voluntary student unionism legislation that is worth considering is of course that brought forward by the Kennett government. What the Kennett government did is really revealing of what this whole thing is about. It is not about principle. It is not about a desire to ensure freedom of association. It is not about any sense of giving freedom and choice to people. It is about keeping compulsion but getting rid of accountability, getting rid of democratic decision making and getting rid of participation.The Kennett government legislation kept compulsory fees. The fee that was previously a student union fee was retained. It narrowed down the range of activities for which this fee could be expended, so that it was all right for sport and sporting clubs to be compulsorily funded by the fees of the non-sporting, for example, but it was not all right for student newspapers to be funded by the compulsory fees extracted from people who did not read them, and it was not all right for student theatre to be funded by the compulsory fees extracted from those who did not attend their events.In effect, nothing of substance has changed. The student newspaper is still funded out of the profits generated by commercial activities run by the student union, for example. The only change is that there is less accountability, less student involvement and less student control over the decision making processes. Everybody still has to pay the fee. This reveals that this agenda is purely and simply about suppressing dissent and removing institutions that are seen to be power bases for people opposed to the conservative parties. That is why they target things like student newspapers. I happen to be a former editor of a student newspaper. Student newspapers actually tend to express points of view that are at odds with the views of conservative governments. That is what this whole exercise is about.Finally, after 20 years or so of this great legacy building by the Treasurer—this grand crusade—we are now starting to see a glimmer of hope that there will actually be some sort of outcome on this front. The dragon has not quite been slain. This bill represents the zenith of the attempt by the Treasurer and his supporters to wipe out compulsory student unionism. But, already, within days of it having been published, support for this legislation started to disintegrate. A number of members of this House from various parts of the country—particularly rural areas— suddenly realised that student unionism structures actually function to uphold some of the important services in their areas. This legislation will destroy the basis for collective activity on campuses such as student clubs and societies, theatre and the arts, cinemas, student newspapers, child care centres, unsatisfactory progress representation, counselling, welfare services and the like. The vast majority of the activities of student unions consists of mundane, ordinary service provision which ensures that people can go to the cinema, go to the theatre and get access to cheap services of a wide variety of kinds.As well as the practical outcome of this legislation, it is necessary to consider its philosophical basis. Our society actually has a variety of collective structures built into it. Some of them are compulsory in composition, some of them are voluntary. The analogy with trade unionism is fundamentally flawed in this instance, because the only significant component of compulsion that is involved with membership of a student union—as the Melbourne University example illustrates—is paying the fee, whereas membership of a trade union exposes you to the prospect of being part of majority decisions that you may not agree with. These may involve loss of income—taking strike action for example. There is no equivalent in the case of student unions. They are a collective means of providing ancillary services associated with universities that could easily be provided directly by the universities without student accountability, without student democracy, without student participation—where the students are still ultimately paying the fees. That is the longer term consequence of this legislation. That is the only avenue that we can head down, if university campuses are to remain like they are today.The real analogy is with local government; and you have a geographic commonality between the local government example and universities. I may not use the local swimming pool in the city of Moreland. I have on one or two occasions but generally I do not. I may not use the library. We have got a very good library here that I use quite a lot. Yet I still pay my rates for those services, in the same way that a student at Melbourne University pays compulsory fees to give them the option—but not the obligation—to use the swimming pool at Melbourne University or, indeed, the various other facilities. That is the appropriate analogy. Even the conservatives do not suggest that we should make participation in local government and paying rates voluntary—although who knows where they will head?The end result of incorporating these sorts of services into university budgets will be to ensure that there is no student control, democratic participation or accountability about how fees are spent and how they are disbursed. We have had the arguments over alleged funding of the PLO and various other supposedly exotic causes. The other day the Attorney-General of the ACT, Mr Gary Humphries, made totally unsubstantiated claims that student unions fund the PLO and the like. This sort of nonsense has been spread for many years and it is simply baseless. Some years ago, there was the odd example where a couple of hundred dollars might have been sent to some obscure cause that really did not have any great relationship with the interests of students. But all student unions, in their charters, have an obligation to apply their funds for the direct benefit of students. That is what the Clark case was about back in the late 1970s—enforcing those clauses—so, ultimately, there is a legal restraint which precludes that sort of thing from happening in any event.Supporting a compulsory levy on groups of people for their common benefit is ultimately an issue that has to be assessed on the facts. What is the nature of the cost? What are the benefits? What disadvantages and obligations does it impose? How much fairness and transparency is there in the process?It is ironic that people in the National Party, who have a long track record of supporting things like compulsory levies in particular primary industries, would be so opposed to compulsion. There are ample examples throughout our history of groups of people who have come together with a common activity—like growing sugar or whatever, which is entirely analogous to the common activity of being students at a university—where there has been a collective decision, often enforced by government, that it be compulsory for those people to participate.So it is entirely hypocritical for many people in this chamber to be posturing about voluntarism and about freedom of choice when much of Australia's primary industry has been built on exactly the opposite sort of principle. Compulsion may have an appropriate role, and it depends on the facts of the situation. It depends on the nature of the compulsion, what the common outcome is and how reasonable the imposition is that is involved.Finally, I want to turn to the issue that disturbs me most about this legislation. I am passionate about the question of social exclusion, loneliness, alienation, increasing atomisation and increasing individualism in our society. These are real issues. These are very important issues. You may ask: what on earth does voluntary student unionism have to do with these issues? I will tell you what it has to do with them: freedom of association in this context means less association. That is what this is about. It is not some highly artificial notion of freedom of association; it is simply about less association. It is about less interaction between young people in particular on university campuses. It is about less capacity to participate in a social sense to make friends, to develop an identity and the like.Student unions are collective structures that provide nodes of participation within university campuses. They provide an enormous array of different structures, different collectivities, clubs and societies, theatre—a variety of activities which all flourish within that student unionism framework. Some of them are pretty exotic, some of them are pretty weird—there is no question about that—but they provide options for people. This is where the real choice comes in, not the artificial choice of, `I want to be free not to belong.' The real choice is the opportunity to go to a place which might be a long way away from where you have come from, where you may not know too many people, and have a variety of choices to meet people, to participate and to be involved in various activities.Tertiary students are primarily young people and they represent a rapidly growing proportion of the young in our population. This is a period of time in most people's lives when they tend to be developing and are fairly vulnerable—looking for their identity, building friendships and relationships and the like. Many people rely on the structures that student unionism delivers to give them the opportunities to do those things. A university campus with student unionism structures provides a very wide array of participation nodes that enable people to do that.I feel fairly strongly about this issue because I can recall turning up at Melbourne University, having come from the country. I had been on the place for a grand total of about three hours. I knew virtually nobody. I would go to the lectures and tutorials—sometimes—and would sort of politely say hello to people and then wander off. I might have had absolutely nothing in common with those people there. How was it that, as a 17-year-old who really did not know anybody or did not know much about the place, I made friends, got involved, developed an identity and participated in various things? It was through student unionism structures; it was through activities and structures provided by the institution of student unionism.This legislation is ultimately about destroying a provision of collective activity, of participation and of belonging in our society at a time when these sorts of institutions and groupings are increasingly disintegrating or under threat, at a time when individualism and the notion that we are all islands and that the only relationships that should exist between us should be contractual are increasing. At a time when all that is occurring, we are seeking to tear down yet another framework of collective involvement, of belonging, of participating, of being social. In this context, freedom of association means less association. It means more alienated people. It means more lonely people. It means people having fewer opportunities to be involved, fewer opportunities to integrate into a community. That is ultimately what this legislation is about.I see government as having a very different role from what this government sees it as having. I see government as having a very important and increasing role of ensuring that there are structures in society between the individual and government that do provide opportunities for participation, for belonging, and that do ensure that people are not alienated, that they make friends, that they build relationships, that they have some sense of social stability in their lives. That is what student unions do. Yes, they might occasionally say funny things and do strange things, but you should never judge things by the exception, by the occasional unusual thing. Underneath all that, student unions provide people with the capacity to belong, with somewhere to participate, with somewhere to develop and with somewhere to build self-esteem and an identity.I see government as having a very important role in combating the rising tide of social alienation. It is not an easy thing to tackle. There are no obvious solutions, no legislation or anything like that, that we want to put forward immediately in these areas, but the last thing we want to do is pour petrol on the flames. That is exactly what this legislation proposes to do. We need a federal government that is developing new and innovative approaches to dealing with loneliness and alienation in our society, not one that is deliberately tearing down some of the structures that actually retard the development of those phenomena, that actually ensure that people do have a place to belong, that ensure that there are processes, structures and activities that they can be part of. (Time expired)10:52:005154Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON6K6FordeLP10—We take it for granted that we live in a wonderful democracy in Australia. Central to that democracy is the freedom of association. We are free to choose which religion we follow and which clubs or societies we want to be a member of, and our political alliances are a personal matter. We rightly expect this freedom of association free from any prejudice. We take it that these are unquestionable rights and freedoms to which we ought to be enti tled. That is why it is amazing that we continue to tolerate a situation where Australian students are forced to join an organisation whose views may be contrary to their own, to pay for services they may have no intention of ever using, and to subsidise activities with which they strongly disagree. I am talking of course about compulsory student unionism.It seems incredible in this day and age that in almost all states in Australia refusal to join a student union means that they face the ultimate prejudice of being unable to obtain a university education. Young Australians are being forced to give up their right to freedom of association in order to obtain an education. In my view, this is simply wrong.The Higher Education Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 seeks to give students real choice. It amends the Higher Education Funding Act 1988 to make receiving operating grants conditional on universities not making membership of student organisations and associations and the collection of any compulsory general service or amenities fees a requirement of enrolment. In other words, Australian students will no longer be subject to the closed shop arrangements that were such a big part of how unions operated in this nation under Labor.Thankfully, the Howard government has already abolished compulsory unionism in the workplace. Australian workers, under our laws, now enjoy the right of freedom of association. However, I note with dismay that some unions are still engaging in standover tactics at non-union workplaces. I was contacted recently by a local contractor who employs non-union labour. He was approached at a building site, and he and his workers were threatened with all sorts of problems if they did not join the union.GT4TRUSSMr Truss—Disgusting.6K6Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON—It is. Thankfully, that business and his employees have the weight of the law behind them, but such is the thuggery of the trade union leaders that they still believe they have the right to impose their views on all workers, even though less than 20 per cent of the residents of Forde belong to a trade union. The fact is that unions can be very effective and they do have a role to play in modern society, and good unions which offer real, tangible services for their members will have no problem in retaining membership. But compulsory unionism, as we have seen in the past, inevitably leads to inefficiency and the abuse of power. Voluntary unionism has forced many unions to re-examine the services they offer their members. The result is better services for their workers and a more responsive union management, which in turn leads to improved working relationships with employers.But, unfortunately, there are still many backward thinkers in the trade union movement and among their mates in the Labor Party who believe in compulsory unionism and would like a return to the bad old days when workers were forced to join a union. It is not surprising—with all of Labor's frontbench being members of a union and relying on union backing for their preselection—that Labor opposes this legislation. These days, under the weak leadership of Kim Beazley, it is surprising if Labor supports any legislation that makes sense and is all about a fair go. Labor's obstructionist tactics in the Senate are costing young people jobs, hampering our chances of securing real tax reform, retarding our ability to pay back the massive government debt left behind by the Labor Party, and the list goes on. If it is good for Australia and it makes practical sense, then Labor opposes it.A big reason for that is that they are tied hand and foot to the trade union bosses. Kim Beazley would have done better to provide a true vision for his party if he had outlined a way for them to divorce themselves from the antiquated thinking of the trade union bosses who still call the shots in the Labor Party. This legislation is a clear opportunity for Labor to put the interests of Australian students first and to draw a line in the sand on the nature of unionism.The simple fact is that if unionism is effective and offers tremendous benefits, then surely there should be no need for it to be compulsory for people to join unions. That is what it comes back to for our Australian students. Currently we have a situation where students have to pay a significant lump sum up front, all of which goes to the student associations or unions, for services that are not directly related to their education and studies. As the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs said in his second reading speech:Choice about which goods and services they purchase is something expected by Australians. The compulsory general service fee charged on most Australian campuses requires students, as a condition of enrolment, to pay for services they may not want to use. On most campuses, in order to get a university degree you have to contribute to sporting facilities, whether or not you play sport. On most campuses, in order to get a university education you have to contribute to student entertainment, whether or not you have the time or inclination to attend. Students should enjoy the same consumer right to purchase only the services they want on and off campus, and this legislation will give them that right.The minister is absolutely spot-on. I know many students these days take their studies very seriously. They are involved in many community activities and sporting clubs off campus and, with full-time study and part-time work, they find little time to participate in student association activities. So the question should be: why do students have to subsidise the entertainment, sporting and political activities of others?Even more disturbing for some is the fact that their up-front fees are going towards activities that are absolutely contrary to their beliefs and values. It has been revealed that, on one particular campus, union fees were used to produce a book on drug use, a `how to' guide that promoted drug use. This is something that the vast majority of students would strongly oppose, and many young people I know resent the fact that their money is being abused in this way.The political nature of many student unions also means that a full range of student political views are not taken into account. Indeed, students whose views are not radically left wing generally have to subsidise the political activities of the vocal minority whose views are. I want to stress that the motivation for this bill is not political. It is about freedom of association and freedom of choice. But the one-sided political nature of these student associations just serves to highlight the unfairness of the compulsory system.It shows how unrepresentative these associations have become. Many have been corrupted into nothing more than noisy, political interest groups. One example is the fact that for many years the Liberal Party at the Queensland University of Technology was unable to be affiliated with the student union and therefore could not access the same funds as all other clubs and societies, simply because it supported voluntary student unionism.In 1993 the National Union of Students spent over $100,000 on a `put Liberals last' campaign that was particularly aimed at defeating the coalition, and at the last election we saw evidence of similar campaigns by the student union. If students want to be political lobbyists, then that is fine and good. Student activism can be a healthy thing. But the question again is: why should all students subsidise the political views of a small group? If left wing Marxism is the answer to our social woes, then surely the supporters of those views can raise the funds themselves for their political campaigns.Why should students who support the coalition government have to pay for campaigns that are directly contrary to their own beliefs? Again, this political aspect is just a small part of the reason why compulsory student unionism is unfair and does not work to meet the students' needs. Currently, compulsory union fees make up more than half the annual turnover of student associations. It is a guaranteed income and the system has led to much inefficiency and abuse. On most campuses student unions enjoy a monopoly on food and other services. Their rationale is that they subsidise these activities to benefit the students, but the reality is that the prices charged on campus are rarely lower than those off campus. This ongoing subsidy is merely an excuse for poor management and inefficiency in many cases and jobs for their mates.I was discussing this issue with my children, who have attended and who are attending university. They can recount many stories of how their various student unions have spent money on frivolous events and ideas and provided ongoing employment for people who did little for the student body. The fact that many of today's students take their studies seriously and have little time to get involved in student politics means that many of the inefficiencies go unchallenged. Those fine individuals and organisations who dare to question the legitimacy of the many union activities—and I congratulate the Australian Liberal Student Federation for their time and efforts in this regard—find they come up against a brick wall. They discover that claims that the student association is there to serve the interests of the entire student body are simply that—claims. They don't represent the reality, and they are really just a weak justification for ongoing compulsory fees.We have heard all sorts of doomsday predictions from the NUS and those opposite about how the legislation will impact on student services. The fact is that voluntary student unionism has been in place in Western Australia since 1995 and, far from having a detrimental effect on student services, the evidence points to the fact that student bodies have had to alter and improve their services in order to attract the support of the student body. As the minister pointed out in his second reading speech, at Curtin University in Western Australia the student guild no longer subsidises aerobics but it offers casual employment registers, assistance with resume writing and interview skills, and discounts at a range of on- and off-campus retailers.I am sure that there would be many opposite who lament that the colourful nature of some students' activities may be altered, but is it really fair that the mainstream student body subsidises that enjoyment and the activities and personal power games of the noisy minority? It is a lot like Labor's approach to politics in general: be captive to special interest groups and vocal minorities, with little regard for the views and interests of mainstream Australia. This is a flawed, outdated approach. We saw nothing in Kim Beazley's so-called `Vision' lecture recently to suggest that Labor really is listening to mainstream Australia. We saw an incredible two-faced declaration on the power of the Senate to block legislation. That is a bit of a laugh. I find it hard to believe that the Leader of the Opposition has the gall to make a declaration along this line when all the while he is blocking and frustrating the government's sensible politics in the Senate.On to the issue of education, which we are all in a sense discussing today. With this bill we saw Kim Beazley declaring that he wanted to be remembered—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The honourable member will refer to the Leader of the Opposition by his correct title, please.6K6Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON—He wants to be referred to in the future as `the Prime Minister for Education'. His assertion that he will be Prime Minister is arrogant in itself, taking a leaf out of his old mate Paul Keating's book. But has the Leader of the Opposition conveniently forgotten that he served as education minister during some of the 13 years of Labor government, a period during which we saw literacy levels fall to a record low? When we came to office one in every three 14-year-olds could not read or write sufficiently. That is the education legacy he left to Australia's young people.But it is not surprising that he would prefer to be remembered as `the Education Prime Minister'. He certainly couldn't be remembered for his efforts as employment minister, during which time we saw unemployment reach a record high of 11.3 per cent and more than one million young Australians out of work. He certainly would not want to be remembered for his efforts as finance minister, during which he whacked up successive budgets of over $25 million and also promised that Labor had the budget in surplus when in fact he was deliberately hiding a $10 billion budget black hole.Is it any surprise that the Leader of the Opposition does not want to be remembered for these things? The fact is that he will be remembered for his refusal to modernise Labor by distancing the party from the trade union movement. Indeed, today's Labor is more at the behest of the union bosses than ever before. The refusal of the Leader of the Opposition to act in this regard has relegated today's Labor Party to nothing more than the political wing of the ACTU. On every issue they take their lead from the trade union bosses. That is a fact. When it comes to sensible job creation policies, like our unfair dismissal changes and our youth wage bill, they are selling out Australia's unemployed. They are putting politics above sensible policies that will help job seekers. They are putting ideology first and the national interest a distant last.They are doing exactly the same thing with this important issue. They are putting the union first, above all else, pure and simple. The Western Australian example has shown that student services do not crumble under voluntary unionism; they become more relevant and more mainstream. Why should students who place their studies above extra curricular activities subsidise those who don't? Surely non-academic activities should be a matter of user pays. I challenge those opposite to explain why the entire student body should subsidise the activities of a small group. If people want to attend aerobics or a concert they surely should, and they should pay for it themselves. Students whose musical taste may differ from the student association's have to pay for any concerts they attend. Students who attend an aerobic class off-campus close to where they live or work because it may be more convenient have to pay for this themselves. This is fair. Those who want to take advantage of any services the student union may want to offer can choose to pay for those services and they will do that if they believe it represents value for money.The student unions themselves are the ones who always claim that free education is a right. Yet the fact is that these compulsory union fees are the only up-front lump sum that students are currently forced to pay before they can commence their education. They have no choice in this matter. The vast majority have no direct say in how those funds are spent. Compulsory union fees are in a real sense simply a tax on all students to fund a corrupt system that serves the needs of only a very small few. If, as those opposite would argue, student associations offer very real and important services to their members, then they should have no trouble in retaining their membership. That is the bottom line—choice. Australian students are intelligent young adults. They should be allowed to make their own choices about how they spend their money. They should not be forced to join an organisation against their will just to be able to obtain their degree. That is not democracy. That is not the sort of freedom of association that we Australians deserve and expect.I am pleased to strongly represent and support this bill, which is another example of how the coalition is providing fair and practical government for all of us, ensuring that the needs of all Australians are put above those of noisy minority interest groups.11:08:005158Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRISFI4NewcastleALP00—There is something ironic about this matter being debated the day after a government, which the majority of Australians opposed and voted against, brought in a budget spending the taxes of all Australians. We have a minority government, which just over 48 per cent of the people supported, spending the taxes of 100 per cent of the people. Let us take the government's philosophy and extend it to its own activities—jobs for its mates, control by a minority over a majority and no discretion for the individual as to what services they pay for or how their money is spent. The fact is that most Australians did not want this government. The fact is they have got this government, and now the government is lecturing us and all Australians about how minorities should not control. I find it ironic. I find it particularly strange.Firstly, I would like to refer in particular to the University of Newcastle, but before I do I should place on record the fact that I am extremely proud to have been part of a government that, during its period of office, increased the number of university places by 120,000. Our government inherited a system where two-thirds of school students left school at year 10. Only one-third even went to year 12. I am quite proud to have been part of the government that doubled student involvement in higher education to at least year 12 and then to university. We inherited in 1983 a system which was more than flawed; it was ramshackle and incompetent. The then Treasurer, the current Prime Minister, should be embarrassed and ashamed to be in this place lecturing us about education. He has the audacity to talk about an education budget when the budget again incorporates a one per cent cut in university grants for the fourth year. The minister talks about promoting science and research when the money that has been put back into parts of research is a fraction of what has been taken out.The vehicle for the government to vent its ideological spleen is the so-called unions. Speaker after speaker from the government says, `No, this is not about trade unions,' but every one of them mentions trade unions in their speeches. They keep saying, `No, we understand this isn't about trade unions,' but every single one of them mentions trade unions, and more than once. This is nothing to do with universities. This is nothing to do with student services. This is a government that is obsessed with its own view of the world, and it cannot see outside its own bottle. It is bottled up in a kind of way that I find difficult to understand.The University of Newcastle has been in existence as an autonomous university for some 40 years now. It has been a difficult 40 years for a small university in a regional centre. I am probably the only person in this place who paid up-front fees as a student. I used to say before 1996 that the HECS fees that were introduced by the previous government were less, in relative terms, than what I paid back in the sixties as up-front fees. That is no longer the case. The current HECS fees are probably equal to, or more than, what I paid under the Menzies government.I am also probably the only person in this place who was a member of a student union which had to build a new building. We had no facilities. When the University of Newcastle went to Tighes Hill we had vacant space. In our first year we had a pie wagon; you could buy a pie at a pie wagon in the middle of the campus amongst the mosquitoes and amongst the mud of a building site. We were part of a building site with no facilities. We borrowed heavily from the banks to build a student union. If there were no compulsory fees, we would never have got a loan. The student union would never have been there.I say to those people opposite who sit there and talk about the ratio of part time to full time that the ratio in the sixties in Newcastle is not the way it is now. We had a large number of part-time students who could not access facilities on campus at night. There were virtually no bus services, there was no union, there was nothing. Young women were coming out to a remote site with no student facilities, and yet we are lectured by those opposite who say union fees should be optional. If the fees were optional there would not be a building. I am angry about this because I think the cynicism of those opposite is based on their own ignorance and their own spleen about unions. It is not, and it never has been, about students.The views I hold are not just mine; they are shared by many. I would like to read a few comments into the record. The first comments are in a letter from the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Newcastle—who is not a Novocastrian, so one cannot accuse him of carrying forward Newcastle political values or views—to the minister back on 15 March. He says:I write to express my considerable concern over the introduction to the Federal Parliament on 11 March of legislation to introduce voluntary student unionism to Australian University campuses.All Australian universities and university student associations have spoken out strongly against this legislation and the Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee (AVCC) has voiced its unanimous opposition. I reiterate that opposition for the following reasons.The arguments you have advanced in support of the legislation have focussed on three propositions:. that compulsory membership of student associations is one remaining `bastion' of compulsory unionism. the fees collected are used to support activities that only a minority of students are interested in. subsidies for student services gives these services an unfair `competitive' advantage over similar services on campus or elsewhere.Universities and the AVCC responded as follows:. The analogy with trade unions is false, with a better comparator being the payment of council rates— or I would argue taxes, particularly in this context—. students with a conscientious objection do not have to join the association, as long as they pay the same fee as other students. making public funds contingent on not requiring the payment of student service fees is a dangerous intrusion into university affairs. the quality of campus life will suffer as services deteriorate or as scarce university funds are diverted to support them.At a recent AVCC meeting in Brisbane, held in association with the 10th anniversary of the establishment of QUT, an outline was given by the Vice-Chancellors of Western Australian universities of the impact of VSU on student associations, which was imposed by the Western Australian State Government two years ago. Student associations for two of these universities have been seriously affected, with the others `struggling' to continue to provide student services at an adequate level. Membership of student associations has been reduced to <20 percent of previous levels, which has seriously compromised student services available at those universities.From my viewpoint, it is clear that the premises underlying the legislation to introduce voluntary student unionism are open to question. The potential impact of the VSU legislation on student services is a cause of considerable concern. The Western Australian experience indicates that the draft legislation on VSU should be immediately reconsidered.That letter is signed by Roger S. Holmes, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Newcastle.The point he makes is that this is not some student plot. These are not some activist, rebellious, left-leaning political would-bes; they are vice-chancellors, the conservative part of the university establishment. These are not the radicals; these are the establishment of the university who are saying, `This is dangerous', and it is unanimous.The President of the Newcastle University Students Association, Mr Michael Kachel, wrote to me about the matter. In his letter he outlines a range of services and raises many of the arguments that have already been raised. He also points out in the letter a number of services that are available for students, which include orientation for newly enrolled students.I take note of the comments made by the member for Melbourne who went from a country area to a new university. In Newcastle many of our students come from very small towns a long way away, and orientation for those students is absolutely vital. This is student orientation, not necessarily academic orientation, which is absolutely vital to the successful pursuit of their studies. Many students do not last the first year because they do not fit comfortably into their new social and academic environment. The importance of that orientation is vastly underestimated, certainly by government members.Other essential services provided by the association include representation on university committees and to the government when defending the rights of students. As a member of the previous government, I can say the students attacked us as much as they are attacking the current government. We did not take our bat and ball and go home and say, `We will cut off your funds' like the current government has said to almost every body that disagrees with it. Whether it be AFCO, the Pensioner Federation or AYPAC, anybody who disagrees with the government has their funding cut. We have seen spectacular examples with environment and research where people who do not agree with the Minister for Health and Aged Care lose their funding in future years. This is the politics of spite and venom.The students at my university campaigned against the Labor government on more than one occasion and I expect that they would campaign against governments in general. As a student I used to campaign against governments, both state and federal. It did not much matter what their politics were; it was what they did to us that mattered and how we saw it. Additional services provided to students by the association include advocacy for individual students to the university relating to unfair assessment, sexual harassment, academic progress hearings, and so on. It is absolutely vital that somebody is there for the students when they need them. The government says that the students should pay in advance just in case, because they might need some services down the line. Should the students pay the fees before they go for advocacy?The fact is that the people who are most likely to need the service are the ones who are least able to pay. For the government to say, `This is not really important. This is discretionary. It does not really matter. It is optional. If you want the services, you will pay for them', means that the students with the least money will say, `This is not really important, therefore I will not pay it.' If that same student gets into difficulty, they will have no support and no right to representation, because they are not part of the body.That particularly applies to overseas students. What is not understood by governments is that overseas students are an increasingly important part of our national economy. It is something like a $3 billion a year in overseas earnings. Student bodies represent those students when in many cases no-one else does. They are simply seen as a source of revenue in many cases.Who fought the campaign for students with disabilities against both governments over many years? It was the student bodies. The student bodies recognised long before the politicians that students with disabilities needed extra support and they campaigned for it. Newcastle in particular is very proud of its record. I compliment Newcastle University and the range of services available at that university is enormous.I also would like to refer to a letter I received from Mr Adrian Iakin of the University of Newcastle Sports Union. Earlier I mentioned the building of the university union, which is the facility body, and there is also a student union, which is impacted by this legislation. Over the years the student union has been a major provider of sporting infrastructure to Newcastle—absolutely vital infrastructure. It has done the job for governments. Where governments have failed, the students actually built their own facilities. They point out:The direct impact of this legislation on the university sport sector will have significant implications for the provision and maintenance of community facilities, employment, the ability of universities to promote themselves internationally and the quality of the university experience offered within our national institutions.He goes on to point out the following in particular:The cost benefits of maintaining and extending university sporting and recreational infrastructure have already been recognised. The Government Committee report, Rethinking the funding of community, sporting and recreational facilities: A sporting chance , which reviewed the provision of national sporting and recreational infrastructure, recognised university facilities as a great opportunity for the community. It acknowledged that university facilities were already being used extensively by the community and that contributing to them provides for a very cost-effective means of providing improved facilities for community use. The Sports Union conceived, designed and provided 2/3 of the funding for the construction of the world class indoor sporting facilities of The Forum—which is a facility at Newcastle University—which is used by thousands of school children and community members every week. The Forum has been the linchpin of all Hunter region proposals attempting to entice overseas Olympic teams to train in the Hunter valley in the lead up to the Olympic Games in 2000. The Sports Union also designed and paid for the construction of the University of Newcastle No 3 Oval which is the training base for the Newcastle Knights. None of these wonderful facilities and opportunities for the Hunter community would have been possible if VSU had been in place 10 years ago!By the way, the loan for the Forum is still some $4.6 million. It is only possible because the banks know there is a guaranteed source of revenue. The stupidity of what the government is doing is unbelievable. The leveraging up of capacity on university campuses through student unions has been enormous.If you go back to my era in the mid-1960s and to 1965 when the university was established at Tighes Hill in Shortland the number of students on campus at any one time was minuscule. There is no way that the student union could have serviced a commercial operation. All we had for the first year that the union was commercially operated was a pie wagon—a caravan like Mr Whippy's—that sold pies like at a football game. That is all that the union could justify because there were not enough students. If you take any point in time—whether it be weekends, weekdays or certain periods of the day—the business is very patchy. The same then happens with sporting facilities where it is difficult to estimate the number of people who are going to pay for a sporting facility at any one time.What will happen if the government has its way is that the number of contributors to a student union will reduce, as it has in Western Australia. Let us put the lie to this: while member after member opposite quoted the Western Australian experience as having a positive impact, they have all received a letter which is a joint statement by the student guilds of the four universities in Western Australia—Murdoch, Curtin, UWA and Edith Cowan. The letter reads:Dr Kemp has stated that VSU has had a positive impact upon Student Guilds in Western Australia, making us more accountable, more entrepreneurial and more relevant to the student body.We wish to make it clear that the West Australian VSU legislation has had a dramatic and negative impact upon our organisations and hence the ability of our organisations to provide essential services and representation to the students of Western Australia.Enclosed are lists of services that are no longer provided at WA universities as a result of the introduction of so called Voluntary Student Unionism.We urge all members to vote against this.Government members—speaking even today—are still quoting the Western Australian situation as a positive experience when they all had letters from the Western Australian universities saying, `Not true. This is a lie. Please vote against this legislation.' The audacity, the sheer hypocrisy of those opposite misusing that information is breathtaking.But it is no more breathtaking than the budget that purports to act for all Australians when it does not—from a government elected by a minority of Australians pretending to have a mandate to speak for all—for a government that does that and then criticises the universities for having the same principle. I think the example is much more relevant to taxes than to rates. We all tend to be coloured by our own experiences; we all tend to base our view of the world on what we see and on what we understand.I go back to my years as a member of the student body and as a student politician representing Newcastle in national forums and also as someone who had the enormous task—as we all did in those days—of trying to build facilities on a campus where there was absolutely nothing at all. If you go to Newcastle university now—and many of you have been—and go through the union building, you should remember that the first block was built with a bank loan borrowed by the student union of which I was a member and had financial responsibility for. The loan was given based on the fact that we had fees on all our students. At that time we had 2,000 students altogether of whom probably almost half were part time.If a director of a company takes out a loan that is unfinancial, then they become personally liable. No student union board member could take out a loan on the basis of VSU. I have heard speakers opposite say, `Give me a compelling reason.' That is the compelling reason. No student representative could take out a loan on behalf of the student body in a situation where there is VSU, because they could not guarantee their revenue. Therefore, in terms of corporate law, they would be personally liable for financial responsibility if the student union went broke in the current situation. That is why compulsory student unionism is essential. (Time expired)11:28:005162Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—I think we have all enjoyed the sheer nostalgia of the contribution from the member for Newcastle. The year is 1999, and he has taken us back to 1965 and told us all about what happened in Newcastle in those days. I could not help but reflect on that famous saying, `If you do remember the 1960s you actually weren't there.' Nevertheless, I was quite pleased to listen to the contribution from the member for Newcastle.I would like to reflect upon it in a number of ways. I suspect that all of the good work of building universities that student unions may have done in the past is really now a lost argument, because times have moved on. I shudder to think that the member for Newcastle would have had his name associated with some of the absolutely outrageous and disgusting pornographic and downright socially irresponsible publications that a lot of student unions put their names to around this country. I do not think the member for Newcastle would have run a student union the way they run them these days. I suspect that the member for Newcastle's nostalgic trip is a valid debating point but nothing else.I support the Higher Education Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 before us today because I believe in freedom of association. I support this bill because I believe in freedom of choice and I believe in the rights of individuals to make decisions about exactly what organisations they will choose to join.I know those opposite are desperate on this matter. This is an article of faith; at stake are some of those great suppliers of campaign funds and campaign apparatchiki: student unions at various universities. I have had first-hand experience at just how closely tied the Australian Labor Party and student unions are—and I will deal with this issue a little later.This is also about keeping faith from the government side as well, because over a long period of years many people in our ranks, party members, have put time and effort into getting the item of voluntary student unionism up on the agenda. A great deal of tribute should be paid to the Australian Liberal Students Federation and its office bearers for having expended such an effort over a long period of time, as have also the Young Liberals and Young Nationals. They have all had first-hand experience in recent times of just how off the rails the unions they are forced to join on campuses around this country have become.Currently, 600,000 students attend Australian universities. Those students are required to join a student union or an association as a prerequisite for enrolment; in other words, they do not even get a chance to achieve something as a result of their studies if they are not involved in and contributing money towards a student union. Yes, I know on some campuses you can be a conscientious objector, but you still have to contribute the same amount of money to the union. So you are not a member but you are still making a compul sory contribution as a prerequisite for enrolment. Quite frankly, this is outrageous.Universities have always been a bastion of good debate, a place where civil rights and individual rights are promoted as an absolute priority. A lot of the great struggles for equal opportunity and recognition of people's sexuality and racial differences which have gone on for many years have had their beginnings in universities. I would have thought universities today would be embracing the concept of raw, blatant liberalism, standing up for the rights of individuals with a great deal of fervour. I would have thought also the vice-chancellors, who all too often are tied hand in glove to keeping their academe colleagues and student union colleagues happy, would be standing their ground and saying, `What the government has proposed is fair enough; we cannot force students to contribute to an association as a prerequisite for enrolment.'This debate is all about choice. Students who feel there is value in the services they are being provided with and who use them will still pay their fees. It is a very simple proposition to follow. If university student unions are providing `must have' services, they will attract membership—and it is the same argument with the trade union movement. Declining membership has occurred over a long period of time as people vote with their feet, saying the trade union movement is not relevant to real workers—and the same can be said about student unions. Yet here we have absolute compulsion being applied and each student being forced to contribute to something which is not doing anything for them.I know of students who have gone through university without even being aware of the union services available to them on campus. So much for the pro-activity of student unions in this country. There are many people who do not need to access the services. There are also some who may not need to access the services but who choose to contribute in a sort of good community sense. There is a variety of different people with different aspirations and different wants and needs and circumstances. For this reason, compulsion to join an association is quite wrong.Voluntary membership of student unions will see student associations becoming far more dynamic and responsive to the needs of students. They will have to work to attract membership. They will have to provide students with absolute certainty of their being organisations which are interested in what the students who may join are on about. I know of these matters from my own experience. I studied from 1987 in a part-time capacity at Griffith University, located in the centre of my electorate. I think I am still the one and only person who has ever been elected to this place as a Griffith University graduate.I want to reflect on Griffith University. It is an absolutely fine university. I know the minister at the table is well aware of just how wonderful Griffith University is. This university does things a little differently in a lot of ways. In fact, Griffith University uses an Office of Community Services model. Perhaps if other universities around the country had followed this model, we would not have needed this bill.The Director of the Office of Community Services is concerned at Griffith University being caught up in the changes to come. In keeping faith with him and what I think is a good system, I would state for the record: the Griffith University does not have a system where services are provided through the organisation of a student union; the university itself has established this Office of Community Services which conducts the various businesses. It uses a compulsory fee for the provision of services and facilities on its campuses.But one thing the Office of Community Services also agrees with is: the requirement should not exist for students to compulsorily join an organisation. So, in other words, Griffith University proves you can have a system which does not force people to join as a prerequisite for study but still works—a bit like the rates system which those opposite keep talking about—with the concept of contributing to the community through a fee. I think the Griffith University model has a lot to offer, as demonstrated by the case I have put.Nevertheless, at the end of the day Griffith University also should feel very confident about the services it provides—the very mature range of services it provides—being taken up by students as they study at this university. Students will maintain the payment of such a fee to keep those services going because they know it is worth doing. It can no longer be compulsorily charged, but people do understand, unlike those opposite, the need to make a contribution does exist.I believe the Griffith University model not only will prove to be something others will follow but also itself is a success which will continue to be a success. Griffith University is run in a much different way from the way other universities have run themselves over a long period of time because it does not tie itself into the student union to provide the services which are there.The other thing that is very important is that the Office of Community Services does not direct funds into lost causes and foul publications to which student unions around this country subscribe. The people at Griffith University need to be congratulated for the way they have conducted themselves. They should feel very confident about their prospects to come.Let us contrast that with the campus at the Queensland University of Technology, QUT. It is 10 years old, and the Australian vice-chancellors have met there recently to celebrate its 10th anniversary as a university. The QUT student union in 1996 directed $34,000 of student union funds to the socialist left member for Moreton at the time, and they failed. In fact, I would be delighted if they continued to contribute vast amounts of money into promoting the Labor Party cause, because it seems to fail every time they do. But $34,000 of student union funds from the Queensland University of Technology was directed deliberately into attacking the now government in the 1996 election, and I believe a similar or perhaps slightly smaller amount was contributed in the last election.I have 34,000 good reasons to vote for this legislation. I have constituents in my elector ate who are students at that university who are outraged to see the money they are forced to contribute being used in such a blatant political way—multicoloured brochures which cost $34,000. The member for Melbourne made a comment before that student unions have had since the seventies to provide a direct benefit to students. How does $34,000 being spent in a political campaign provide a direct benefit to students?Mr Slipper interjecting—CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—I suspect it was a blatant misappropriation of funds, and they know it. It is also important to reflect upon the vile rubbish that is published by some of these student unions around the country. The University of Queensland union literature contains information on drugs—on how to grow marijuana. Graphic material on sex is contained within the booklet. There is material on all sorts of things. I will not go into the detail of it, but when all is said and done it is absolutely foul and outrageous. It is hard to believe that this year's Sydney University of Technology's orientation handbook, which is published by the student union, contained graphic material on drug use. It is a do-it-yourself guide to drug use. That is what Minister Kemp said, and he is right.They had a section in the handbook titled `How to find a vein' and another titled `The best location for injection'. This would be all well and good if it were dealing with life saving diabetes injections, but it is actually telling students how to administer potentially life ruining drugs to naive first-year students at university. That sort of conduct is at the heart of why we have had to act in this way. Charging a compulsory fee on people as a condition of study and then using those funds, which are compulsorily seized, in such an irresponsible way and as a direct result causing additional harm to society is a practice that I believe we are rightly attempting to ruin and discredit.I have received a lot of letters from the Australasian Campus Union Managers Association, and I have round filed most of them. What appeared to be a reasonable organisation from its title `Australasian Campus Union Managers Association' was actually care of the Monash University student union. When I discovered that, I realised that anything they had to say was without any credit. They have sent me so much rubbish over the last couple of months about this question, and I can understand why. They can see that finally the gravy train is going to be shunted into the yard and a few of their carriages are going to be unhooked.More to the point, student unions such as those at Monash University, QUT and Queensland University are all going to have to work for their members. They are now going to have to provide services of value and services that students want—something which trade unions should be attempting to do to arrest the ongoing decline in membership. We do not need these lazy, arrogant organisations demanding compulsory contributions of fees. The member for Newcastle reflected on life in the mid-sixties, but this is the late 1990s. We are heading for the year 2000. If the practices of the 1960s are relevant today, then we will go through the sort of pain and torment in the economy that we have had over the last 25 years. The world has changed around us, and those opposite who continue to lament for the bygone glory days for unions had better realise that the union movement in general, and student unions in particular, have to get their act together and start to prove themselves to those they would like to have as members. It is obvious to me that the trade union movement generally is becoming nothing more than a sorting out ground for would-be members of parliament.I want to reflect on the Western Australian example. It has been five years or so that the Western Australian government prohibited universities from the collection of compulsory fees for non-academic services, and voluntary student unionism in Western Australia has proved to be very successful. In order to raise and maintain membership levels, the unions have had to make themselves attractive to students and service student needs. They have had to provide the services that students want in a much more efficient way. Let us face it: there are some very good reasons why students would want to use these services—for example, career counselling services and drug abuse services. Perhaps the student union is promoting drug abuse because they are trying to get some more clients for that particular service they offer.Those sorts of services that student unions have grown to offer over the years are relevant services. I would imagine any student coming to a campus who sees the value in being involved in an organisation offering those sorts of services would join. So that is the challenge that comes out of this bill. This is not an anti-union bill. This is a pro-student bill. It is a pro-freedom of choice bill. It is a pro-individual bill. It is at the heart of basic liberalism. It stands up for the rights of individuals. It champions their cause. It says, `No. A compulsory requirement to join an association is wrong, but attracting people to join is certainly right.' I commend the bill to the House.11:44:005166Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—I have listened to some of the contributions in this debate on the Higher Education Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 . I have not needed to listen to the contributions from this side of the House, because without question all of them have merit. But quite the opposite is the case with the contributions which have come from our friends on the other side. I want to pick up on a couple of issues which were raised by the member for Moreton. It may be news to him, but half the universities in Australia have the same administrative structure in relation to student unions as Griffith University; it is not unique. He also made pejorative remarks about the support—alleged support—given by a particular student union to a candidate in the Labor Party. It should come as no news to him—I am sure it comes as no news to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, or to members of this House or to the general population—that you could hardly call student unions or associations or those who work for them as tame-cat organisations or lap-dogs of the Labor Party or lap-dogs of the Liberal Party. Over many years, student unions have properly exercised their democratic rights in any number of ways.I recall in the period when we were in government between 1987 and 1996, when I was in this House previously, there were many occasions when student unions, either individually or collectively, campaigned against proposals put forward by the then Labor government. One of the most significant campaigns they ran in those years was the campaign against HECS. The Labor government did not then turn around and say, `This is the end of it, we have got to cut off the lifeline of the student unions. We are going to make mute the democratic voice of students'—not at all. There is a fundamental principle of democracy at risk here, and that is the right of people to be actively involved in politics and support whomever they like at any given time. In this particular instance we have got this member railing again an organisation for apparently choosing to support a Labor candidate. I understand why they would support a Labor candidate, in the context of recent elections, but I have to say to him that there have been many times when student unions and student union representatives have not been friends of the Labor Party—much to our sorrow, I might say.I think that you could describe this bill before us as venal. I see it as venal; I see it as destructive. It is venal, because we have had articulated today in this House the reasons why this bill is before us. It is two things: it is an act of political retribution and it is an attack on the rights of individuals to be involved in organisations. It is acknowledging—the previous speaker made mention of it—that what they are doing in this legislation is supporting the objectives of some of their rank and file members who have campaigned ideologically over the years for the abolition of student unions.We understand why they want to abolish student unions, for their own stupid, puerile, ideological reasons. But in the context of what good government should be about, of what good public policy should be about, this is a venal attempt, because there is no good public policy reason for it. Frankly—I am sure it will come back and haunt the coalition—it is just bad politics. I would have thought that even they would not be immune to the thought that this might be a piece of bad politics. I know that there are members opposite who are very concerned about the implications of this piece of legislation for universities in their electorates. I know this is particularly so for people who live in regional and remote Australia, with its small regional universities. I am one of those people. Mr Deputy Speaker, as you would be aware, the Northern Territory University is in my electorate, based in Darwin.It is of no coincidence that we are discussing this piece of legislation today after another coalition budget in which we have again seen universities hit. I need to say this, because I think it puts in context the damage that will be done to the higher education sector as a result of this proposal by the government: this year, as a result of the budget, university operating grants are hit with their fourth consecutive year of cuts which were announced in the 1996 budget. I believe and the Labor Party believes that this almost $1 billion worth of cuts have seriously undermined the quality of education for students and the ability of our best researchers to succeed. Surely the first test of John Howard's claim that this budget will improve education is whether he will reverse these cuts. At the very least, he should order a halt to the latest one per cent cut in university funding which he announced in 1996 and which takes effect in this budget. At this stage I am certainly not aware of any initiatives, other than the maintaining of the ARC research funding, for universities.It is worth noting that there was a four per cent decrease in the number of university applications in 1999 compared with the number of applications in 1996. The HECS increases have made it impossible for many students from ordinary families to go to university. This was an issue over which student unions campaigned. Frankly, their campaign had a great deal of merit, because what it said to the government was exactly what has happened—that it would be a discouragement to ordinary Australians, working families, to have their children go to university because of increased costs as a result of the changes to HECS.Then we have the announcement in the budget last night to abolish the equity scholarships that help kids from the bush and low income families get their only chance to go to university. What is this about? What is going on when a government can announce a budget surplus in excess of $5 billion yet penalise the best and brightest of those people who might have a disadvantage in accessing higher education? What is the purpose of this?I say to the government: if you have got one bone or shred of credibility in terms of your arguments about supporting those people who live in regional and remote Australia, you would overturn this instantly. I know they will not because, again, for whatever stupid reason, they have got a fix that this particular savings measure is somehow important to the bottom line of the budget. Give us a break.For people in my electorate this is a damaging exercise. In my electorate this will discourage people from attending university. Yet we can thank the Howard government for it. It is in that context that I talk about the bill before us. It will further discourage people from participating at universities and further prevent universities, already struck down by consecutive years of cuts to their operating grants, from providing much needed services to students at their universities.In the context of the Northern Territory University, it is relevant that we look at what has happened since 1996 when these budget cuts were first announced. We have seen the cancellation of the second stage of the library building on the NTU campus, leading to diminishing access to books, periodicals, electronic information and general communication services. We have seen the loss of ceramics and sculpturing from the School of Fine Arts of the university. We have seen the loss of the English department from the Faculty of Arts. Do you believe this? We have a university in Australia with an arts faculty without an English department. I stand here in amazement. This is the Northern Territory University trying to market itself to South-East Asia and it has not got an English department.I leave it up to your judgment, Mr Deputy Speaker. Do you believe there can be any merit in having an argument about whether or not you can have an English department at a university? Would you not say that one of the most important things in any university—in Australia, at least—is to have an English department? But now, as a result of the cuts which were introduced by John Howard in 1996, there is no longer an English department at the Northern Territory University. Thank you very much, Mr Howard! I guess what he is trying to do is ensure that those people who attend institutes of higher education around Australia including the Northern Territory University do not have the wisdom, in terms of their expression, to be able to debate him—which would not be very difficult, frankly, because he and his government talk in riddles most of the time.There has been the loss of the international student unit, which was replaced by one person working out of the student access and equity department. There has been the loss of the in-house catering service and other services such as the cleaning of rooms with no corresponding reduction in accommodation charges to residents of North Flinders International House, which is the place where we want to house those students we want to induce to come to Australia to study, among other things, one would assume, English.We have seen the overcrowding of lectures and tutorials. There is less access to lecturers in out-of-class time. There has been the outsourcing of the child-care centre. We have seen the outsourcing of on-campus catering, leading to higher prices. We have seen the outsourcing of photocopying services, leading to higher prices. We have seen a single careers adviser for around 10,000 students. There has been the amalgamation of nine faculties into four. There has been the devolution from the central administration of important roles and responsibilities to faculties, and no supervisors for many postgraduate students. There has been a high level of attrition and departure of staff, leading to increased workloads and very low staff morale.There are problems with external students getting materials on time. And as you would be aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, in the context of the Northern Territory and indeed Northern Australia, external students form an important part of the student body. There are no special arrangements for the Northern Territory University which recognise its position as the most isolated regional university in Australia.These events have all occurred directly as a result of cuts which have been made to the university since 1996 by the Howard government. We need to understand that the loss of universal membership of student organisations in remote and small universities like the Northern Territory will lead to their demise. It has been demonstrated very clearly in debate that it will mean a very clear reduction in the level of services which are available to students at those universities. Access will become a matter of whether or not you have the additional resources to pay for them. It will become something the privileged will benefit from and those from working families will not, because they will not have the additional resources required to pay for these additional services at cost. This is what would happen as a result of the proposals put forward by the government.Ultimately, the proposals will mean that students will not have the choice of joining a student organisation because they will not have one at their university. Student organisations will become the domain of those who can afford the luxury of participating in the university hierarchy—the top end of town. The Australian community pays its representatives in order to ensure—and I believe this is true—that it is not purely the domain of those able to afford the lifestyle of deciding upon legislation. Nor should it be so in universities. We should be trying to ensure that there is the fullest level of participation in university life by all students, no matter where they are from. This legislation will inhibit the ability of students to participate actively in campus life and get the full benefit of a university education.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—What about free choice?IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDON—We hear this plaintive cry about free choice. Let me say this to the member who so wantonly interjected. I have in front of me a media release from the university of the Northern Territory, from the vice-chancellor, dated 26 February 1999. I will read part of that media release for the edification of the member opposite. Perhaps you would like to listen to this, Mr Slipper:Northern Territory University Council decided last night to support the status quo and oppose legislation which reportedly would proscribe compulsory student services fees. Professor Ron McKay said that—0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—So what?IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDON—Just wait—the University Council was in agreement with the Students' Union on the question of amenities fees.. . . . . . . . .At NTU the amenities fee is compulsory and pays for a wide range of services. For example, the traditional Orientation Week, commencing on Monday, is among the events paid for by the amenities fee. The Student's Union has organised three weeks of activities for new and continuing students as they begin their academic year. A range of activities will introduce students to the Student Information Centre, the Sports Association, and clubs and societies. Social events will provide new students . . .et cetera. I conclude this extract from this statement and I ask Mr Slipper to open his ears once again:The Vice-Chancellor said the NTU has an exemption option on unionism. Students have the right to opt out of joining the Students' Union.Does that satisfy the issue of choice, Mr Slipper?Mr Slipper interjecting—IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDON—I say to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, what we have got is this plaintive cry from the government that this is about choice. This is not about choice at all.Mr Slipper interjecting—IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDON—This is a venal act of retribution against students who they do not like—and they recognise that we have got fools like this in this chamber who sit here and say that this is all about choice.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—It is about choice.IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDON—It is not about choice; it is about your ideological bias. You have corrupted the minds of young Australians by saying—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mossfield)—Order! I ask both members to address their remarks through the chair.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—Through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, the member opposite is a hypocrite.IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDON—And you are a clown. Mr Deputy Speaker, we have seen what happens in this place when you put a bit of needle into some of these jokers, because they know that what we say is correct. They know that this is a venal exercise. They know that this is an act of political retribution against people they do not like. We know what the impact of this will be on student unions around Australia and on the university campuses.The vice-chancellors oppose this particular move. The student unions around Australia oppose this particular move. Young Liberals in New South Wales oppose this particular move, but not these great paragons of virtue who sit on the government benches. These are the people who have cut $1 billion out of the operating grants of universities. These are the people who are now saying to universities, `We will not have compulsory student fees, therefore you will not have access to those fees to provide the services that universities currently provide through those associations and union organisations to students.'The people who will suffer will be the universities and the students—not the hoi polloi, not the top end of town, not those with the money to afford to pay for these services but the poor students. People in regional and remote Australia will suffer, but not these clowns on the other side.You do not have to look too far into what student representative organisations do to understand their importance. They provide substantial services and activities and networking opportunities to students on and off campuses. If they ceased to exist, the ability of the NTU, in this case, to attract international or interstate students will be diminished quite substantially, leading to lower enrolments.The government's intention in this area is a symptom of their lack of understanding of Australian universities and how they operate, and this is particularly true of the Northern Territory. I keep saying this: I come into this place and I am amazed at the decisions which are made by this government which impact negatively on regional and remote Australia. This is yet another one of them.We know what this is about, and I have said it clearly before. This is about ripping the guts out of the organisations which represent students around Australia because these people do not like them. They are ideologically committed to getting rid of them. We had the member for Moreton admit as much in his contribution when he said that this is all about paying back those legions of supporters of the Liberal Party—there are not that many of them, I would have to say—who support the abolition of student unions. That is what this is about—retribution and an ideological commitment to payback.I have to say that it does not go down well, because the people who will suffer as a result of this are young Australians, in particular, who aspire to go to university. The people in my electorate, people who live in Alice Springs, do not have the luxury of a university in their home town. They have to pay to go away to university. If they go to Darwin not only do they suffer the cost of the distance in travel and the cost of getting accommodation but now they are going to suffer the cost of purchasing independently and individually any of the services that are currently provided by the Northern Territory University Students Association. That is appalling. It is bad politics, and it is bad public policy.12:04:005170Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—No matter how thin you slice it, it is still baloney from the member for the Northern Territory. Let us start with access to schooling. I really want to talk about the budget. Obviously he has not read it but no doubt he will get to it. Basic boarding allowance has increased from $2,900 to $3,500.WU5O'CONNORMr O'Connor—You did nothing for three years.FK6Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLY—A big boost for—WU5O'CONNORMr O'Connor—You are giving back what you took.FK6Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLY—I listened to the other speakers in silence. I expect some courtesy.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mossfield)—Order! I ask the members to address their remarks through the chair.FK6Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLY—We increased the basic boarding allowance. I met in one of the remote Aboriginal communities a lady struggling to send her daughter to boarding school some 2,000 kilometres away. This is going to be a tremendous boost for people on very low incomes who want to give their children the best opportunity.We hear about equity from the member for the Northern Territory. Who set up the medical school in Townsville that is going to give an opportunity for five young indigenous people every year to go to university? Who set up the medical school that is going to have 60 student places? You spoke about it in the 1970s, and you did nothing about it. We are delivering. Who has got rid of your new schools policy which was your `no schools' policy, which stopped a new school, a Christian based school, opening in my electorate? It is now going well. It is increasing its membership and teachers and is doing a great job in one of the very small towns in my electorate.Talking about `venal', what nonsense! This is the government that is delivering on education. This is the government that is delivering for people in rural, regional and remote areas in terms of education. This is another initiative that is going to make it less costly for students from rural and remote areas to attend university. This bill is going to extend the fundamental human right of freedom of association to university students. To say the least, from the addresses given on the other side of the House, the Labor Party would like to force conscription on university students, to deny them freedom of association and to treat them as irresponsible children. The Labor Party has been joined in this insulting and repressive campaign by student union executives, whose interest is clearly self-serving, and, sadly, by vice-chancellors who seem to have no difficultly preaching that `teacher knows best' to people who have long got past high school.I received a briefing paper from the National Union of Students on this matter, and it was a most impressive document. It outlined all of the undeniably wonderful benefits that student organisations provide for their mem bers and how students' lives are enriched by these benefits and services. This document was supposed to convince me that student unions play such a vital and indispensable role in the lives of students that they deserve special legislative protection from the basic human right of freedom of association.The extraordinary irony and inherent contradiction of their whole argument seems to have escaped the National Union of Students. Surely if the student unions were so marvellously popular, so faultlessly attuned to students' needs and so critical to the very survival of students, then they would have no trouble at all in attracting voluntary subscriptions. However, by their own admission, this is not the case. That briefing paper claimed:Common sense would indicate that given a choice many people would not pay their taxes, even though they support the services and activities performed by their councils or other forms of government. This is also the case amongst students. Given the choice students will not pay fees, even though they may continue to want, support and make use of the services and representation provided by student organisations.This seems to me a very illiberal and patronising view by the National Union of Students leadership of their constituency. Are they suggesting that all students—and I noted there was no qualification of the assertion with the words `some' or even `many'—are so irresponsible, so immature and so selfish that they would happily and, without so much as a twinge of conscience, use services they refuse to fund?On 10 March I wrote to the National President of the National Union of Students and drew the plain implication of this assertion to his attention. I quote from that letter:Twenty odd years ago when I was a student, we will liked to consider ourselves amongst the brightest and the best in the nation with keen intellects and probing minds. We liked to think that we were capable of making well-informed, independent decisions and certainly would have resented anybody (least of all our elected union leaders) portraying us as—layabouts. The letter continues:Have things changed so much in two decades that students today don't mind being so presented by their union officials? I would hazard the opinion that students today would consider themselves as we considered ourselves way back in the 1970s as intelligent and independent individuals.I have not received any reply to that letter.I am very proud to inform the House that the Queensland Young Nationals were the first youth political group to adopt voluntary student unionism as their policy. So, rather than hearing the hot air from the other side, let us hear from some of the young people who have actually written to me about this policy. Queensland Young Nationals, I might add, also draw their membership from throughout regional and rural Queensland and, of course, include a great many students at various tertiary institutions. Demonstrably, they are unimpressed by the views of the various student unions, by the leadership of the National Union of Students and by the opposition, who all believe that tertiary students need to be told by their elders and their union leaders what is good for them. I might add that all these students were happy to have their names and their comments reported in Hansard which shows how strongly they feel about this. One Young National in my electorate is George Christensen. He advised me:After twice neglecting to pay my student union fees, I was sent a notice advising me that my enrolment would be terminated if I didn't pay up. If this occurred anywhere else, it would be considered blackmail and the author of the notice would go to gaol.Mr Christensen has also observed:Student unions make a lot of noise about HECS fees financially hurting students, yet the only compulsory up-front fee they are compelled to pay is their Student Union one.Queensland's Young Nationals' Youth Ambassador, Mr Martin Klibbe, has written:In a free, celebrated democracy like the Commonwealth of Australia, I find it incomprehensible and repugnant that student unions in concert with ivory tower academics can hold a gun to students' heads and demand payment. This undemocratic practice amounts to little more than extortion.These are students saying this, not the opposition, not the government. They are students from families who have struggled to send them to university, who live in rural and regional areas and go to rural and regional university campuses. Mr Klibbe has quite rightly observed:A $300 student union subscription is an unreasonable impost on students who are recognised as one of the most disadvantaged groups in our society. As a fourth year tertiary student, I can attest that I seldom get value for money from my student dues. Instead of serving the body of mainstream students, union services are geared towards the noisiest minorities. A university card that entitles me to discounts at the Gay and Lesbian Health Clinic and a recent student publication detailing how to shoot up heroin are cases in point.That is how student compulsory union fees were spent at this university. How appalling. Another Queensland Young National, Mr James Lister, who has also welcomed this initiative by the government, has written:Compulsory student unionism is as undemocratic as it is unproductive and it strikes at the heart of the very principles that the proponents of compulsory student unionism claim to espouse. Therefore, with the move to voluntary student unionism, students will at last be treated as customers rather than a captive source of funds.Mr Lister made the observation about his student union—which provided him with a diary for his membership fee and little, if anything, else:The ulterior motive of your average student union commissar is to keep democracy out of student politics and, by extension, to keep unionism compulsory.These Young Nationals and young students reflect the views of a large number of students who want the freedom to decide how, when and where they spend a considerable slice of their generally meagre and hard-earned income.In the opinion of the opposition, the student union elites and the education industry mafia, these views are regarded as immature, irresponsible, selfish, short-sighted and ignorant. However, I happen to believe these students are right. My view is reinforced by my own personal experience as a student at the University of Queensland way back in the 1970s. When I was studying electrical engineering, I was forced to be a member of the student union. I was in a financially precarious position and worked part time to support myself. I was a long way from home and my parents were not able to make much of a financial contribution at that time. With lecture, tutorial, work and study commitments—not to mention the daily grind of caring for a flat and purchasing groceries—and a rather limited off-campus social life, I had no real opportunity to participate in a range of so-called student services funded from compulsory student fees. Some I found politically and morally repugnant, some I regarded as irrelevant and some simply did not interest me.MG4LEEMr Lee—Like the cafeteria?FK6Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLY—You don't want to pay for your lunch; is that it? You want a free lunch? Is that what you want? The Labor Party always wants a free lunch. I will tell you what; most people in Australia recognise that there is no free lunch and they are happy to pay for it.A chronic shortage of time and sometimes energy severely limited my enjoyment from these services. I felt then and I feel now that I was the best judge of how to spend my precious and limited income. I have had to wait 20 years to help deliver to students what I sorely wanted then—the right to choose. Better late than never.The Queensland Labor Minister for Education, Mr Dean Wells, however, is an interesting case. He wrote to me on 16 March pleading the case for enforced conscription of students. He wrote:The requirement for universal participation in the student organisation has significant benefits to the institution, and to students. In particular, it helps to ensure that all students can participate in their own representation, rather than allowing that process to become the captive to a small number of activists.I seem to recall that Minister Wells, in his student days, raged against conscription to the Army during the Vietnam conflict because of his passionate commitment to, among other things, the principle of freedom of choice and association. As the years have moved on, it seems that Mr Wells's principles have moved on as well. He is now in the front line of those who like to think that they know better what students want and need than the students themselves. Clearly, Mr Wells is in the education mafia camp that regards students as irresponsible, self-centred layabouts.There is an undeniable inherent contradiction in the twin arguments advanced by the opponents of this bill. On the one hand there is the strident claim that students themselves do not want this freedom of choice, yet on the other hand there is the gloomy forecast that the happy world on campus as we now know it will shatter into a million pieces once this bill becomes law. I wonder at the processes of intellectual rigour that allow this joint presentation. Minister Wells, in his letter to me that I referred to earlier, also wrote:In 1973, the Commonwealth assumed responsibility for the funding of higher education in Australia. In doing so, it undertook to provide funds for the teaching and research activities of higher education institutions only, on the understanding that student representative and amenities fees would continue to be the responsibility of the student and that institutions would make these fees compulsory for all students.Presumably Minister Wells thought that an appeal to me based on a decision taken 26 years ago by the Whitlam government would be massively persuasive. He could not have been more wrong.He also informed me that student union fees were currently worth $24 million annually and that about 500 jobs were provided by these fees. It is a big business with a big self-interest. Judging by the evidence of the near-hysterical objections to this bill, this big business is staring collapse and ruination in the face when the bill becomes law. Yet we keep being told that students love, honour and respect services their unions provide but, unfortunately, do not have the decency and honesty to voluntarily and decently pay for them.Students currently face compulsory up-front fees which exceed $300 in some cases, with the average fee being about $250. This is a considerable impost on students who traditionally are amongst the poorest. It is a reprehensible oppression to force low income earners to pay compulsory union fees, and I will not be a party to it.Universities have a duty to prepare their students for the real world, and the real world today is one of free choice. Compulsory unionism is being discarded into the dustbin of history and the inexorable decline of unions—to the absolute horror of those on the other side—reflects the contemporary reality of people making their own independent choices. By resisting this bill, the Labor Party is making a last gasp try to keep alive the outdated notion of unionism that passed its heyday almost a generation ago. Students, like the rest of us, have the absolute right to decide how to spend their own money and whether or not to join any organisation. Surely we can rely upon the good sense of university students to make an informed choice about their own lives.In Western Australia, tertiary student unions have been voluntary organisations for some time following state government legislation. The outcome is interesting. In the 1998 annual report, dated 18 September last, the president of the University of Western Australia's Guild of Undergraduates, Ms Rosie Dawkins, reported, amongst other things, that the guild had had a very strong year in terms of representing students on education issues. There had been an increased involvement in on-campus cultural activities and a strong commitment to social justice issues, including textbook subsidies for needy students.The guild was still producing the weekly student newspaper and was covering production costs with advertising. The number of clubs affiliated with the guild continued to grow and 80 clubs claimed for grants in 1998 and 20 had club rooms. The guild introduced a large number of computer training courses at inexpensive prices for needy students and continued to provide services such as assistance in mediation and academic appeals. Overall, the annual report was a story of considerable progress and significant achievement. It illustrated how a practical, truly student oriented student union could attract voluntary subscriptions.As I said earlier, if student unions are to be truly responsive to the needs of students, they should not have any fear of the future. I welcome this enlightened legislation and am very happy to support the minister on this very forward thinking initiative.Motion (by Mr Slipper) put:That the question be now put. The House divided. [12.24 p.m.](Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr F.W. Mossfield) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 ——Question so resolved in the affirmative.Voting lists are recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Lee's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. [12.30 p.m.](Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr F.W. Mossfield) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 ——Voting lists are recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Question so resolved in the affirmative.Original question put:That the bill be now read a second time.A division having been called and the bells being rung—7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—Mr Deputy Speaker, would you please explain how, if a person had left the count, had left the House, it can be still 74 in the last count?10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mossfield)—Because someone came in.The House divided. [12.33 p.m.](Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr F.W. Mossfield) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 ——Voting lists are recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Question so resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.5174Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.12:36:005174Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—by leave—I move:(1) Schedule 4, page 7 (lines 1 to 12), omit the Schedule.(2) Schedule 5, item 4, page 8 (lines 12 to 22), omit the item.(3) Schedule 5, item 6, page 8 (lines 25 to 28), omit the item.What a disgrace for this House that the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs arranged for the gag to be imposed on a debate about voluntary student unionism and he couldn't even be bothered turning up for the vote. He couldn't even be bothered turning up to vote to guillotine debate in this House on a matter that is crucial to the future of campuses right across the country, a matter that is crucial to the future of the jobs of 2,500 people. This minister for education couldn't even be bothered to get himself here in this House. In moving the guillotine in this debate the people who say they are all about giving us freedom of choice are not prepared to have freedom of speech in this House. Twenty other members of the Labor Party wanted to speak in this debate. The Independent member for Calare, Peter Andren, also wanted to contribute to the debate. Yet we had the government coming in here using its numbers to guillotine and end debate. I suspect the real reason they guillotined debate is that this minister was not prepared to come in to wind up the second reading debate. He did not have the guts to come in here and defend the indefensible. He is like a drowning man out there. His head has sunk below the surface of the water. The bubbles are drifting up towards the surface. We know this is a drowning man—a drowning man who has brought before this parliament legislation that is vindictive and destructive. It is vindictive because this is this minister's attempt to silence student organisations across the country because they had the temerity to oppose this government's $800 million cutbacks in federal funding for universities. That is why it is vindictive.This is destructive legislation because this minister knows that, if the legislation is passed by the parliament, services right across the country will be hit. When the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs puts the boot into student unions, he also puts the boot into child-care services like the one at the Caulfield campus of Monash. When he puts the boot into student organisations, he puts the boot into the sporting facilities right across the country, he puts the boot into the theatre at the University of Melbourne, he puts the boot into legal advice, into sexual counselling, into housing assistance and into the right for student organisations to speak out and represent the interests of students in negotiating with the vice-chancellors. This minister, in putting the boot into student organisations, undermines the viability of dental services for students. He does not even understand that services like cafeterias and dental assistance to students are placed in jeopardy by this legislation.We understand that the campuses that are going to be hardest hit by the legislation are those in regional areas and the new and growing campuses. That is why the member for Kennedy has been out there in the media saying he is against the legislation. But, when it came to a vote in this chamber, the member for Kennedy got gutless and voted with the government to impose VSU. That is why we have seen right across the country coalition backbenchers making statements in their local media expressing concern about the damage that the legislation will do. We have had at least four government backbenchers expressing concern about the damage of the legislation, telling us that the minister has misled his own party room—refused to answer questions in his own party room about the damage that will be done by the legislation.But it is not just the students, the staff, the vice-chancellors, the members of the coalition's own backbench, the Labor Party and the Democrats who are against the legislation; the Tasmanian Liberal members of the Legislative Assembly, the New South Wales Young Liberals and great Australian sportsmen like Geoff Lawson are expressing concern about the damage that will be done by this government in its attempts to silence student organisations.We know that this is a debate that the government are afraid to engage in. They have gagged debate here. Members of the government have refused to participate in debates on campuses across the country. This is the first minister for education who is not able to visit a campus anywhere across the country. When was the last time, Minister, you agreed to a debate with a Labor Party member about VSU? If you really do believe in this, why won't you debate me or any other Labor Party member on any campus across the country? We know that it is this minister who will be held accountable for the damage that this legislation will do. It is this minister who will do enormous damage to student services right across the country. We know that this minister probably will not nominate for the electorate of Goldstein at the next election because he has been so badly damaged by the policies that he has introduced not only on VSU but also on other educational matters. (Time expired)12:41:005175Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—What we are seeing on the part of the other side of the House is their classic willingness to defend the union interests behind the Labor Party. There is nothing that gets Labor members into this chamber quicker than their desire to defend their union mates. They are over there in numbers because probably every Labor member sitting on the other side of the House at the moment is an ex-trade union official. We know that 100 per cent of them are union members, and a very large proportion of them are ex-union officials. That brings them in in droves.I know that many of those opposite would like to have taken part in this debate and, as a parliamentarian and somebody dedicated to this parliament, I sympathise with their inability to take part in this debate. But any opposition member who would like to have taken part in this debate and who now does not have the opportunity should register their protest with the shadow minister, because the government gave the opportunity for an extra two hours debate on the Higher Education Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 in the Main Committee and the shadow minister turned it down. So much for his dedication to have the VSU debated in this chamber. What we have seen is nothing more than the confected outrage of these union lap-dogs. Nobody displays this more than the shadow minister at the table who is essentially just the spokesperson in this House for the Australian Education Union. The Labor Party has no education policy. The member for Werriwa has made the chamber very aware of that. The education policy they tried to put forward at the last election was completely stuffed up.Honourable members interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mossfield)—Order! There is far too much interjection. I call on those on my left to observe the orders of the House—and those on the government side as well.BT4Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMP—Not only don't they respect the House; they don't respect the right of students to decide whether or not they will join a student organisation. They know that compulsory student unionism is the last bastion of the closed shop in Australia—the great ideal of the ACTU. This is the last bastion. We have rolled back the closed shop in every other area of Australian life, but the union officials are out there trying to defend this last bastion of the closed shop and trying to deny to students the right to decide whether they will join a student association or not.We hear all sorts of horror stories about the terrible consequences that will flow from freedom of association. We have even heard the nonsense from the shadow minister here today that freedom of association for students is in fact a threat to freedom of speech on behalf of students. What utter rubbish to say that freedom of association is a threat to freedom of speech. That is a new one in democratic theory.These people have not got a clue about how democracy really works. All they know is the way the union movement has traditionally dragooned unwilling members into its ranks so it can use their money for its own propaganda, and of course that is what happens, year after year, on university campuses. The one huge gaping hole in the case that the Labor Party has put forward is the fact that in one state of Australia, Western Australia, we already have voluntary student unionism in the sense in which it is being moved in this legislation by the Commonwealth.In that state we have vibrant student associations. You only have to read the information that those student associations put out to see how vibrant they are. We see how vibrant the sporting life on those university campuses is. In fact, the Australian University Games this year will be in Western Australia, hosted by the Western Australian universities. They make no secret of the fact that they are very vibrant these days and that they are much more responsive to students than they ever were. They know that they will not get student members unless they offer the services that students are looking for. So we have a pattern of student services in Western Australia which is much more responsive to the needs of students than we see elsewhere in Australia where students are dragooned to contribute. (Time expired)12:46:005176Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—One has to wonder what horrible experience the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs had at university. Minister, why do you hate universities so much? Why do you refuse to visit campuses? Why are you determined to undermine the services that are provided to students on campuses these days? What horrible things did they do to you that you are determined to wreak this revenge on them? That is what we want to know.Listening to that speech, you have to understand that the minister squibbed a full debate on the second reading. He would have had 20 minutes to respond and then wind up the second reading debate but he squibbed that when he imposed the guillotine. Listening to that five-minute speech from the minister, I was reminded of that good Australian band—Not Drowning, Waving—only here was the minister not waving desperately at the dispatch box but drowning. Here is a minister who has abolished in this budget equity scholarships for students right across the country, a minister who says he supports Australia being a clever country but is going to deny clever kids from the bush and from low income families their chance to go to university—and he sits at the table here laughing.BT4KEMPDr Kemp—That is actually so absurd.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—And he interjects and claims that the case is absurd. He says that abolishing the government's own scheme to benefit the kids from needy and rural families—to give them a chance to go to university—is an absurd case. Minister, that is just further evidence of how deep you are sinking as you drown in a sea of unfair policies.The minister claims that the University Games going to Western Australia proves that VSU is a great success in WA. Minister, the real test for you is: if this legislation is passed, will you guarantee that the University Games will be held the following year in Ballarat? It is already common knowledge that the viability of the games at Ballarat has been placed in jeopardy by your own legislation. Think of the `economic stimulus' that Ballarat and other towns are going to get if you succeed in putting the boot into student organisations and sports associations right round the country.The minister claims that it is a great success in Western Australia, and at least he did not use the arguments of his favourite spokesman on this point, Senator Ross Lightfoot. The evidence that Senator Lightfoot quoted to demonstrate that VSU is a great success is this:VSU is such a great success the student unions are now providing services that are more relevant to students.That is why it is working well, according to Senator Ross Lightfoot, and his evidence is that at one campus they have closed down a child-care centre and opened a hairdressing salon. That is how Senator Lightfoot argues VSU is a success.Minister, we just make the point to you that in Western Australia, as well as undermining not just the political activity of, and the rights to representation by, the student unions, they have undermined the ability of the student guilds to provide cafeterias, legal advice, housing assistance and counselling. In other campuses across the country unions also provide things like medical assistance and dental care. Minister, why are you trying to deny students at places like the Caulfield campus of Monash University the ability to get dental care? Why are you trying to deny those students the ability to get the housing assistance that they might need to get a unit organised or to get some accommodation fixed up? Right across the country this legislation, if it is passed, will do enormous damage.Let me remind the House of the comments that the member for Higgins, the Treasurer of Australia, made when he knew a bit more about student organisations than he did today. When he was head of the Monash Association of Students, he said this:Since student unions do have a positive contribution to offer to student welfare and student education, they should be supported by all those who profit from them. The funding, and therefore the provision, of services would be impossible unless there was some requirement to pay a contribution.So the Treasurer—a long time ago when he knew more about student organisations—knew that you had to have a universal fee to provide universal services. You cannot afford to have free-riders—who use the services, the cafeterias and the sporting facilities and who get the dental care, the legal advice and the counselling—use the services and not make a contribution. It would be like saying that local government rates should be voluntary.We all know what would happen if they were voluntary, Mr Deputy Speaker Hawker: you would pay yours but at least 80 per cent of people would not pay their local council rates and the council would have to cut back the money it spends on roads, garbage collection, looking after parks, building footpaths and so on. That is the reason why we say this minister's legislation is vindictive and destructive. It is going to do enormous damage to student services right across the country. This minister is the man that we are going to hold responsible for the enormous damage that is going to be done on campuses right across the country, and that is the reason why this minister will not be a candidate for the House of Representatives at the next election. (Time expired)12:51:005178Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—We have just heard the spokesmen for the policy vacuum on the Labor side of the House. We have not heard a single constructive comment on education from this shadow minister since he became a shadow minister. The only issue which attracts Labor members in droves into the House is the defence of union privilege, the defence of the closed shop. That can at least be guaranteed to get them up and get them into the chamber to debate some issue in education.You cannot help feeling a certain pang of pity for all those members to whom the shadow minister denied the opportunity to speak in this debate. As I said, the government offered two hours in the Main Committee, but the shadow minister decided no, he was not going to go down to the Main Committee, he was too big and important for the Main Committee, he is going to debate only in this chamber. So the member for Canberra, the member for Grayndler, the member for Braddon, the member for Bruce, the member for Chifley, the member for Kingston, the member for Calare, the member for Throsby, the member for Fremantle, the member for Sydney, the member for Batman and the member for McMillan were all denied an opportunity to speak for 10 minutes in the Main Committee by the shadow minister.We made a very fair offer to the shadow minister, and he turned it down because he was not interested in giving those sitting behind him an opportunity to speak in this debate. Indeed, if the members on the other side had been willing to speak for five minutes in the Main Committee, we could also have had the member for Melbourne Ports speaking. As I recall, the member for Melbourne Ports was a strong opponent of compulsory student unionism in his student days. In fact, he attacked the thuggery of the union of students in his days.He could have been accompanied by—and who knows perhaps some of these others are secret supporters of voluntary student unionism—the member for Burke; the member for Reid; the member for Shortland; the member for Werriwa, who could easily even now be a supporter of voluntary student unionism; the member for Isaacs, I do not know that he has views on anything very much; the member for Greenway; and the member for Corio. All these Labor members were denied the opportunity to speak on behalf of the closed shop. While I totally disagree with their views on this matter, in the words of Voltaire, `I defend to the death their right to say it.' That is why we offered you the opportunity to debate this issue in the Main Committee and why the shadow minister, who is far too grand for the Main Committee, decided to turn it down.The great hole in the Labor Party's case on this is that we already have voluntary student unionism in one state in exactly the sense that the Commonwealth is seeking to legislate for, and in that state we have a very vibrant student life. All this scare talk about the termination of student services around Australia is shown to be totally fallacious by the experience in Western Australia. Indeed, I recently had the opportunity to see a presentation by the sports union at the University of Western Australia which made the point that they now had more income than they had in the days of compulsory student unionism. That presentation was making an argument to the sports associations at all the other universities that, with well managed sports unions under voluntary student unionism, it is quite possible to attract the members and the funding that will provide a vital sports life on campus. Those are the facts. The member for Dobell raised a lot of other matters which I may have the opportunity to respond to in a few minutes time.12:56:005178Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS5K6NamadgiALP00—As I was the next speaker to jump to her feet in this debate, I reject totally the comments just made by the minister. I was scheduled to have a 20-minute speech in this chamber on an issue of importance relevant to this chamber. I deplore totally his fallacious arguments just then when he said that we could have had a decent debate in the Main Committee.It is interesting to note that the temporary role model for many of those opposite in general political terms has been, and still is, the Thatcher government. The Thatcher government was also urged to take action to prevent compulsory student union membership but they very wisely decided against it. In 1983, Thatcher's education secretary, Sir Keith Joseph, argued:. . . the student union is not the same as an industrial union. What we have in the students' union is automatic membership and automatic access to facilities . . . And I do not see how we can therefore make membership voluntary.I would like the member for Forde, who gave a contribution of 20 minutes in this place earlier today, to think very carefully about that because she went to a great effort in her contribution to this debate to try to draw some similarity between union membership on the campus of a tertiary facility and union membership in the industrial sense. There is no connection; there never has been any connection. It is quite misleading for any member in this place, including the minister, to try to draw that conclusion.In the Australian context we need look no further than the current Treasurer, Mr Costello, for the sound argument in support of universal membership. Our shadow minister has already made mention of his comments earlier in the historical sense—and I will not repeat them—but I can say that the Treasurer was absolutely correct then and he is absolutely incorrect now to try to change his mind and have it each way. All students benefit from the provision of services and facilities. The Australian parliament should not be encouraging free riding on Australian campuses.I would like to commend the student body in Canberra for the active role that they have taken in this debate. Many of them have met with me and gone out of their way to make sure that I really understand the impact that this legislation will have on the very services that they enjoy within their campus life. It is fair to remind the House and those opposite of the sorts of services that these student union organisations provide within campus life—we need to say this over and over again—because these are the very services that are going to come under direct threat and will probably disappear in a great majority of cases. In relation to the tertiary facilities within my electorate here in the ACT, which many of my student members of the community enjoy and use, are things like dealing with problems with Centrelink—we can all associate with that—with Austudy, with Abstudy, with the youth allowance and so on. They also provide free legal advice. The students association also has trained university mediators and sexual harassment contact officers. They have an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students association. They provide a parenting room. They subsidise photocopy use and fax use. They give financial advice and assistance as well as providing emergency grants.They also provide sport and recreation programs. They help with grievances and mediation across the board, let alone provide access to coffee shops, nutritional food, and social life on campus, generally—all of which nurtures the non-academic side of the lives of these young people. These are the sorts of facilities and atmosphere that should exist, particularly today with the pressures of study and the pressures of achievement that these people are facing.As I have said, I am very pleased that the young student body in the ACT have made the effort that they have in exposing this legislation for what it is. I have enjoyed meeting with them. I have enjoyed listening to their concerns, and I really regret that I have not had the opportunity in this chamber, over a 20-minute period of debate, to go to further lengths in explaining their concerns. I thank them, and I continue with my absolute opposition to the government's ideological and petty agenda on the student services issue driven by this ideological minister.13:00:005179Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—It is interesting to think where ideology rests in this debate. The government is standing on behalf of a principle which I believe most Australians, except apparently those on the other side of the House, support—that is, the principle of freedom of association.MG4LEEMr Lee—What about freedom of speech?BT4Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMP—And freedom of speech, just for the benefit of the shadow minister. The government supports freedom of association, which is a fundamental support for freedom of speech. When you do not have freedom of association, when you have compulsory association—which we know now a very significant part of the Labor Party backbench still hanker after—you do not have genuine freedom of speech at all, because inevitably money is taken from students who do not agree with the student leaders spending it on behalf of their main political causes and their propaganda. That is what the Labor Party means by freedom of speech: you take money away from Liberal students or from students who do not have any particular opinion and you spend it on behalf of the opinions of the Labor Party's union mates.We know how far the Labor Party was prepared to go to defend that position of privilege. When the Labor Party was in power and a form of voluntary student unionism was introduced in Victoria, the member for Hotham, Simon Crean, introduced legislation into the parliament which allowed him to use taxpayers' money to pay these student unions if the students themselves refused to pay the money. Even if students did not want the leaders of these student unions to be acting the way they were on campuses, the Labor Party's attitude was: `Well, that doesn't matter to us. These are our union mates and, if you students won't give them money, we'll give them taxpayers' money.' That disgraceful, disreputable, undemocratic piece of legislation is still on the books, and it is going to be vigorously defended by the Labor Party.In my former life I used to be a political scientist. One of the things that political scientists discover is that ideology is a great motivator in politics, that the most active are often the most ideological. When you see the level of activity in this debate and you look at the incredible list on the Labor side of the House and at the sensible and responsible number of speakers that the government has put up, you cannot help concluding that ideological motivation is certainly much heavier on that side of the House than it is on this side of the House. They poured into the House to justify privilege. This government is very proud to stand in this debate on the basis of freedom of association.Yes, we are ideologically committed to freedom of association. We are ideologically committed to freedom of speech. We are ideologically committed to students having the right to decide whether their money is going to be spent on causes they support or on causes someone else supports. The irony of all of this is that the compulsory student fee is the largest up-front fee, in fact the only compulsory up-front fee, that students in Australia have to pay. If the government's legislation is passed, Australian students will be relieved of the necessity of compulsorily paying the Labor Party's up-front fee of around $300 a year just to support their union mates.13:05:005180Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—I am very pleased to have the opportunity, belatedly, to speak for a short time on the Higher Education Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 today. Members on this side were gagged from debate. That is absolutely consistent with this government's attitude, which is all about silence: the silence of dissent from this government's reactionary, ideologically driven agenda. We have heard from the minister opposite all about the $300 compulsory fee. This is from the minister who has increased HECS by $2,000 a year. But that does not matter; we do not hear anything about that.This bill will decimate services to students on campuses—accommodation services, health, counselling, student loans, legal advice, orientation programs, social activities. All those organisations which contribute to campus life and contribute to the broader education of students will be decimated by this legislation. The second thing that the minister talks about is all these political causes. That is the real agenda here. It is about silencing democracy and silencing the voice of students.Let us look at the role of student unions. We were in government for 13 years. What was the role of students during that period? Most of the time they were out demonstrating against us and against measures we were taking, because that is their role. A vibrant democracy requires dissent and requires representation of all groups in society, including students. But we did not shut them down. In fact, the minister is quite right that, when the Victorian and Western Australian governments chose to introduce legislation to take away student representation, the federal Labor government moved in to reinforce the fact that they had that right of association.The freedom of association question is also worth addressing. The fact is that in a number of legal cases both here and internationally the minister is wrong—Clark v. The University of Melbourne; Harradine v. The University of Adelaide; and the case before the European Court of Human Rights, Le Compte v. Belgium, which was about the right of doctors to associate. The US Supreme Court, the Canadian Supreme Court, and even the UN Human Rights International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights very importantly draw the distinction between freedom of association and freedom from association.That is why they chose those words carefully, because there is freedom of association on campuses. That is why on every major campus in Australia you will find a Labor club, you will find a Liberal club, you will find an environmental group, you will find a Greek society and other organisations, because that is where the freedom of association comes in. That is why you have elections on campuses which democratically allow students to elect their leadership to determine where those funds should be spent.If we look back at the political role of students and the ability to question, we will see that sometimes young people in society do get it right when older generations have got it wrong. The issue of apartheid comes to mind. The student movement in Australia played a very important role in putting that on the agenda, let alone the Vietnam war issue. Historically, that was important in later governments. Of course, the current Prime Minister was a great defender of the apartheid system in South Africa, but most of the world came to the right conclusions before he did. Then there is the Deputy Prime Minister, who said that Soeharto would be remembered as one of the great statesmen of the 20th century. Students were pointing out the problems of a lack of democracy in places like Indonesia well before others. I defend their right.It is consistent. It is why this government shut down AYPAC—young people were telling us it was ridiculous to treat them as dependent until they were 25. At least the student unions should be grateful we have not had dogs and men in balaclavas sent in, so I guess it is relatively moderate. This legislation is not about freedom of association; it is all about oppression, suppression, denying representation, silencing dissent, silencing democracy. In the long run, a strong democracy requires participation and requires the active support of government, not this attack.13:10:005181Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—We have just heard a speech from a member of the Left faction of the Labor Party. It used to be called the Socialist Left.R36ALBANESEMr Albanese—It still is.BT4Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMP—Oh, it still is called the Socialist Left. At least he is honest. This is the faction that, throughout the years of socialist governments in eastern Europe, never stood up to defend democracy. They were prepared to accept the empty rhetoric of the socialist movements around the world that these manipulated elections were somehow or other really democratic. That was the position of the Left. It has always been one of the great scars on the Labor Party that the Left faction has never been a supporter of true democracy, has never been a supporter of basic principles like freedom of association and freedom of speech; it has always been a supporter of the manipulated democracies overseas that finally collapsed under the weight of the outrage of their citizens. That, in a sense, is what is going on at the moment on university campuses. It is outraged students who are fed up with being compulsorily asked to pay up-front fees for student unions that are the strongest supporters of voluntary student unionism.The government is very pleased to take its stand on the basis of fundamental democratic principles. However, I must refute the extra ordinarily incorrect statement made by the member for Grayndler in this debate, which is again typical of the kinds of distortions you get from the Left, that the present Prime Minister was ever a supporter of apartheid. The present Prime Minister and, indeed, previous leaders of the coalition have been very strong opponents of apartheid. I remember when I worked for Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser that he was one of the people who foresaw, earlier than most statesmen in the world, the inevitable defeat of the apartheid system.The Liberal Party and the National Party, the coalition, have been very clear-sighted throughout their histories as parties about the basic principles on which democracy rests. That enabled us to see clearly, in a way that the Labor Party Socialist Left never saw, through the spurious claims and empty rhetoric of the socialist movements around the world. It enabled us to uphold the torch of democracy at a time when capitulationism was ripe on the other side of the House. So I do not think anybody in this chamber will be terribly impressed when they hear the current defence of the closed shop on campus by a member of the Left faction.This issue has been debated at some length in this House. It could have been debated at greater length if the shadow minister had not rejected the opportunity to debate in the Main Committee. He was not really interested in continuing this debate because he knows that any democrat who believes in freedom of association and freedom of speech will realise, having heard this debate, that the Labor Party does not have a leg to stand on. There has not been a single convincing argument against the government's legislation put up by those on the other side of the House. I think it is time to draw the debate to a close. I move:That the question be now put.13:15:005182Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—With your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker Hawker, we will not be forcing a division on this, but I make it clear that the Labor Party will oppose this on the voices. It is an outrage.Question resolved in the affirmative.Amendments negatived.Bill agreed to.5182Bill (on motion by Dr Kemp)—by leave—read a third time.Business5182Motion (by Mr Reith)—by leave—agreed to:That standing order 48A (adjournment and next meeting) be suspended for the sitting on Thursday, 13 May 1999.Committees51825182518213:17:005182Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I move:That the time for presenting the report of the Joint Select Committee on the Retailing Sector on the degree of industry concentration within the retailing sector in Australia be extended to 30 August 1999.Very briefly, this committee was appointed on 10 December 1998 but, for various reasons, the committee membership was not finalised until 15 February 1999. They did not hold their first meeting until 16 February 1999, effectively putting the committee two months behind schedule. The resolution of appointment for the committee provided a six-month reporting date from the establishment—namely, 10 June 1999.The committee has received a large number of submissions. The first round of public hearings in capital cities commenced in April 1999 and indicated a high level of public interest in the inquiry. Because of the current parliamentary sitting pattern, it is not possible to conduct further public hearings until July, which will therefore further delay the schedule. It is proposed to hold these hearings in parts of rural and regional Australia.Because of the importance of the inquiry, the complexity of the issues involved and the initial delay in getting under way, the government has accepted the advice from the committee that it would be appropriate for there to be this relatively short extension of the time in which the committee would report. I understand that it has the support of the committee. Given that it is very important that people have an opportunity to be heard, the government has accepted that recommendation. I commend this minor procedural motion to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills5183r8015183Debate resumed from 30 March, on motion by Mr Vaile:That the bill be now read a second time.13:19:005183O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—The Wool International Privatisation Bill 1999 is the latest legislative response to problems in the wool industry by a government that has lurched from crisis to crisis in handling the future of this great rural industry. The opposition does not intend to oppose this legislation as we recognise the importance of putting into place these legislative arrangements for the benefit of those producers who still have equity in the stockpile and who seek a return on their past production. However, it is important to put on the public record the concern of many growers about the consultation processes surrounding the development of new privatised arrangements for Wool International.In response to those concerns, the opposition initiated a Senate references committee inquiry to allow public comment by producers with some concerns about elements of the minister's proposal. Should that inquiry report uncover further problems of substance with this legislation, the opposition reserves its right to consider appropriate amendments in the other place to ensure that the equity of producers and their right to have a meaningful say in the commercial structures developed to dispose of the remainder of the stockpile are adequately protected.As we debate this legislation in the House today, one of the central problems facing wool growers and indeed the wool industry—the disposal of the wool stockpile—still remains. Because of the stockpile freeze initiated by the Howard government, there still exists a wool stockpile of around one million bales. The problem of disposing of this wool in a way that preserves the equity of the people who produce and own that wool, and minimising the impact of its sale on wool markets, still remains.I remind the House and indeed the industry of the words of the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry in his second reading speech, which was delivered to this House on 30 March this year, in which he had this to say:This is a good outcome to a very difficult and longstanding issue which had become the Achilles heel of the industry.Minister, if the one million bales of the stockpile represent the Achilles heel of the industry, and indeed it does represent one of the Achilles heels of the industry, then the problem is still there. Wool producers have not been freed of the burden imposed by the presence in the marketplace of the wool stockpile. The wool stockpile still casts its shadow over a marketplace which is increasingly turning demand to synthetic and other fibres, and which is not generating sufficient demand to restore wool prices to anywhere near the levels required to maintain the viability of the many small farm units engaged in the production of this commodity.This is an opportune time for us all to reflect on the circumstances that gave rise to this stockpile freeze, because they demonstrate the absolute incompetence and lack of political will by National Party ministers in this coalition government. The decision to freeze the stockpile was not made on the basis of any rational commercial imperative; it was made for political reasons as the Liberal and National parties cowered at the foot of One Nation before the last election.We all know that most of the industry opposed this freeze. It is a matter of public record also that the minister for agriculture at the time also opposed the freeze, and he took that position to the cabinet table. But it was the National Party ministers, weak as they were, who got rolled over by a Liberal Prime Minister and a rural Liberal from WA who happened to have the Prime Minister's ear on this particular issue. Some claim to fame, isn't it? National Party Ministers Vaile, Anderson, Fischer and others around the table getting done over by the member for O'Connor and a bevy of urban lawyers and Liberal stockbrokers who could see the electoral fortunes of the coalition disappearing down the One Nation tunnel.The wool stockpile freeze was no more than an act of political cowardice by an incompetent government that lost its political nerve in the face of the rise of One Nation which threatened its constituency in rural and regional Australia. It was one of the worst examples of political panic and `policy on the run' that we have seen yet from this ramshackle coalition. The simple fact is that the stockpile of around one million bales remains.NV5FORRESTMr Forrest—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order.WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNOR—The honourable member for Forrest certainly does not like hearing this, but it is the truth of the matter.NV5FORRESTMr Forrest—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. This debate is to do with the legislation. The member for Corio is not addressing that issue. He is certainly way off the mark with his comments. I would ask you to bring him to the legislation.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I call the member for Corio. I think he is talking about the issue, albeit in a way that probably gives some offence to the member for Mallee, but I think he is in order.WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNOR—Mr Deputy Speaker, I can understand the sensitivity of the honourable member for Mallee on this matter. I am sure that, if he was around that table, being the honourable man that he is, he would not have caved in like Ministers Vaile and Anderson did to the Liberal lawyers and the stockbrokers who ran all over them for political reasons and threw out the economic imperative in considering the future of this industry. If you cannot bear me on the floor of this House talking about the stockpile and the historical facts of the matter, then there is something wrong with the lot of you. As we debate this bill today, if the government permitted Wool International to continue the orderly sell-down of the stockpile, there would be a much smaller stockpile today to manage and the cost to wool growers of holding and storing the remainder would certainly be less.With regard to this legislation, the minister's second reading speech has outlined in some detail the process by which it proposes to privatise Wool International and the new commercial structure to be known as WoolStock Australia that will manage further sales once this legislation is passed by the parliament. I have already referred to wool grower concerns about the lack of consultation with industry during the process of developing the new commercial structure. That level of consultation improved considerably once the matter was raised by the opposition and other interested parties in the public arena. But there are some technical and other concerns that still remain.Concerns have been raised about the 1.2 per cent of equity unit holders in Wool International who cannot be traced and the more substantial problem of the 25 per cent of unit holders whose equity is held in names that are not legal entities. This is a problem that will have to be faced by the new WoolStock Australia. At the Senate committee hearing evidence was given that these people certainly answered correspondence and bank cheques but so far have not responded to requests to provide correct legal names to allow their shares to be registered. I pass no further comment on the evidence that was given at that inquiry. This has had some implications for the structure of the new privatised entity with those shares to be held now under this legislation in a subsidiary trust company whose directors will be appointed by the board of WoolStock Australia, and who will be required to conduct their affairs in the interests of the beneficiaries of the trust as per normal commercial practice in these situations.Some concerns have also been expressed by certain producers at their level of representation at the board level in the new commercialised structure. This has always been an issue which has confronted agricultural ministers of all political persuasions in attempting to marry the appropriate grower representation with commercial and marketing expertise at the board level. Indeed, I need to go no further on this matter than to reiterate the importance of appropriately balancing producer interests and commercial expertise in this matter with the confidence of growers and others in this industry.One area of additional concern is the proposed power under this legislation of WoolStock Australia, in addition to selling down the wool pile and distributing the available proceeds to unit holders. The company has been given the power to spend $3 million, as the minister has put it in his second reading speech, to investigate and possibly support new business activities. There is a lack of clarity as to what sorts of business activities might become the subject of allocation from grower funds. One hopes that this $3 million will not end up lining the pockets of expensive consultants engaged to investigate new business activities that, at the end of the day, are not taken up by the company or are of little long-term value to Australian wool growers.There has been little public discussion as to the type of possible new business activities WoolStock Australia might engage in in the marketplace, and care must be taken to ensure that any potential activity does not prejudice the commercial interests of growers currently holding new product on farm. This brings me to the sell-down strategy that might be pursued by WoolStock Australia and the potential for long-term harm to growers in the marketplace if this sell-down strategy is not handled correctly. This matter has not been aired or debated fully within the industry, in my view. When Labor set up Wool International to dispose of the stockpile, we set in place an orderly mechanism for the sell-down. That program was modified over time and made more flexible to take account of current market conditions and to protect the long-term interests of growers. The orderly sell-down principle introduced a measure of certainty and predictability into the wool marketplace and, over time, generated a degree of credibility and confidence in the ability of the industry and the government to manage a very difficult market situation.The industry is aware of proposals by reputable players with strong financial backing to purchase the stockpile lock, stock, and barrel. In raising this matter, I do not wish in any way to prejudice those proposals, which have already been put on the table for consideration, as they have to be examined closely for their commercial viability and their long-term benefit to equity holders in the stockpile. However, the manner of disposal of the stockpile, should it be purchased by a single buyer, and its commercial implications for growers, needs to be thoroughly analysed and discussed at this stage of the debate.May I conclude my remarks in this debate by restating my firm belief that this is a great rural industry with enormous potential to consolidate its position in the marketplace and, indeed, to expand its production. I am aware of the pessimism that currently pervades the industry. With flock numbers declining, low prices occurring in the marketplace, a decline in the industry's export performance and an oversupply of wool, many growers are naturally fearful for their future in the industry.It does not help industry morale to have an incompetent government making decisions on the run that destroy the credibility of the industry in the marketplace. Nor does it help when articles appear in the daily press that quote members of the government's taskforce saying that half of the nation's 46,000 wool growers will be wiped out in five years. That report was contained in an article that appeared in the business section of the Age newspaper of 10 May 1999. There have been many inquiries into the wool industry in recent times. One can forgive wool growers for the fair degree of cynicism that accompanied the government's decision to establish a wool industry taskforce to develop a future blueprint for the industry. It is not enough for this government to simply wash its hands of this industry with simple catchcries about putting the industry's future back into growers' hands. This is a national industry with many participants and large investments tied up in it. Its survival is important to rural and regional communities and its export success is important to the nation's global trading performance. On that basis, there is a responsibility on the part of national government to guide and assist this industry in a creative way to a greater level of prosperity than it is currently enjoying.One does not need a bevy of reports to restate the obvious steps that must be taken for this industry to secure its future. In making that statement, let me say that there will be no simple solution, only a continuing effort by all participants in the chain to seek efficiencies, to improve productivity and to play their part in developing a secure future for this industry. One key to the commercial future of wool lies simply in the generation of greater demand for the product.The industry is well aware of the competition it currently faces from synthetic and other fibres, and there needs to be a dramatic improvement in the industry's marketing efforts to stimulate a long-term improvement in the demand for wool. That will only come about through the development of new products and designs aimed at a much wider market than currently exists. In addition, the opening up of new geographical markets for wool will be important in sustaining demand in the longer term. It is pleasing to see that this industry is making some inroads into new markets in places like Turkey and India at a time of significant weakness in the international market in those traditional areas that we have exported to in Europe and North Asia.It is clear that the wool industry has yet to come to terms with the need for a greater unity of purpose among wool growers themselves and among other players in the industry. I think the government does have an active role to play here in encouraging the development of an industry plan that sets out clearly where the industry wants to be in the next five-, 10-and 15-year periods and what needs to be done to secure the future of the industry over that time.Labor governments know all about successful industry planning. In 13 years of government, we turned many industries in the manufacturing and rural sectors around from inward-looking industries to ones where we now have a very strong domestic production base and a good export performance. I refer here to the car industry, the pharmaceuticals industry and, of course, the dairy industry. These are all testament to Labor's capacity in government to get an industry into growth mode and to secure its future. That is the challenge for this minister and for this government as far as this industry is concerned.It is also clear that the current production structure of the industry must change. Currently, it is estimated that the bottom third of farms are running fewer than 1,000 sheep and producing around 5.5 per cent of the total output of the industry. These growers produce a limited number of bales for sale in small lots, which creates additional handling costs further down the production chain. The task for government is to not only assist in the necessary changes that will see some producers stay and become more productive and more efficient, but also create a decent exit mechanism for those who choose to leave. We sincerely hope that it is not going to be at the level predicted in the newspaper article by some members of the government's task force, which stated that about half of the 46,000 wool producers in this country would go to the wall or withdraw from the industry in the next five years. It is also clear that at the moment there are far too many links in the production, distribution and marketing chain which effectively distort the price signals to producers. Rationalisation here will be painful but it will be required to improve the price and marketing signals that come directly to producers.It is very clear that the culture of this industry will have to change for it to secure its future. I think producers are aware of what will be required of them in securing the future of the industry. Their task on farm will be to address the issue of greater productivity, to engage in the task of quality assurance, to improve their risk management procedures and to get into the greater use of information technology to improve their productivity and efficiency. The era of electronic selling of this product is certainly at hand. There are great efficiencies to be made not only through electronic selling but also in the handling task. In conclusion, let me reiterate the point that I made earlier. The opposition does not accept the proposition that this is an industry in terminal decline. I believe that it has extraordinary potential to develop but that it is in need of radical change. There must be strong leadership from this minister and this government in securing the sort of change that is going to lead to this industry re-establishing itself in its pre-eminent place in the marketplace as one of Australia's major rural industries. The task will fall to producers in the manner that I have outlined to improve their on farm performance, and I believe they are up to the task. There are many shining examples in this industry of specialist producers who produce only wool; they do not rely on the production of other commodities. They are extremely profitable and able, through their own internal management and on farm practices, to read market signals correctly and produce their product in a way that is suitable for the next level in the chain of processing and handling.This is an industry with exciting potential. As I said, governments must display leadership and the industry itself must come to terms with these great challenges. There will be some casualties in the wool industry over the next five years, but the task for government and industry leaders is to ensure that the productive capacity of this industry remains intact so that, when the winds of change sweep across the marketplace—when changes are made to the marketing of this product and when there is an improvement in demand—the capacity exists to meet it. The prosperity that will flow as a result of that to rural and regional communities can be secured.I do not think this industry has really been given a fair shake from this government in the policy responses that we have seen over the last three years. The government has been elected for another three years; it may not last that long. If the GST does not get through the Senate, we might find ourselves in a situation where this government is retired earlier than expected. But it may well go its full term. I can only hope that the processes that it has set in place through this legislation and through the wool industry task force yield real fruit for this industry. The time for more reports on the wool industry in Australia is really over. It is time for the industry itself to come to terms with the real structural changes that are going to be required to propel it into a new era of prosperity. The task is there for government to provide the necessary assistance and support to this key rural industry to secure its future not only for the producers in the industry but also for those in rural and regional Australia—those communities that rely very much on this industry for their survival.13:44:005187Forrest, John, MPMr FORRESTNV5MalleeNP10—This seems a little like deja vu. I remember following the member for Corio in the debate on the Wool International Amendment Bill which was the enabling legislation—and this is the second tranche of it—in which he made some unfortunate remarks. He actually finished up much better than he started by sharing some of the aspirations that I have for the Australian wool industry.To make some allowance for the member for Corio, unlike me he does not have the personal contact and relationship that I have with 4,500 wool growers. In his contribution to this debate he asked what my position was back in October 1998 in respect of the future of the stockpile. I was one of the members who listened to growers at the coalface and advocated the freezing of the stockpile.Mr Adams interjecting—NV5Forrest, John, MPMr FORREST—For the right reasons. I was delighted with the positive response that that had on the eastern market indicator immediately. The member for Corio made reference to a comment in the minister's second reading speech in respect of this legislation. He referred to the minister's comment that the stockpile was an Achilles heel for the industry. The point that the member for Corio seems to miss—and I would like the member for Lyons to take particular note of this—is that the stockpile itself is not the Achilles heel; it is the uncertainty of its release onto the marketplace. I hope that members of the Australian Labor Party can understand this. It has always been the uncertainty surrounding the release of the stockpile onto the market that made the market nervous.Prior to my entering parliament in 1993 the size of the stockpile had accumulated to 4.7 million bales. It was more than an Achilles heel; it was a sword of Damocles hanging over the market as to what would be the future of the stockpile. I am a little disappointed with the member for Corio's contribution and his condemnation of the government's leadership in respect of what has been done since 1996. He ought to check the history books to find what happened prior to that date throughout the late 1980s which allowed this huge stockpile to be accumulated in the first place. However, there is no need to repeat history. Let us focus on the positives now and the future of what is—and he at least agrees—one of Australia's icon industries and part of the backbone of rural Australia.Mr Adams interjecting—NV5Forrest, John, MPMr FORREST—The member for Lyons will get his opportunity, which I have no doubt he will take. This bill provides for the conversion of Wool International into a company operating under Corporations Law, WoolStock Australia. We have waited a long time to place that so-called Achilles heel into a commercial atmosphere so that releases from the stockpile from that point on can be based on proper commercial decisions, instead of releasing a valuable commodity at whatever price we can get. We can say, `We are sorry. This is the price at which we expect you to buy our product.' We do not need to just accept any price, which has been the difficulty over the years.I have brought along with me some evidence of what has occurred with the eastern market indicator and the tragedy of the wool industry going right back to the late 1980s and more particularly in the last eight or nine months since the debate about the current size of the stockpile has featured so much amongst wool growers and their representative bodies. From March 1988 until about August 1998 we suffered an absolute free fall in the eastern market indicator. The market had one million bales and was wondering whether it would be released and whether there would be change.The government immediately showed leadership and declared its intention to freeze the stockpile and provide for what has occurred since, that is, the legislation before us today and a basis on which to commercialise the stockpile. This arrested that decline and in fact we saw some slight improvement.Since the start of this year, and since the enabling legislation was debated in this House in November last year, there has been an improvement in that market price indicator from as low as 450c up to 550c or 560c where it currently sits. That is sufficient proof in the pudding. It has put a floor in the market for the wool industry and has given them something on which to build their future.I repeat the remarks that I made in this chamber back in November. Here we have an industry that still has the capacity to grow, which the member for Corio thankfully agrees with, despite the cheap politics in the early part of his remarks. I expect him to unite with us and support this legislation in its entirety and support the public debate. If he wants to be the shadow spokesman on primary industries, he must learn the difficulty there always is in getting a single and sound voice from a dispersed rural electorate or any particular commodity industry because of the different commodities produced all over this diverse nation. He needs to develop the capacity to hear that.I have listened to the people at grassroots level in my electorate—the wool growers who sent me to this place—and they applaud this legislation. They applaud the fact that, finally, after a decade of uncertainty, this stockpile will be predicted by commercial and not political decisions. The market can be more relaxed. They can cope with the uncertainties that they already have. Things were going not so badly until disaster struck Asia, particularly our valuable markets in Japan and other Asian locations. This will now put some certainty into the way in which these releases will be made from the stockpile.I support this legislation in its entirety. I am very relieved that it is finally before the parliament. I hope that all members—not only in this place but also in the other place—will give it speedy passage to allow what needs to occur from now on to actually occur, that is, to determine a proper business plan and establish an environment in which we might be able to realise whatever commercial offer there could be to purchase the entirety of the stockpile. We need to test that. There has been plenty of discussion and suggestion, and that must be tested as soon as we can.The minister has made some substantial announcements in respect of the various personnel who will be involved with WoolStock Australia. Mr Donald McGauchie will be chairman and he has my unqualified support. He is a person whom I know very well. He understands rural Australia and commodity issues. He is already demonstrating why the minister has selected him to be chairman of WoolStock Australia.I will be looking forward to a comprehensive plan that establishes the future for our icon Australian wool industry. I look forward to working with my wool growers and their new wool growing and marketing associations and meeting the challenges with which they will be confronted. We have had decades of competitive fibres stealing the march on wool. We now have alternative fibres that blend wool. They have stolen the march because we have had this dreadful uncertainty with the stockpile which has hung over the marketplace and been responsible for a collapse in wool prices.It has meant real and direct pain for my wool growing constituency of about 4,500 wool growers—and that is approximately 10,000 people or about 5,000 families. There have been repercussions to the wool industry through important provincial cities and townships in regions like the Wimmera, and certainly through the member for Wannon's region in south-west Victoria. I am delighted that the leadership shown by the government on this matter has put a floor on the price of wool. I am confident that in 12 months, if I look at a graph for the eastern market indicator for the sale of wool, I will see it increasing from its current level of 560c.I take this opportunity to congratulate the government for a number of initiatives that they have included in this bill—particularly for exempting WoolStock Australia from income tax on its stockpile activities. I think it would be inappropriate for the government to try to take the opportunity to consolidate its revenue and to take the opportunity for the investment that exists in that stockpile. I congratulate the minister and the government for that initiative. In addition, measures will apply to exclude the application of capital gains tax to unit holdings. It is appropriate that, where growers have contributed their own money through compulsory taxation to support the stockpile, that they be given exemptions from capital gains tax. I congratulate the government for that.In conclusion, let me go back to the comments made by the member for Corio in respect of the partisanship he is trying to engender in the debate today. He would have endeared himself much more to the wool growing constituency of Australia if he had come into the chamber and said that he fully supported this legislation and commended the government for its initiative rather than taking cheap political points about a decision that was made in respect of the stockpile—which was right and made for the right reasons. To suggest that it was because of some political opportunism of the day smacks of a complete misunderstanding of what is happening to wool growers at the coalface.The proof is in the pudding—the proof is in the immediate impacts it has had on the price of wool. The shadow minister ought to be condemned for trying to make cheap political points. This industry badly needs bipartisan support and a united parliament to get it back on its feet so that, once again, it can be that icon industry. We often say how this nation was created by the wool that came from the sheep's back. We owe this industry because that is in fact true. I am confident that it will still enjoy, as the future will demonstrate, that status amongst our rural primary industry.I am delighted to stand here today in support of this legislation. I urge all other members of this place and the other place to do the same.13:57:005189Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—I do not have very much time to remark on the Wool International Privatisation Bill 1999 . This bill is finally tidying up the threads that the government left hanging before the last election when it instigated a freeze and then found that it had a problem. Wool International was required, under the previous legislation, to sell 90,000 to 135,000 bales per quarter, and the government got itself into a bind because it could not sell wool at that time.If I remember rightly, this was all brought on by One Nation making inroads into the National and Liberal Party territory before the last election—members totally panicked, ran off all over the place and made these silly decisions by freezing the wool stockpile. They wobbled all over the place and raced off to the Prime Minister. I understand the National Party minister stood his ground, but he was totally rolled. Again, the lawyers and stockbrokers of Sydney and Melbourne dictated rural policy to the National Party, and the National Party was knocked straight over and straight out of the debate. What was decided by the lawyers and stockbrokers of Melbourne and Sydney was run that day and won the day. It does not matter what the member for Mallee says, that is the position and that is what happened. The freeze was a mistake; it should never have occurred. If it had not occurred, about 300,000 to 500,000 bales of wool could have been sold and we would have continued to wind down the wool stockpile, going towards a new future in wool.The member for Mallee did not mention the future except to say that it was going to be all rosy. He did not get into any of the issues that have to occur in the wool industry in order to make a future. Great structural changes have to occur and need to be addressed, and they are not being addressed by that side of the House in any way.I say to the member for Mallee and to others on that side of the House: you have to start looking at the future of the wool industry and to start talking about it. I do not think that this bill has very much in it at all about the future of the wool industry; there is not much innovation in it at all. There is $3 million in it—some sort of investment direction. I think that is about giving mates a few more consultants' fees—that is all that is going to come out of that $3 million. I do not think anything constructive will come out of it. This freeze on the wool stockpile came about because the Liberal Party rolled the National Party. I see the minister in the chamber. I understand he stood his ground; it was the lawyers and the stockbrokers that knocked over—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 2 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 101A. The member for Lyons will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.Questions Without Notice519051905190Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Treasurer, do you recall criticising Labor's economic growth on the grounds that it was overwhelmingly based on consumption and lacked the necessary level of business investment to make it sustainable? Doesn't your budget growth forecast rely just as heavily on consumption and doesn't Treasury, in the budget papers, raise uncertainty about that consumption? If, as Treasury fears, consumption is weaker than forecast, just where is the growth going to come from?5190Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I am overwhelmed by the attack. The budget forecasts growth in 1999-2000 of around three per cent. Three per cent growth in 1999-2000, while down somewhat on this year, will be stronger than Europe, the United States, the OECD and G7. Consumption will be strong in the forthcoming year, and that is principally because of low interest rates. For the average Australian with the average mortgage, since this government was elected, interest rates have fallen by four per cent. That is a saving of about $320 a month, and I am sure that in the early days many people took the opportunity to reduce the term of their mortgages. But, now there is a bit more money around, obviously retail spending is strong, and that is keeping the Australian economy strong at a time of slow world growth. I think all members of the House would be pleased about that. 51915191Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. What effect does the government's $5½ billion budget surplus for 1999-2000 have in assisting the economy generally and the lives of Australians individually?5191Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Sturt for his question. The government is forecasting in 1999-2000 a budget surplus of the order of $5.4 billion. The $5.4 billion surplus will be used to repay Australian Commonwealth debt. In the last five Labor Party budgets, Commonwealth debt grew by $80 billion. We would have to run budget surpluses or asset sales of $80 billion to get back to where we were before the last five Labor budgets. The budget deficit in the year before this government was elected was $10.3 billion, and the then Minister for Finance is the now Leader of the Opposition.During the course of the 1996 election, the then finance minister, now Leader of the Opposition, claimed that the budget was in surplus; the outcome was a deficit of $10,300 million. In two budgets whilst he was finance minister, the now Leader of the Opposition produced a budget deficit of $10.3 billion and a budget deficit of $13.1 billion. In two years he cumulated budget deficits of $23 billion. In those two years when he served as finance minister, the Leader of the Opposition accumulated 25 per cent of Commonwealth debt—in two years.The government set itself the task of bringing the budget back into balance, of producing a surplus whilst there was economic growth and of paying down Labor's debt. It is important that we do pay down Labor's debt and run a surplus budget at a time when Australia has a current account deficit of 5½ per cent or 5¼ per cent. It is important that we make sure that we run a strong budget policy to protect confidence in the Australian economy. The government will not be running down savings in the next year. We will be repaying debt, we will be building savings—and that is a strong insurance for the current account deficit.51915191Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is addressed again to the Treasurer. Treasurer, why does your budget ditch your five per cent unemployment target, and why does it give up on lowering the unemployment rate over the next 12 months?5191Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The budget has forecast that in the next financial year, 1999-2000, we will consolidate the strong employment gains that have been made in the last year. In the last year in Australia, 180,000 new jobs were created—CK6HARDGRAVEMr Hardgrave—How many?CT4Mr COSTELLO—180,000 new jobs were created—in the midst of an Asian recession. One of the things in Australia that you could always count on in the 1980s and 1990s was a booming Asia. What that meant was that, whatever we did to muck up our own economy—and we did a lot in the eighties and nineties—we were getting growth out of Asia for the Australian economy. That changed in the last two years. Asia went into recession. We had to do it ourselves—and we had to do it notwithstanding an Asian recession. We grew, we created jobs and we are going to consolidate those jobs. To make big new inroads into unemployment, what Australia needs is a program of substantive structural reform: a new tax system, new industrial relations and a reforming government.DT4CREANMr Crean—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order, and it goes to relevance. My question was very specific. It went to the unemployment target. And if his GST is so good, why is it not producing any fall in unemployment over the next 12 months?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. There is no point of order. Has the Treasurer completed his answer?CT4Mr COSTELLO—Yes.51915191Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHLAE4CowperNP10—My question is also addressed to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer advise the House of the budget's forecasts for growth? To what extent is Australia's strong economic position a product of good policy?5192Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Cowper for his question. The government is forecasting in 1998-99—that is, the current financial year—growth of around 4¼ per cent. This will be one of the fastest growth rates in the developed world and certainly one of the fastest growth rates in the region. The government is forecasting that growth will slow somewhat in 1999-2000 to about three per cent. Three per cent growth will be stronger than Europe, North America, the G7 and the OECD. These strong growth rates have occurred at a time when Asia was in recession.When our government was elected, when the budget was $10.3 billion in deficit, when interest rates were four per cent higher than they are now, we said that we needed to strengthen the Australian economy and, if we strengthened the Australian economy, we would be able to withstand pressures from outside. It was that policy, that reform process, that was put in place three years ago which gave confidence and stability to the Australian economy now, just as it is the reforms that are put in place now that will enable us to meet the challenges of the future.When this government was turning the $10.3 billion Beazley deficit into a surplus, we were opposed every step of the way by Labor. Labor opposed every step of the way this government's policy of putting the budget back into surplus.Ms Hoare interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Charlton!CT4Mr COSTELLO—Labor opposed every step of the way our measures to put the budget back into surplus. On Monday of this week, I was listening to AM and I nearly choked on my Weeties, because the Leader of the Opposition was asked what would he do in the budget on Tuesday night. He said, `Well, I would have a bigger surplus than the government.' Then the reporter said, `Well, what will their surplus be?' And he said, `I don't know, but mine would be bigger.' This was the Leader of the Opposition who fought every measure to bring the budget back into surplus. And all along he was actually in favour of surplus budgets. He was just fooling us. Now he does the same thing in relation to tax reform. He says he is so opposed to tax reform that, if he ever gets elected, he is going to keep it. He is going to fight us every single step of the way on tax reform and try to sneak into government and take the advantage of it.Why did the government put the budget back into surplus? To protect the economy. Why did Labor oppose it? Because Labor said if we put the budget back into surplus it would lead to an economic downturn.DT4CREANMr Crean—That's rubbish.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Oh, you didn't. The shadow Treasurer, the member for Hotham, on cue. On 21 July 1998 he said:After three Costello budgets we have slower growth, and now we face the Asian economic crisis. It's not what I'd call a fireproofed economy . . . The Treasurer has fireproofed the economic car by taking out the petrol.And listen to what he said in July 1998:We do risk an economic crisis of major proportions, and the Asian impact will not be, as the Treasurer once stated, hardly measurable.The economy was then growing at 4¾ per cent. The member for Hotham: WTG!51925192Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—He's gone mad.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will come to his question.DT4Mr CREAN—WTG! He is into quizzes—more obfuscation of the budget.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will come to his question or resume his seat.DT4Mr CREAN—My question is again to the Treasurer. Treasurer, isn't it dishonest for your budget to show the revenue implications of the GST but not the GST's inflation impact?5192Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The government has made entirely clear what the impact of its tax changes were. We said that it would have a 1.9 per cent effect on the CPI. As I recall, on the day before the election the Labor Party ran advertisements saying that secret Treasury documents would show that the effect was five times as great—on the day before the election. So we were expecting the Labor Party to produce some Treasury document which had a CPI impact five times 1.9—DT4CREANMr Crean—Mr Speaker—CT4Mr COSTELLO—Oh, good, this will give me time to work it out.DT4CREANMr Crean—I raise a point of order, and it goes to relevance. If the Treasurer has said that he is still sticking to his 1.9 per cent figure, why is it not included in the budget? If you look at page 1-11 it says that the impact of prices has been excluded. What are they hiding?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Five times 1.9 is 9.5 per cent, and I thank the honourable member for Flinders for telling me. I know that the frontbench shadow spokesman on transport believes in truth in advertising and used to, in another guise, rail against political parties that would not practise it. The Labor Party having advertised, we would have expected a document to appear backing up the advertising, showing a 9.5 per cent CPI effect. Yet the two modellers that were commissioned by the Democrats and the Labor Party—Harding and Warren—went right through the package, and I think they said that the inflation effect would be two per cent. We said it would be 1.9 per cent. The Labor Party claimed on the eve of the election that it would be 9.5 per cent. Mr Speaker, WTG!DT4CREANMr Crean—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. My question is: why are those figures not included in the budget papers?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The question has now been answered. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.51935193Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4LaTrobeLP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Can the minister inform the House of the benefits for the health system and the people of my electorate, next to his electorate of Casey, following the government's decision to introduce lifetime health cover?5193Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—I thank the honourable member for his question. Lifetime health cover is an important structural reform that will bring stability to the private health sector and also give some stability to the public health sector. It is part of a comprehensive series of reforms that include the 30 per cent rebate on private health cover, changes to reinsurance arrangements and changes to prudential arrangements that we have been undertaking over a period of two years.Very simply, it rewards young people with lower premiums for getting in early. It rewards all members of health funds, because premiums will be lower in the future than they would be had we done nothing by an estimated eight to 10 per cent. It will take some pressure off public hospitals by providing stability to both sectors. And it is fair and equitable in that it does not change the basic fundamentals on which community rating has always existed; that is, you cannot discriminate on the basis of age, health status and claims history. The only discrimination, in effect, is for those people who delay until later in life taking out private health insurance. We propose to start it on 1 July in the year 2000, 13 months away. That will give us plenty of time to explain the changes and will give a one-year period of grace so that all Australians will have the chance to come into private health insurance under the present arrangements. Also, anyone over 65 years of age or who was born before 1 July 1934 will effectively be grandfathered for life, and at any point in the future they can join a health fund as if they were 30 years of age.I understand the Leader of the Opposition is concerned about what might happen to people who leave for a period of time or lose their job. This was considered, and health funds will be able to give a period of grace for two years for any person who may leave a fund to travel overseas, study or who may lose their job. Of course, funds may have discretion beyond that on an individual basis. This is an important reform, one that is long overdue. I commend it to the House.51935193Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is again directed to the Treasurer.GK6KELLYMiss Jackie Kelly—Why? Why do you keep on?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Minister for Sport and Tourism will exercise some more restraint. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has the call.DT4Mr CREAN—I refer to the fact that you have signalled again at the National Press Club today that you and the Prime Minister are willing to contemplate `finetuning' of the GST package. Will you rule out further reducing the surplus in order to bolster the GST compensation and, if not, how much of the surplus are you prepared to spend to increase GST compensation?5194Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—This budget is a budget for 1999-2000, and the surplus of $5.4 billion is for 1999-2000. The new tax system applies from 1 July 2000 to the financial year 2000-01. If you want to know what the surplus in 2000-01 is, I suggest you come down here in May 2000 and listen to the next budget. The member made a point earlier, asking rhetorically, `If your GST is so good, why won't it create new jobs in the next year?' The GST will not be introduced in the next year. It will be introduced in 2000-01. The period 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2000 is this budget year. We are forecasting a surplus of $5.4 billion. The new tax system comes into effect in the next financial year.51945194Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. In light of the government's historic commitment to double the funding for health and medical research, could the minister inform the House of the implications of this decision for the future of research in Australia?5194Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—I thank the honourable member for her question. I think the single most memorable thing that will come out of last night's budget is the fact of our commitment to medical research. I suspect that long in the future when people look back at this part of history the 19th century will be remembered as a century of industry, the 20th century will be remembered as a century of technology and communications and the 21st century will be a century of healing.What we can do now with the understanding of the human genome was unimaginable when I was in medical school 20 years ago. The discoveries over the next decade or two many people believe will cause biotechnology to be as significant to the world economy as information technology is today. There are only eight countries in the world that have any capacity to be a part of this—in North America and Western Europe; and Australia. We are on the cusp of a great future wealth for this country through biotechnology. But, unless we react quickly, we lose our capacity to be part of what is the world's next great industry.When we came to government in 1996, the NHMRC's base funding was $110 million. Far from cutting it, we have actually tripled it over the period 1996 to 2004. The NHMRC's base funding will go from $110 million to $330 million in constant dollar terms—a tripling that is completely unprecedented in any other country anywhere in the world. The Leader of the Opposition talks about smoke and mirrors. The real smoke and mirrors were in the absolute dishonesty in Labor's budgets in their last term of government, when they pretended to be increasing the NHMRC's funding but actually made it short-term hot money that did not extend beyond the forward estimates. In 1997 and 1998, so that we could continue to keep funding medical research, I had to take money out of radiology and pathology to prop up the holes you had left by pretending that you had actually increased funding whereas you had put short-term hot money in to try and con the medical research community. They will not be conned. They know this is a genuine change. They know it is historic and it is one that will determine Australia's economic future.51945194Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Is it not a fact that Greg Smith from the federal Treasury confirmed, in testimony to the Senate GST inquiry on 8 April that, `It is likely that at some point the pensioner compensation would erode to zero'? Is it not a fact that, using the forecast of average wages provided in the budget papers, the compensation for pensioners erodes to zero within four years of the implementation of the GST? How do you justify a compensation package that has an in-built self-destruction mechanism leaving pensioners worse off after only a few years?5195Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—There is no compensation mechanism that self-destructs. There is a compensation mechanism which, as I asserted during the election campaign—and nothing that was contained in the Senate hearings altered this fact—that the pension would always be guaranteed 1½ per cent in real terms above increases in the cost of living. It is no blinding revelation out of the Senate hearings that this government was the first government in the history of Australia to legislate that pensions would always be 25 per cent of male average weekly earnings. That was an additional measure that the Labor Party had 13 years to introduce but they never introduced it. We were the first government to legislate it—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. The Prime Minister was asked a very specific question about the erosion of the compensation. He knows very well that that 25 per cent was—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Prime Minister is being entirely relevant and he is called.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Four questions and they are off the budget. No wonder you are off the budget. You are the bloke who kept saying you believed in surpluses. In May of this year there should be a budget—Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The House will come to order. The Leader of the Opposition has the call.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: he was asked a specific question on the budget numbers in relation to the wage arrangements and the effect of the compensation package also in the budget.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition earlier raised a point of order which I ruled out of order. I will concede that the Prime Minister in his more recent reply is not directly addressing the question. I now invite him to return to the original question.ZD4Mr HOWARD—The Leader of the Opposition asked me a question about the GST—about the tax reform package. He asked me about compensation. I repeat that what we said during the election campaign was that the compensation for pensioners would always be in real terms 1½ per cent above the CPI. That was the commitment I took to the Australian people, that was the basis on which the government was elected and that has been the underpinning of the taxation package so far as compensation is concerned.It is also an undeniable fact that we were the first government in the history of Australia to provide a legislative guarantee that the pension in this country would be a certain percentage of male average weekly earnings. There has never been any secret about that. There has never been any denial of the fact that you have not only the guarantee of compensation but also, running parallel to that, the guarantee that the pension would always be 25 per cent of male average weekly earnings. We have honoured our promises in full.I take the opportunity, in the context of the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition because it relates to commitments I made in the last election campaign, to say that one of the proudest features of last night's budget was that every single promise I made on behalf of the coalition is being implemented in full in this budget. That document entitled Keeping our promises for a stronger Australia sets an absolute Australian record for speed, totality and faithfulness. A party that went to the Australian electorate with a courageous and comprehensive program not only has had the courage and the capacity to win on that program but has the integrity to honour it in full.51955195Hull, Kay, MPMrs HULL83ORiverinaNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Can the minister outline how the budget will help improve the services avail able to people living in my electorate of Riverina and to rural and remote areas of Australia?5196Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for her question, knowing her very real interest in these matters—an interest shared by a lot of people on this side of the House. The government's regional Australia strategy is about understanding and addressing the needs of regional Australians. The budget reflects a coordinated, across-government approach to providing rural and regional Australia with, on the one hand, the services they need to keep their communities intact and, on the other hand, the tools they need to maximise the performance of existing industries and to enhance to the greatest degree possible their chances of attracting new economic opportunities and therefore new job opportunities.There is really quite an endless list of the initiatives that have been put together across the government. They are, in my view, well summarised in the statement Regional Australia: Meeting the Challenges. I commend it to the House, and I know that people will find it of very great interest. I could not hope to list everything that is in it, but particularly in the area of rural health, which is acknowledged right across rural Australia as an area of enormous concern, I would like to pay tribute to my good friend and colleague the Minister for Health and Aged Care, who has worked very, very hard in this area.There are some initiatives here which are going to make a tremendous difference, whether it is the 30 new regional health service centres for small centres, which worked very, very well indeed; whether it is the very substantial amount of money for the retention of the best doctors and the easiest doctors you will ever get to attract to rural Australia, the ones who are already there; or whether it is the $8 million or $9 million for enabling female doctors to fly in or fly out. And there is a small one, indicating that it is often not about sheer money but about good policy: $4 million for a system of scholarships to get country kids through our medical schools, because we know that they are the kids who will go back to the bush. You had all of those years to do something about this. Every year there were fewer and fewer bush kids in our universities studying medicine—Mr Snowdon interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for the Northern Territory.4K4Mr ANDERSON—and here there is an enormous opportunity—Mr Snowdon interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for the Northern Territory is warned.4K4Mr ANDERSON—without involving a huge amount of money, to simply put in place sound strategies for the future that can make a very real difference. I can go on and on in the area of health. But there is a whole range of other areas. Face-to-face services: we have committed an initial $9 million to get Rural Transaction Centres off the ground. That has been very well received. Rural apprenticeships: $51 million to meet our commitment of 30,000 new places. There is $40 million for regional assistance programs, the area consultative committees, real assistance in the area of isolated children's education, call centres in Maryborough and Port Augusta—both areas facing very real economic and social difficulties at the moment—and Work for the Dole.Interestingly, I reckon that before we won government in 1996 if you moved around rural Australia there were three things that always came to the fore when people asked us to act when we got into government. One was to get interest rates down; the second was to end this overvalued dollar; and the third was that people really will be better off if they do something when we support them when they have not got a job. We have delivered on all three in spades. They are the things that rural and regional Australia said that they wanted as their great priority.I could go on. What we are doing in the area of roads has brought absolute delight to people all over this House, representing many parts of Australia. This is a coordinated, well thought through process of meeting the needs of rural and regional Australia, and it is no wonder that it has been widely welcomed.51975197Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—My question without notice goes to the Prime Minister. It concerns keeping your word to regional Australia. Prime Minister, is it not true that at the October election the government promised $91.5 million for a regional skill shortage initiatives scheme? Given that the budget only delivered $51.4 million over five years, hasn't the Howard government, yet again, short-changed regional Australia by $40.1 million?DT4CREANMr Crean—Oh, Howard won't answer it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I call the Minister for Transport and Regional Services.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—I've got good ministers.5197Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—It would be great for you to go out into the bush and ask who has really delivered for rural Australia—you in 13 years or us in the last 3½. What we did in the last election was promise an extra 30,000 positions in terms of assistance for rural apprenticeships. We have met that commitment. We found that, fortunately, it did not cost quite as much as we anticipated. We have fully delivered on the commitment for 30,000 places.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—Mr Speaker, I seek leave to table an extract from a promise to regional Australia of $91.5 million for a regional skill shortage scheme—another broken promise.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Leave is not granted. The member for Batman will resume his seat.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! I call the House to order.51975197Prosser, Geoff, MPMr PROSSERRI4ForrestLP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. What is the government doing to lift standards, widen choice and create skills in education and training? Is the minister aware of any alternatives to the government's approach, and what are the governments responses to these alternatives?5197Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the member for Forrest for his question. This budget recognises that education is going to be a key to Australia's prosperity as we move into the next century. It delivers on all our commitments in the election campaign to lift standards of literacy and numeracy, to build opportunities for the 70 per cent of young people who leave school and do not go direct from school to university and to address the skill shortages, and it promotes outstanding research on which the jobs of the future will be based.One of the historic decisions of this budget was to put fairness back into funding for non-government schools. Governments provide some $5,000 a year for every government school student. At present the neediest students in non-government schools receive only 56 per cent of this sum. This budget lifts that to 70 per cent. This is a budget that will extend choice to low income families in Australia in a way that no previous measure has done and that gives some educational equity to these families. The government is committed to the right of all families to choose the appropriate school for their child.Government school students are also very big winners in this budget. It is worth noting that the Commonwealth provides only 15 per cent of the funding for government schools. The principal responsibility for funding government schools falls on the states. Of course, the Commonwealth has significantly lifted moneys to the states which are available for education, and the GST will give the states enhanced revenue from government schools. But, even given this, in this budget the government has provided $131 million to raise literacy and numeracy standards, $78 million for teacher professional development, $90 million for Asian languages and, it is worth noting, $238 million above last year's forward estimates for disadvantaged indigenous students. The vast bulk of this money will flow to government schools.In the last 24 hours, we have heard what can only be described as a statistical babble coming from the Australian Education Union and its lap-dog over there on the front bench of the Labor Party—the member for Dobell. We have heard again and again over the last 24 hours from the media this notion that somehow or another, government schools benefit by $10 per pupil. We decided to ring the Australian Education Union and ask them how they calculated that figure. We discovered that they had left out all the commitments to which I have just referred—none of those are relevant to the calculation of this figure. On the same principle, they might have left out our non-government funding, but they included that so they could provide a totally distorted picture of the impact of this government on school funding.Mr Lee interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Dobell will resume his seat.BT4Dr KEMP—The psycho-babbler—the statistical babbler—is rising to his feet now, because they do not like the truth. His only adviser is the Australian Education Union.Let us put the facts on the table. Next year, the year 2000, government schools in this country will be receiving 25 per cent more funding from the Commonwealth government than they received from the Labor Party in its last year of office—$382 million more than the Labor Party provided. Over the next four-year funding period for schools, government schools will receive almost $1 billion more than they are receiving in the current quadrennium of funding. So let it not be said that this government is not committed to quality education for every child. It is, and that quality doesn't just come from money. That quality comes from programs such as the literacy and numeracy programs which establish standards that every child will be assisted to reach. The literacy programs of this government are the greatest equity programs that we have seen in this country for three decades. They are lifting standards of education for every child. This government is committed to a quality education for every young Australian.Ms Hoare interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The chair has exercised a good deal of tolerance towards the behaviour of the member for Charlton because she is a new member. That tolerance is running out. 51985198Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—My question without notice is directed to the Prime Minister. Why has the government reneged on its commitment to fully compensate families punished by the Youth Allowance by offering a maximum of just $18.75 a week to families who lost up to $88 a week for a son or daughter living at home or $133.70 a week for a son or daughter living away from home? Why does your budget link this new payment to the passage of the GST? Prime Minister, how do you explain your broken promise to the Australian people, let alone to Senator Harradine?5198Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—We have not broken our promise to the Australian people.51985198Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRNOK6Eden-MonaroLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Can the minister inform the House what steps the government has taken in the budget to assist in the development of Australia's primary and rural industries—industries that are the backbone of my electorate of Eden-Monaro?5198Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTrade10—I thank the honourable member for his question and recognise the work that he has done as part of the government in developing this budget. The first and most important element of this budget that absolutely delivers in spades for the rural sector is the continued sound economic management of our government. The $5.4 billion surplus underpins our strategy of a low interest rate regime in Australia, a regime that has delivered, in the life of this government so far, $580 million worth of savings to the farm sector every year in low interest rates. That is the most important thing that this budget delivers, and we aim to keep it there.As the Prime Minister has already indicated this afternoon, we have delivered on all our election commitments from last year, as far as this budget is concerned. We have delivered on all of them. One of the most important commitments we have made is to work in partnership with rural industries in Australia to develop a bio-tech strategy to ensure that we maintain ourselves at the leading edge of the use of this technology as we move into the 21st century. It is absolutely important that we maintain that leading edge to maintain our competitive technological edge. We have put $17.5 million towards developing and implementing that strategy.We have bolstered, improved and expanded our Supermarket to Asia program that has been so successful over the last three years. We are going to continue and expand it with more programs such as the food and fibre chain program, which will assist Australia's food and fibre industries to build more competitive supply chains into the global export marketplace. We will continue to work in partnership, through the Supermarket to Asia program, with rural industries across Australia. We have announced new funding for the ovine johnes disease campaign to work towards the eradication of that disease in Australia.One of the most significant announcements in this budget, as far as the rural sector is concerned, is our responsible attitude towards the management of our natural resources in Australia. I am talking about the Great Artesian Basin strategy. We are allocating $31.8 million of new money to start implementing that strategy. The Great Artesian Basin covers 22 per cent of Australia's land mass. It contains the same volume as 17,000 Sydney harbours. There are 850 uncapped bores wasting that water in the Basin. We are allocating almost $32 million over the next period of time to cap those bores and make better use of that resource.All this is being done in conjunction and in partnership with the rural industries in Australia. Those rural industries have indicated quite clearly today that they support these government initiatives and they support the direction this government is taking in delivering on our commitments and delivering on our promises at the last election.The National Farmers Federation has welcomed the budget outcome of an underlying surplus of $5.4 billion compared with the forecast. NFF President, Ian Donges, said the government should be congratulated on its economic management. We accept those congratulations. The President of the New South Wales Farmers Association, Mr Cobb, said today that the federal budget has addressed significant problems faced by Australia's rural industries, while maintaining the underlying low inflation and low interest rate strategy that has helped to curb the rise in farm input costs in recent years. We have the support of our rural industries. We will continue to work in partnership with those rural industries, to take our rural industries to the leading competitive edge as we move into the next century.51995199Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—My question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Deputy Prime Minister, do you recall promising at your election campaign launch last year that you would say no to the full sale of Telstra unless a full inquiry satisfied the National Party on future service levels? Why did you allow the full sale of Telstra to be included in this budget, in breach of your commitment to regional Australia and your own party?5199Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNP10—The member for Perth is wrong. He should study the legislation currently before the parliament. If he had any interest in rural and regional Australia, he would get on with allowing the passage of that legislation which provides for a three-step process: 16.6 per cent, benchmarking and then a further decision. It is true that, if at the end of the process that leads to the sale of all of Telstra, it would have the desired effect on the retirement of debt. But, first and foremost, we are delivering in absolute terms for country Australia and for all Australians a budget surplus.Opposition members interjecting—DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—You do not like this, but we have actually put $8.2 million of the transaction centres commitment on the budget separate from Telstra, separate from any other factor, to get on with that task. There is more to come when you get on with the job in the Senate.51995199Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSONFB6WentworthLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment Services. Can the minister outline the meas ures contained in last night's budget that will improve employment services and those opportunities for job seekers? What indicators are available regarding the effectiveness of such measures?5200Abbott, Tony MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPEmployment Services10—I thank the member for Wentworth for his question and for his interest in the Work for the Dole team which is helping with the hail storm clean-up in his part of Sydney. This budget is unambiguously good news for job seekers. There is an additional $220 million for employment services over the next four years. Next year, we estimate that 860,000 job seekers will be assisted, and that is 80,000 more than this year.The budget means more money and more places for job seekers. Within the Job Network, it is estimated that job matching places will be up from 345,000 to 400,000 and Jobsearch training places will be up from 75,000 to 90,000. It is true that intensive assistance numbers are estimated to fall slightly from 325,000 to about 300,000, but there will be more community support program places, more indigenous employment assistance and, above all, more Work for the Dole places.Work for the Dole has been one of the outstanding successes of the Howard government. The latest figures indicate that 11 per cent of participants go on to education or training and 34 per cent have paid employment outcomes. It is better for job seekers and it is better for taxpayers than comparable Working Nation programs under the former government. Briefly, Mission Australia's press release last night stated:We are encouraged—Mission Australia says—by the expansion of work for the dole. Mission Australia has had great success so far in operating more than 50 Work for the Dole programs. In Sydney alone, we have achieved almost 40 per cent success outcome rates. This is on top of Mission Australia placing almost 12,000 people into employment in the first 12 months of Job Network.I am proud of these great organisations that are making a success of Work for the Dole and of Job Network. They deserve the support of all members of this House, including the Leader of the Opposition.52005200Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—My question is to the Minister for Finance and Administration. Minister, do you recall your comments about the sale of Telstra on Meet the Press last Sunday:We're asking for 16 per cent. We're not saying at this point in time that we are going to sell more than the majority shareholding that we've got. There will still be a majority shareholding in the hands of Government.Is it not the case that last night's budget assumes the full sale of Telstra without any independent inquiry? Why did you allow the full sale of Telstra to be included in this budget without even a note on budget risk that this would be subject to a full inquiry?5200Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—I am fascinated to get a question from the shadow minister in relation to an asset sale. He was part of a government that included the sale of Qantas in three consecutive budgets. They threw it in and nothing happened. The Left fought the Right and they just could not manipulate it through the process. Ultimately they got smart: they asked the then Leader of the Opposition, who is now the Prime Minister, to do what was right for Australia—and he always does what is right for Australia.YU5TANNERMr Tanner—Mr Speaker, I have a point of order on relevance. I am happy to read the question again for the minister if he would like me to read it again.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Melbourne will resume his seat. The minister is being relevant to the question.HQ5Mr FAHEY—So from the party that had three goes with their budgets at bringing home the proceeds—which of course they wanted to waste—from the sale of Qantas, they ask a question about Telstra. Quite clearly, quite consistently, from the time at which we announced the policy on Telstra, the budget reflects that policy. We will sell 16.6 per cent of Telstra when the legislation is passed. That legislation gives us the right to sell 16.6 per cent of Telstra, and we seek legislation to sell the balance of Telstra when we have an independent inquiry and that independent inquiry indicates that the service levels are of a standard that is acceptable, particularly in respect of rural and regional Australia.So consistently our policy has been reflected in the budget. This is a transparent and accountable government, unlike the government of the past that snuck through three potential sales of Qantas to shore up those deficit budgets. Heaven forbid what the deficits would have been if they actually had to include that sale of Qantas only once back in the eighties.52015201Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Can the minister outline to the House how veterans throughout Australia will benefit from government initiatives announced in the 1999-2000 budget?5201Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—I thank the member for Gilmore for her question. This is a very good budget for veterans. It is a very good budget because it consolidates the gains of our first term in government which saw the extension of the gold card to Second World War veterans with qualifying service. It saw the commitment of 25 per cent of male total average weekly earnings being extended to the veteran community, including our war widows. This budget also delivers on the commitments the coalition gave to the people of Australia before the last election.This budget will produce in the next 12 months $7.6 billion of expenditure on our veteran community, and that will grow to $8.2 billion by the year 2002-03. This budget for veterans represents a 21 per cent increase in expenditure on the last Labor budget, which I think underpins our commitment to look after our veteran community. In the next 12 months and in coming years, we will see an increase in expenditure on health. In the next 12 months, there will be an increase of $240 million, and that will grow to nearly $710 million by the year 2002-03. We are responding to the ageing veteran population, to whom we have given a commitment to ensure that their health needs will be met as they grow old.This budget also expands the HomeFront program, which will be extended to all white card holders. That will see an extra 63,000 veterans, war widows and widowers accessing the very successful HomeFront program. We are delivering on $12.6 million of new veteran commemorative programs, including a documentary on Australians at war. There will also be new commemorative activities, including a new Anzac commemorative site at Gallipoli. The Regional War Memorials Upgrade Program has received new money as well. Because of the good economic management of the coalition, we are able to assure the veterans that their future is secure. It is secure in the hands of the National and Liberal parties in coalition in government.52015201Gillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD83LLalorALP00—My question is to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Minister, is it not a fact that the budget does not allocate any funds for upgrading the Princes Freeway between Melbourne and Geelong? Is it not also a fact that in your letter to me on this matter of 27 April 1999 you stated that `its upgrading is the responsibility of the Victorian Government'? Is the Victorian government prepared to upgrade the Geelong road following the Prime Minister raising it directly with Premier Kennett? If it is no longer the view of the federal government that this is solely a state responsibility, when will you allocate the matching $118.5 million required to jointly fund this vitally needed upgrade to the Princes Freeway?5201Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The government has no plans to make any announcements in relation to matters that are not included in the budget for this year.52015201Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—My question is to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Can the minister outline to the House how small business will benefit from incentives in last night's budget?5201Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for Wannon for his question. One of the most important things you can do for small business is keep interest rates down, keep inflation down. No-one should ever forget that, when Labor was running the economy, we had interest rates of over 20 per cent for small business, and it sent thousands of small businesses broke and gave us a record unemployment rate of 11.2 per cent. So we continue to see good economic management, which is good news for small business.We have also got some particular programs for small business—one of which is the Small Business Enterprise Culture Program starting in July. It is not the money that is important here; it is a means of providing assistance to small business, with management skills to make sure that small business is on top of the issues and to help them manage their business. We think mentoring, for example, is a good idea. When a retired accountant can help out an existing firm, that is good for small business, a practical measure.We are also going to go ahead with our business entry point. The budget has got money for that. That is a great idea too, because that is part of our attack on red tape. If we can cut the level of red tape, that means business can get on with doing what they want to do—which is to run their business instead of filling out forms.YU5TANNERMr Tanner—What about the GST?WI4Mr REITH—I get the interjection about the tax package. An average firm has 32 relationships in an average year with the Taxation Office. Under the tax package, which the Labor Party is opposed to, that will be reduced from about 32 to four, so that is a massive attack on red tape and definitely worth supporting.Lastly, we are also going on with the other reforms which are so important for small business—for example, reforms to the unfair dismissal law. Not only is this a good deal for small business but, if we can have a better system for small business, they will go out and create more jobs. On the unfair dismissal alone we think there are another 50,000 jobs that could be created. This government is unashamedly pro small business. What is good for small business is good for the country, and this budget has been a tremen dous boost again to the small businesses around Australia.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Mr Speaker, on that very positive note I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Questions to the Speaker520252025202Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—Mr Speaker, I do not want to raise the current problems members are having with Outlook but, rather, to draw your attention to the fact that you have not so far reconstituted the Presiding Officers Information Technology Advisory Group, POITAG, that you and your successors going back some years formed. Could you advise honourable members whether your intention is to do so? If so, when? If not, would you be able to outline to honourable members the reasons for such a decision?Mr SPEAKER—I will happily respond immediately to that question. The member for Chifley first raised, I think, the difficulty some members are experiencing with email today. That seems to be something that is rather more the unfortunate coincidence of members having a large email load following the Budget coinciding with the workplace relations negotiations that are currently going on also overloading the email. I am told the matter should be cleared this afternoon. So far as POITAG, as it is known, goes, I have already taken steps to reconstitute the POITAG committee.52025202Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—I raise under standing order 150 a request to you to write to the Minister for Health and Aged Care to respond to question No. 71 relating to health funding in Tasmania's public hospitals that has been on the Notice Paper since 12 November last year.5202Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will take that matter up on behalf of the member for Denison.Documents52025202Reith, 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:Advance to the Minister for Finance and Administration—February 1999Supporting Applications of Issues from the advances to the Minster for Finance and Administration during February 1999Debate (on motion by Mr McMullan) adjourned.Matters of Public Importance5203520310000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER— I have received a letter from the honourable member for Hotham proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The failure of the government's budget to address the real priorities of the nation.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—15:03:005203Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—The fourth Costello budget is a budget of missed opportunities, wrong priorities and it is not the real budget. It is not the real budget because it is based on three assumptions, any one of which could fall over. The first of those assumptions is that the GST will get through, even though no additional compensation is provided for within it. Everyone knows this GST is deficient. We have had evidence before the Senate inquiry demonstrating that there will be significant losers. The Prime Minister went to the electorate seeking a mandate for the GST on the basis that there would be not one loser. Yet there is no additional compensation in this budget for the GST. That is the first assumption which could fall over.The second assumption is that it is based on 100 per cent sale of Telstra. We have heard the weasel words today in the parliament, but the truth of the matter is that the Leader of the National Party, the coalition partner, had to ward off the palace revolt within his own party about the further sell-down of Telstra. He has made a commitment not just to his own party but also to regional Australia that there will not be 100 per cent sell-off of Telstra until such time as that can be justified through a full public inquiry. Yet this budget dishonestly includes the full sale of Telstra as the basis for its forward estimates. That is the second assumption that could fall over.The third is that the growth in this budget is heavily reliant on consumption. There are two aspects of this. One is that the Treasury itself casts serious questions over this assumption of continued strong consumption. In the budget papers there is heavy qualification by the Treasury of this assumption. It says on page 2-14:One important uncertainty surrounding the outlook for household consumption is the . . . downward trend in the household saving ratio and rising household debt. . . . consumption expenditure could be weaker than forecast.Yet this is the basis upon which the budget projects stronger growth continuing. That is the first point—the Treasury itself not sharing the Treasurer's optimism. We heard the Treasurer today reinforce that optimism about strong growth. Also, the growth is wrongly structured, with its heavy emphasis on consumption. We do not deny that consumption—expenditure, if you like, turning the economy over—is an important contributor to growth, but consumption as the predominant driver will not sustain growth because you need investment, you need exports.In other words, you need balance and structure in underpinning that growth. We have argued that this government has taken its eye off those important drivers of growth—the things that will really encourage stronger investment, the things that will drive our exports. But it is not just Labor that says that the structure and the emphasis on consumption is wrong to justify continuing optimism about stronger growth; the Treasurer himself has said that. I will quote what the now Treasurer said in 1994. This is criticising Labor's growth. On page of 1207 of Hansard, he said:What we need is sustained recovery built on sound foundations . . . But, as the Treasurer himself— that is, the Labor Treasurer—admitted in his press conference earlier this afternoon, it is a growth—that is, Labor's growth—based on consumption . . . It is not growth which is soundly based on business investment, on new plant and equipment or on industry and business picking up, investing and employing.So here you have the Treasurer criticising Labor budgets for their heavy reliance on consumption, and yet his own budget, his own confidence, is built on the same heavy reliance. The Treasurer cannot have it both ways. He cannot say Labor's growth was bad, but his growth was good. The truth of it is that Treasury itself does not share the optimism about that growth.What we have before us is not the real budget. If the GST does not pass, if they do not sell 100 per cent of Telstra, if they do not get the consumption that they are looking for, this budget will fall over. What we have got is a phantom budget, a dishonest budget. It is dishonest for this reason: it is structured on claiming all of the revenue gains from a GST, yet none of the economic impact of the GST. Take prices for example—the point of the question that the Treasurer would not answer today. We know from Treasury evidence before the Senate inquiry that the first-year effect of the GST coming in will be to lift inflation by an additional 3.1 per cent, not 1.9 per cent.HQ5FAHEYMr Fahey—Nonsense.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—Are you saying that Treasury is talking nonsense, my friend? Are you saying Treasury is talking nonsense? They have given this in evidence. The Treasurer will not even answer this question in this parliament. I will tell you what I would rely on: I would rely on that which is said in evidence because those people know the consequences of not telling the truth. This government has not learnt from the fact that it does not tell the truth; it continues to perpetuate the dishonesty. But this is what the budget actually says, on page 111:The impact on prices of the tax reform under a new tax system is not—I emphasise `not'—included in the projections.Why not, Mr Deputy Speaker? They have included the revenue. They like to take the good parts to bolster the justification for their surplus and put the pressure on in the Senate. They want to grab the gains but they do not want to identify the economic impact. They have deliberately ruled out the inflation impact. Nowhere in here do we see the employment impact. Nowhere in here do we have the consequences for wages growth—which, as demonstrated in evidence before the Senate process, could increase. Nowhere is that factored into this. That is why it is a dishonest budget. But it is not just that they are claiming revenue off the GST without balancing that with the downside of the GST; they are also claiming the revenue from the full sale of Telstra, even though they told us in the House today they are only going to sell 16 per cent. How can you believe this document? This document is a joke. It is not the real budget. It is a dishonest budget. The truth of the matter is that the GST is bad for the economy.I will tell you why those figures are not in the budget. It is because Treasury disagrees with the political rhetoric that this government has been running. The Treasurer has been out trumpeting this great GST, saying, `It'll be good for jobs, good for growth, good for this. It's snake oil—it'll fix everything.' Yet not one piece of evidence has been produced by this government to justify those claims. To the contrary: we have produced evidence in the Senate that refutes those claims, that says it is bad for the economy. It is not just unfair to pensioners and those people on low incomes; it is actually bad for the economy. It destroys jobs. It is a new tax.The government waxes lyrical at times about how good it would be for the states to abolish payroll tax because it is a tax on employment. They are introducing a new goods and services tax, a value added tax, on the biggest growth employment sector in the economy—the services sector. Labour is the value added in the services sector. The goods and services tax is a massive tax on employment. If you do not believe that, look at what the European Commission has now recom mended to its member states. It has recommended that they experiment with reducing the goods and services tax as a means of generating employment, particularly in the services sector. In other words, they believe that the GST is harmful to employment in the services sector—the very point that we have been making. Also, interestingly enough, they say that it has created a huge new black economy in the services sector, something that this government has argued would be corrected.The other thing about this budget is that it breaches election commitments. We saw that unctuous Prime Minister get up and say again, hand on heart, `The greatest thing, the proudest moment, I had last night was knowing that we had honoured every election promise.' As soon as he was asked by the member for Batman to justify why he had ditched one, he would not answer the question.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—He would not have the courage.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—He does not have the courage because he has not got the answer. This bloke is a fraud and this budget is a fraud on the Australian people. He went to the last election and said there would be no losers. We have identified the losers and he has done nothing to compensate them—one broken promise to start with. He and the Leader of the National Party of Australia said they would not sell the whole of Telstra, yet this budget says they will—another broken promise. And this was the grandmother of them all today: he told the Australian public, in response to Senator Harradine, that there would be full compensation for the youth allowance and yet the budget does not even half-compensate it. When he was asked the question, he was whispered in the ear by the Treasurer—who by the way set him up again—to say, `We have honoured our commitment to the Australian public.' He did not say that he had honoured his commitment to Senator Harradine. Where does this Prime Minister get off? Isn't a promise given in good faith to whomever something that must be honoured? This Prime Minister does not believe so. So there are huge broken promises in this budget and the Prime Minister's unction just confirms the fact that no-one can believe him when he says he gives his word.The other interesting thing—and I think this is important because it is a real embarrassment for this government—is that the budget, for all the hoopla that surrounds it, demonstrates you do not need a GST to secure the revenue base. That is what it shows. The contribution to the revenue base will increase by $5.1 billion this year and $9.5 billion over the coming year. In fact, this year the total revenue to GDP is the highest it has been in 10 years and next year it will go higher again, I think, to probably the highest in recent recorded history. This from a system that is supposed to be broke? Give us a break!The truth of the matter is the system is not broke. One of the great lies that you have perpetrated is that we need tax reform because the current system is not up to it. This budget confirms it is up to it. The truth of the matter is—and this is the point that the Leader of the Opposition has made—the Treasurer still stupidly does not understand that if you did not have your GST you would end up with a bigger surplus. That is the truth, and the reason is that to buy your GST you have dip into the surplus to the tune of $5 billion to $7½ billion just for the tax cuts—forget the states and forget the additional compensation—in your ANTS package.Do you know where the great bulk of those tax cuts go? To the top 20 per cent of income earners, the high rollers in this nation. This is a budget that wants to slug pensioners and low income earners with a new, insidious tax that is going to destroy jobs, yet it is going to give the great tax breaks to the high rollers and the casino owners in this country. This is a government with priorities so skewed it does not deserve to occupy the benches opposite. We will be doing whatever we can to ensure this GST is defeated, and when it is we will see the real budget. (Time expired)15:18:005205Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—While I am delighted to participate in this debate, I spent 15 minutes trying to see what the substance of the matter of public importance was by listening intently to the spokesman on the economy from the opposition and I have to say I am none the wiser. He puts forward a matter of public importance that says we should debate:The failure of the government's budget to address the real priorities of the nation.In the 15 minutes from the matter of public importance being brought on I went to the transcript that I got from his interview on the Ray Fewings program on 5DN Adelaide this morning. If you read that transcript, you just simply shake your head and say, `My God, what chance has the opposition got of having any coherent economic policy at any time in the future whilst ever the member for Hotham is their spokesman,' because in that interview he says such things as, `You've got to look below the surface in terms of the surplus; they have not delivered on their promise.' That is the statement this morning. We have not delivered on our promise for a surplus? What seems to be more of concern to the member for Hotham and the Labor Party at the present time is that we actually have achieved a surplus. In fact, they seem to have had this modern day conversion that supports surpluses. Later in the interview he says to Matt Peacock of the ABC, `Let's secure a higher surplus.'Today, of course, the Treasurer has made it abundantly clear that the party in opposition that believes in surpluses had absolutely no belief in them when they had hold of the purse strings on the treasury bench. They did not know the meaning of surpluses and in their last five budgets they added to general government debt to the tune of $70 billion, to the extent that we as a government have had to pay month after month to the bank the interest on that debt through those deficits which Labor ran up. Yet the member for Hotham and the Labor Party now talk about the virtues of surpluses and say such things, as the member for Hotham did this morning, as, `Let's secure a higher surplus.'This matter of public importance relates to the budget. Yet for 11 of the 15 minutes all we heard from the member for Hotham was about the tax package, which he referred to as the GST—he said it was deficient—then he went on to talk about the sell-off of Telstra and then, of course, he tried to give some figures on how we will not get our growth because it is too reliant on consumption. The GST, and the component of that tax package that represents the GST, was announced long before the last election. The figuring on that came in the Mid-year economic and fiscal outlook. That was tabled in this parliament after its release in December last year. It is on the record.It flows throughout the budget papers on this occasion, as it should, because it does have an impact—not in the next year, as again we have had to point out to the opposition today, but commencing on 1 July 2000. It is not relevant to the budget that was delivered by the Treasurer last night other than to the extent of the projections in the forward estimates, which every budget contains. Those opposite say, `The only reason that you are able to get a GST in place is that you are taking the revenue, but we don't need a GST for the revenue.'We agree with that. We as a government have recognised that all Australians are paying too much direct tax. What we want to do through a new tax package, as has been announced and as has received the support of the Australian people, is to give some of that tax back to Australian taxpayers. We want to give $13 billion a year in tax cuts. We do not want more revenue; we want to give it back to the Australian people. Not only do we want to give $13 billion—we do not want that revenue—but also we are prepared to add to that to the tune of another $2½ billion per year in additional benefits for families. In those areas where there is the need, that new tax system will provide a total of $15½ billion a year in benefits to the Australian people.Yet we have the Deputy Leader of the Opposition ranting and raving in here today about the only way in which we will get growth is if it is based on consumption. He then proceeds to say that we have a softening on consumption and that all of the revenue and growth is driven by domestic consumption. I would suggest to every member of the House that when we forecast, as the budget papers do, the growth in domestic consumption of 3.75 per cent, that is extremely robust. It is down slightly from the 4.5 per cent that is estimated to be the growth in domestic consumption for the 1998-99 year but it is still very healthy.The Deputy Leader of the Opposition suggests that we will not have the capacity for further healthy domestic consumption, but I would simply point out to him that, from 1 July 2000, we as the government want to top up the extra $320 per month off disposable income in the pockets of families—the benefits that the lower interest rates delivered under this government have meant to the mortgage payments of those average families—and at the discretion of those families by giving significant tax cuts to those average families. This will give them more flexibility and more discretion to use the funds that they receive with the income and the pay packet that comes in each week. That is what the new tax system delivers.But it seems to me that the best that Labor can do within the early hours of this particular budget being brought down is, firstly, to ignore the budget and, secondly, to go back to some of those other issues—such as the new tax system which has been done to death. We have had more inquiries and investigations carried out by the Senate than the average state homicide squad over the past few months. None of those inquiries have brought about any conclusion that supports the rhetoric we constantly hear from Labor to suggest that there is not sufficient compensation in the package or that there are losers.What Labor should do is take some advice on those issues—they are not relevant to the budget but, clearly, Labor do not want to talk about the budget—from some of their own. They should take some advice from Mr Hogg, their former Secretary; they should take some advice from the guru of campaigning in New South Wales, Mr Della Bosca, who was seen to be a dud when it came to the federal election six or seven months ago but who is now a genius when it came to the state election—because they have made it very clear that it is about time Labor got on with it.The best thing Labor can do—if it is interested in growth, if it is interested in jobs and if it is interested in complimenting the very good work that this government has done for the economy—is to start looking to the future and forgetting about the past. They should support those provisions that are before the Senate at the present time in respect of tax and allow this country to grow at an even greater rate than it has in the past, because that is the opportunity that is there. That opportunity was enhanced by last night's budget. The opposition's suggestion that this government wants to take the benefits of the revenue from the GST once again shows its complete ignorance of what the legislation is about, because we do not want that money. We do not want any of the revenue from the GST. The legislation gives all of that revenue to the states. All of the states' premiers and the territories' chief ministers think that it is absolutely fantastic.When they came down here six or seven weeks ago, I think I heard that Treasurer in New South Wales say on that occasion that the current Prime Minister of Australia has been the best Prime Minister that Australia has had since Ben Chifley.XT4RONALDSONMr Ronaldson—Who said this?HQ5Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEY—That came from one Michael Egan, the Treasurer of New South Wales, as a result of this package of tax reform that this government is implementing—if we can get the support of the Senate—because Mr Egan knows that all of the revenue of the goods and services tax goes to the states. Mr Egan knows that, for the very first time in this process of Commonwealth and state relations, the states have a growth tax built in. Instead of coming down cap in hand year after year—and God knows I did it for a while—asking and hoping that there is some benevolence in the Prime Minister of the day so that you can go back and start doing some proper plans for your hospitals, your schools and your roads, they are guaranteed all of the goods and services tax. That goods and services tax means that, with the increase over the years, there is growth built in. The states can then make some definite plans for the future to provide those needs that state governments are responsible for. We have seen the focus in this debate this afternoon not on the budget—even though that is what the matter of public importance is about—not on the benefits that are in the budget, and there are significant benefits in there, but on the so-called deficiency of the GST that Labor state premiers think is fantastic and on the other issues which relate to legislation before the Senate; namely, the sell-off of Telstra.Labor say, `The budget is only good if Telstra is sold.' Let me say this: we are not going to spend the money we are getting from the sale of Telstra. Not like Labor who, in the early 1990s, actually threw in the benefits of the Qantas sale in three budgets. They indicated budget after budget after budget that there was some money coming from the sale of Qantas. We know those figures go into the contingency reserve and they cannot be identified; they are mixed up a little for commercial-in-confidence reasons—quite legitimate. But Labor tried it three times.Each time, having built those figures into that budget bottom line, Labor said, `We're going to bring in a responsible and prudent budget.' We know what happened in those days when those opposite were going about the sale of Qantas: they brought in five successive deficit budgets. Heaven forbid what the true story might have been if they had not kept putting figures from the sale of Telstra in and trying to hide them and putting figures from the sale of Qantas in and trying to hide them.We know that those opposite did not believe in using the proceeds of an asset sale to retire debt; they used it for current programs and ran up that debt I spoke of a little earlier—$70 billion. We were paying $9½ billion in interest on that $70 billion instead of providing $9½ billion to those in the welfare sector, those needing some requirements in health. I would like to give that money to health, to education, to welfare—the true priorities, the real priorities of the nation, the priorities that have been ignored in the contribution to this debate by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. He is not interested in the budget. He would hope, as would all members of the Labor Party, that the great benefits that will flow, the consolidation that will continue, the fiscal responsibility that will continue for the fourth successive year will be forgotten very quickly. Well, it will not. I say that because this morning I addressed 700 people at a breakfast held in the Sydney Town Hall on whom a survey was undertaken. The people were surveyed on how they had reacted to the delivery of the government's budget last night. From the survey passed around the breakfast table, the results of which were collated later, it was found that this government's budget had been endorsed with overwhelming support. And why wouldn't it be?This is the government that in four consecutive years has not borrowed one net dollar; not one net dollar has it borrowed in four years of managing the national accounts. What we have done in those four years—and this is reflected in this year's budget—is paid off some $24 billion of Labor's debt. As the Treasurer said last night, not only have we addressed debt and, through that process of addressing debt, ensured that those factors, that very good set of conditions all Australians benefit from—low interest rates, low inflation, high growth—continues but we want to go further and get rid of the rest of Labor's debt.I must say that it is a bit galling to spend years working—although I do enjoy the capacity in which I work very, very much—simply to get rid of the waste and mismanagement of your predecessor. That has been to the forefront of all I have had to do in the context of my portfolio for the past several years. Notwithstanding that, we will accept it for the Australian people; we will pay it off. As the Treasurer said, if we get the opportunity to sell all of Telstra, and we want to do it, we will pay off the residue of Labor's debt by 2002-03. As a nation, Australia then can enter the 21st century in exactly the same fashion as we entered the 20th century—with no debt.We are not interested in spending and squandering—as did those opposite with their asset sales—when we sell Telstra. We are interested in clearing their debt. That is good for the Australian people, and it is good for the growth that we are experiencing and that we will experience in the future. With the exception of the reference to domestic consumption as being `a little flat'—still robust, I have to say, but a little flat—no other reference has been made about growth. We have good growth in this nation, and it will continue while we are in government. (Time expired)15:33:005209Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—This budget is living proof of what Labor repeatedly said during the election campaign, and that is that the government does not have a plan for the nation; it has a plan for a tax. Australians are crying out for a plan to reduce unemployment permanently, but in the budget unemployment is stuck at 7½ per cent. I wonder whether the Prime Minister recalls on 18 February this year in this chamber making the comment:In terms of an individual policy, our top priority is to reduce unemployment.I wonder whether the Prime Minister can explain why the budget forecast has no reduction in unemployment below 7½ per cent; indeed, why the budget contains no mention of the five per cent unemployment target; why unemployment got a mere five paragraphs on page 8 of the Treasurer's budget speech; and why the government has allocated more in the 1999-2000 financial year for Taxation Office computers to implement the GST than for job creation programs to get unemployed people back to work.Fleetingly in February of this year, we had bipartisan support for Labor's unemployment target of five per cent—if only because the Treasurer did not want his leadership rival, the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, to steal the march on him. I refer to an article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 1 February 1999 that begins:The Treasurer, Mr Costello, has held out the prospect of Australia slashing unemployment to near the United States "full employment" level of 4 to 5 per cent.It goes on to state:Mr Costello said the GST would boost employment, giving a fiscal stimulus, reducing income tax rates and producing a better balanced tax system which would lead to higher economic growth.Then on 2 February, the West Australian reports:Treasurer Peter Costello said the Federal Government could cut unemployment from 7.5 per cent to less than 5 per cent, but only if the Senate agreed to introduce a goods and services tax.The budget does contain a goods and services tax, but we have been unable to find any reference anywhere in the budget to the five per cent target. In fact, Treasury expects employment growth over the next three years to slow down and it foresees no improvement in the unemployment rate. This means that the benefits of economic growth are not being shared fairly. I would point out that, compared with Labor over an equivalent period, this government has created less than half as many full-time jobs and only two-thirds as many part-time jobs as Labor. Long-term unemployment has increased to 212,000 since the government began to slash Labor's job programs three years ago.Where are the jobs in this budget that the Treasurer said would be created by the GST? There are none. Professor Dixon of Monash University in reporting to the Senate GST inquiry described the GST as `job destroying'. Even Mr Murphy, the Prime Minister's preferred modeller, could find no jobs from the GST. For the unemployed and regional Australia, this budget is a budget of despair. It is not a plan for a nation, it is not a plan for jobs; it is a plan for a tax. It is a consumption tax that will affect consumer spending. I point out in the budget documents that very point:There is also likely to be some net increase in household consumption in the latter part of 1999-2000 ahead of the introduction of the A New Tax System package.So the GST will affect consumption. But, interestingly, the budget says that the GST will not affect prices. We are assuming that away. On page 1-11 it states:The impact on prices of the tax reforms under A New Tax System is not included in the projections. However, this impact has been taken into account separately in projecting the revenues and expenses affected by the tax reforms. So they are going to take the revenues but we are assuming away any impact at all on prices. So they get an inflation figure of 2½ per cent in the year 2000-01. The reality is that Treasury has revealed that the inflationary impact of the GST alone in that year will be at least 3.1 per cent, and it could be more than four per cent if all the indirect tax reductions are not passed through immediately. We know that will be the case. So what we are really looking at is price rises in that year of around 6½ per cent. The government is saying in these documents that it is 2½ per cent.I would have loved to have been in the cabinet room when this was being discussed. I can see what would have happened. The government would have said, `If we put the true price effect of the cost of living increases from the GST in this budget document, we'll get killed.' Treasury would have said, `Well, you're the ones who put 1.9 per cent out during the election campaign, which is a dodgy figure. You would have to put in 3.1 per cent at least.' The government would have said, `We can't do that, so we'll just assume it away.' In question time today the Treasurer was asked by the shadow Treasurer:Will you rule out further reducing the surplus in order to bolster the GST compensation and, if not, how much of the surplus are you prepared to spend to increase GST compensation?It is a pretty straightforward question. The Treasurer replied that we only have one surplus; that is the surplus for the coming year. We only have one surplus in the budget. That's all we've got. I draw your attention again to page 1-3, which projects the surplus figures over three years. I can see what has happened here. The Treasurer has carried the lawyer's brief into the parliament. He has said, `Look, I am not very good at numbers, so just give me one number. What is the surplus this year?' His staff would have given him the number. When the shadow Treasurer asked him about the impact on the surplus in the coming years beyond the first year, he said, `No, we don't have those figures in the budget.' They do have the figures in the budget, but obviously the Treasurer cannot recall those figures. We need to know how much GST compensation is going to be taken off those surplus figures which the Treasurer is saying do not exist in the budget. Clearly they do.With unemployment stuck at 7½ per cent in this budget, it is timely to remind ourselves of what the five economists have been saying: that is, by economic growth alone we will not get unemployment below 7½ per cent—much or anything below 7½ per cent. What is needed is a comprehensive jobs plan. Labor is advocating a comprehensive jobs plan. It is a plan that involves tax reform without a GST. It involves tax credits. It involves improving the incentives to move from welfare to work. It is a plan that includes active labour market programs. It is a plan most fundamentally that invests in people and ideas.We can build on a jobs plan on these ideas by investing in the talent of Australia and investing in ideas, by investing in education and in Australia's research and development effort. The Treasurer said on radio today, `Look, you won't get unemployment down if you do nothing.' Well, in the budget unemployment is stuck at 7½ per cent. It is obviously a do-nothing budget. All it does is impose a $32 billion new tax and sell Telstra. It is not a debt reduction strategy; it is a sell Telstra strategy.We point out that there is a $40 billion undervaluation of Telstra in this budget because of a convenient accounting standard that they are citing—a $40 billion undervaluation that is designed to make the sale of Telstra look attractive. But the sale of Telstra is not attractive. It is clearly better to hold on to Telstra to get the dividends from Telstra and to get the growth in the value of Telstra for the Australian public. It does not make sense to sell Telstra, and they have had to manipulate the figures to try to create a case for selling it.Again, I would be very interested in the cabinet discussion where the Deputy Prime Minister would have said, `Look, if we are putting all these figures in the budget about the full sale of Telstra, what about my inquiry?' They would have said, `So much for your inquiry. That one is biting the dust.' Obviously he got rolled.This is a budget that is built almost totally on consumer spending. It is built on the Bankcard. (Time expired)15:43:005211Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—I could not resist a double-take when I read the opposition's so-called matter of public importance. It seemed to be such a point of breathtaking hypocrisy for the opposition led by its former Minister for Finance that it was hard to believe the opposition was suggesting that the government's budget had failed to address the real priorities of this nation. I have been in this House for nearly six months now, and I have yet to hear what the opposition considers to be a priority, any priority, let alone a national priority.But then I appreciated what a golden opportunity I had to pay tribute today to the Howard government, to pay tribute to the Treasurer for his outstanding effort in producing a budget that is reassuring to all Australians in its commitment to sound economic management, that delivers on election promises and that is positively inspirational in its vision for the Australia of the future, with its commitment to education, science and medical research, health, small business and the like.By any measure, pitted against any key performance indicators, this is an outstanding budget designed to be a true investment in Australia's future. This government's repair of the budget and policy measures have enabled Australia to be one of the fastest growing economies in the world despite the Asian crisis. The opposition talks of national priorities. A priority for the federal government is to manage the economy in good times and bad, responsibly and fairly for the ultimate benefit of all Australians, and we have done that. No less than the Sydney Morning Herald editorial labelled it `Responsible and fair'. `A triumph of a determined focus on economic policy,' it said. `A striking testament to the focus policies of governments taking rational economic decisions.'What does the opposition know of sound economic management? The Leader of the Opposition professes to be an advocate of budget surpluses, yet he is seemingly incapable of giving any credit to this govern ment's ability to deliver a budget surplus for the third successive year—not just talk about it. The opposition steadfastly ignores the fact that, when we came to office three years ago, we found we had inherited a $10 billion underlying cash deficit.Members might recall the pattern of deceit over the true status of the Labor deficit, a deceit that became a hallmark of Labor's economic management. They boasted of budget surpluses. Members will recall that at budget time in May 1995 Labor trumpeted that they had brought down a budget surplus. After all, the Leader of the Opposition was the then finance minister, and he says he believes in budget surpluses. But at the mid-year review in December 1995 it was revealed that perhaps it was not such a budget surplus. `Perhaps we will downgrade it a little,' he said.When this government came to office all was revealed. The 1995 budget was in fact in deficit, had always been in deficit—not just a little—for we inherited a $10 billion deficit. Under Labor the underlying deficit blew out beyond all proportions, notwithstanding public statements by the then finance minister, now Leader of the Opposition, that, `We're operating in surplus and our projections are for surpluses in the future.' Wrong. We were not operating in surplus; we were in deficit. In 1991-92 there was an $11.5 billion deficit; in 1993-94, a $17 billion deficit; in 1994-95, a $13 billion deficit; and in 1995-96, a $10 billion deficit. Members will recall Labor's refusal to release updated budget data during the 1996 election campaign. We all know why: because that data was a damning indictment of Labor's fiscal and monetary policies.The last term of the Labor government failed the Australian people in ways none had done before. At a time when Australia's fortunes could have been on the rise, when it had everything going for it in terms of the global and regional economic environment, when the economic stars were all in place, Labor failed the people of Australia. We had a $10 billion underlying cash deficit, a serious erosion of Australia's savings, and a huge foreign debt. And don't forget that under Labor over a million people were unem ployed, with the unemployment rate peaking at 11.2 per cent. Deficit and debt—that is how Labor treated the Australian economy. Deficit and debt and deception—a novel three dimensional approach.I recall an article in the Economist in late 1995 headed `Australia: Lucky or Broke?' as it proceeded to damn Labor's record with the prediction that they were sending the country broke, comparing the downward spiral Labor put us into as akin to the worst times in the Mexican economy. I am not aware of an economic theory or policy that suggests sending a country broke or bankrupt should be a national priority.The priority this government gave to our economy, to our fiscal position, was to focus on the deficit and to work to implement the necessary changes to bring the budget into surplus. We focused on underlying surpluses, for it is this surplus, before asset sales and loan repayments by the states, that builds our savings, builds our economy and provides an investment in our future.Labor can make all the hollow promises that it likes, that it would have delivered a bigger surplus, but when it had the chance to deliver it failed to do so. We had our priorities right. In just two years we turned that $10 billion deficit into a $1¼ billion underlying cash surplus. And now, by maintaining a consistently disciplined approach to financial management, the surplus is predicted to grow in both cash and accrual terms to more than $5 billion in 1999-2000. With the budget in surplus the government is saving enough to finance all its investment needs. Indeed, we are actually adding to the pool of savings available to finance private investment. This means more projects, creating more jobs and greater opportunities for Australia, and it can be financed with our own savings instead of foreign debt. Is that not a priority?We have been reducing the massive debt run up by the Labor Party during its profligate days. You would be forgiven for thinking that Labor was running the economy on a perpetual Visa card—run up the debt and the interest and hope it becomes someone else's problem when the time comes to pay it off. That is what this budget and previous Costello budgets have delivered.In the last five years before the coalition was elected, Labor ran up Commonwealth debt by nearly $80 billion. We had to find $9 billion just to pay the interest bill. Reducing government debt was and is a national priority. Since 1996 the government has reduced the Commonwealth's net debt by around $24 billion. In 1999-2000 we expect to reduce debt by a further $20.5 billion. That is the largest ever reduction in Commonwealth net debt in a single year. In 1995-96 the Commonwealth general net debt was equal to 19 per cent of GDP. In 1999-2000 that is expected to fall to just 8.2 per cent of GDP. That is a $44¾ billion reduction in net debt in just four years. We have the lowest interest rates in nearly three decades underscoring continued strong growth in spending and an all time low in maintaining low inflation. Since early 1996 inflation has averaged two per cent, compared with five per cent over the previous decade. And we are committed to low inflation as a means of achieving economic and employment growth, which will underwrite better living standards for all Australians.Budget surpluses and lower debt are essential in these times of international and economic financial volatility. That is why Australia is able to resist the disastrous consequences which occurred in regional economies. After two years of economic growth in excess of four per cent, growth of around three per cent—strengthening over the year to around 3½ per cent in the year 2000—is predicted. That is a remarkable achievement. Our economic growth will remain stronger than that of each of the G7 economies.Having delivered a responsible and fair budget, with the priorities of a sound economy and a sound economic outlook, we have been able to focus and build on other major priorities for this country. The opposition can whinge and carp and nitpick for as long as it has breath in its collective body, but the fact is that we have focused and we are focusing on broad economic and social objectives that are in the interests of all Australian people, and we can deliver.This budget fulfils the government's election commitments and provides a comprehensive package of assistance, targeted in the priority areas of employment, education, health and research, families, a safer and fairer community, including in rural and regional Australia. These are the priorities of the people of Australia. These are the priorities we focused upon in the last election. These are the priorities we were voted in to achieve. These are the priorities we will deliver upon with this budget. The Australian newspaper editorial observes that the budget:. . . has honoured the government's election promises . . . it helps to restore the electorate's faith in politicians and their pledges. The disrespect many people give to our political institutions is being given direct attention.You get disrespect when you get Labor's recipe of deficit, debt and deceit.On the employment front, it has been a key priority of this government to expand employment opportunities and we will continue to pursue a wide range of labour market reforms. The work for the dole scheme is having an impact and it will be expanded upon. Funding for indigenous employment initiatives will double. Is that not a national priority?This budget delivers on the trust again placed in the Howard government by the Australian people last October. The government is delivering on its election promises. The budget builds on the extensive program of reforms embarked upon and our priorities of reforming our ailing tax system and revamping Commonwealth-state financial relations. Our priorities of providing assistance in health, education, training, research, rural and regional Australia, families and small business are the priorities of the Australian people.This government governs for all Australians and this budget demonstrates for ever more that this government has the credentials, the skills, the foresight and the courage to take Australia into the 21st century.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! This discussion has now concluded.Bills5213r7705213Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.5213Bill (on motion by Mr Fahey)—by leave—read a third time.Bills5213r7735213Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.5213Bill (on motion by Mr Fahey)—by leave—read a third time.Bills5213r7765213Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.5213Bill (on motion by Mr Fahey)—by leave—read a third time.Bills5213r6705213Message received from the Senate acquainting the House that the Senate had resolved to agree to the extension of time for the presentation of the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Securities on the provisions of the Corporate Law Econom ic Reform Program Bill 1998 to 12 May 1999.15:56:005214Sercombe, Bob,MPMr SERCOMBEQK6MaribyrnongALP00—On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Securities, I present the committee's report, incorporating dissenting reports, on the Corporate Law Economic Reform Program Bill 1998.Ordered that the report be printed.QK6Sercombe, Bob,MPMr SERCOMBE—by leave—This particular bill has been dealt with in both the previous parliament and the present parliament by the Corporations and Securities Committee. The committee has received a substantial number of submissions and evidence on the matters that the bill deals with.In fact, the bill was tabled in the House for the first time in July 1998 and then reintroduced in December 1998 and deals with four substantial matters of corporate reform: firstly, reform with respect to directors' duties and corporate governance; secondly, fund raising; thirdly, takeovers; and fourthly, accounting standards.The report before the House reflects the work and recommendations of the committee and includes reports from the ALP members of the committee, and also a report from the Australian Democrat member of the committee. On behalf of the committee I would like to acknowledge the detailed and helpful submissions and evidence that were made by a wide variety of organisations and individuals.All members of the committee strongly support the need for ongoing reform of Australia's corporate regulatory environment. It was a process begun by the former Labor government through its Corporations Law simplification program in 1993 and has been re-badged by the present government as the Corporate Law Economic Reform Program Bill 1998 . There is general agreement that Australian companies need regulations that meet the changing demands of a competitive global marketplace and enable them to take advantage of innovations in capital raisings.These considerations of course have to be balanced with the need for the highest levels of investor and shareholder protection and ensuring international confidence in the integrity of Australia's capital markets. The importance of this last point is illustrated by the stock exchange recently estimating that some 4.4 million Australians now hold shares directly, and the great majority of those people in fact are likely to be relatively inexperienced shareholders or first-time shareholders.It is fair to say that not all members of the committee are convinced that the bill has necessarily struck the appropriate balance between the competing needs in this area. Obviously, when the bill comes before the House these matters will be more fully debated than would be appropriate here. One area where the importance of these balances is so critical is takeovers. The firm of accountants, Ernst and Young, recently produced a report on company mergers and acquisitions that found in 1998 that Australia recorded the highest number ever of acquisitions. Their view was that that takeover activity would continue into this current year.The bill certainly makes takeovers somewhat easier, if it was adopted in its present form. Against the background where experience shows that many takeovers are not successful or fail to achieve their expectations and, certainly, regularly result in significant job losses and sometimes cuts in investment, there is going to be a need, I think, for a substantial amount of attention in the House to this particular aspect of the legislation and also to ensuring that the appropriate balances are struck in order to protect the interests of minority shareholders.Similar points, I think, could be made in relation to the proposals in the legislation concerning fundraising and corporate governance. Debates over those issues when the bill comes before the House will certainly focus on the need to ensure that the appropriate and correct balances are achieved and that minority shareholders and small investors are not disadvantaged by the way in which the government's reform program is proceeding. I am confident that the report will assist members of the House in understanding the issues involved, in debating the matters in due course, and ensuring that the appropriate balances are struck. I seek leave to move a motion in relation to this report.Leave granted.QK6Sercombe, Bob,MPMr SERCOMBE—I move:That the House take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Bills5215r8015215Debate resumed.16:02:005215Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—I was talking before question time about the Wool International Privatisation Bill 1999 , about the privatisation of Wool International and about how the government made some terrible mistakes in the freezing of the stockpile and the selling of the stockpile. Part of this bill is to privatise Wool International. It is quite understandable and, in fact, it was what was suggested by the Labor government when they established Wool International in 1993. From my discussion with farmers and wool growers this is far more acceptable. Although it may not be useful in increasing wool prices, at least they will have control over their own situation. They can look to the future and determine where we need to position wool in the marketplace for the longer term.As I said in a previous speech, the freezing of the stockpile was nonsensical, and the only result I can think of is that it will help those bigger growers and others that may have stockpiles of wool to sell off their own stockpiles and make a few additional dollars at the expense of smaller and non-specialised growers. This is backed up by a press release in February of this year in which ABARE said that in moving to the open market private stockholdings were likely to take an increasingly important role. It goes on to say:While prices are expected to improve as wool availability declines and overall wool demand improves, a sharp and sustained increase in wool prices as the stockpile runs down is unlikely.Some of our private wool stockpilers perhaps want to make sure that they get an income from the product before the stockpile is brought back into the market. I do know that the industry had some grave doubts about the freezing of the stockpile, but it is prepared to bite the bullet in order to have privatisation started. During 1997-98 Wool International's objectives and functions under the Wool International Act were to undertake the disposal of the stockpile of wool in a manner which would enhance the value of the wool stockpile as much as possible, having regard to Wool International's obligation to comply with a disposal schedule. This required Wool International to deliver between 90,000 and 350,000 bales per quarter and to deliver the last bale of the stockpile of wool by 31 December 2000.Wool International is also required to sell the stockpile in a manner that seeks to maximise the value of all wool, to manage the wool stockpile, to buy wool only to the extent necessary to ensure that the sale of the stockpile of wool proceeds according to the disposal schedule, and to prepare and implement a strategy for the management and progressive repayment of the accumulated debt. This made a bit of a mockery of this wool freeze without putting the legislation in place before that freeze.This current legislation is to move Wool International along the road by allowing growers to control their own destinies. This bill now converts Wool International into a Corporations Law company to be known as WoolStock Australia. This company will have the prime responsibility of selling wool from the stockpile in order to maximise returns to shareholders. Although the principal activity of this new company will be selling the stockpile, up to $3 million will be available to spend on investigating and sponsoring new business ventures. I hope that this will also help the ongoing promotion of new ventures and that it just does not go into several consultants' fees along the way, to mates.I believe the government made a big mistake with the freeze, as I have said before, and that we could have sold more wool by now. I believe that we could have sold 300,000 to 500,000 more bales and that they would have been absorbed by the market if we had not had a freeze and we had found some inventive ways of selling, particularly in a market downturn.We should be looking at a long-term industry plan and encouraging farmers to take more notice of what happens to their wool. I have said this on a number of occasions before. The farmer needs to understand what is going on beyond the farm gate. We have many new and well-trained farmers now in Australia and they are getting wiser to market trends, but the government should be helping them to make the right and proper decisions. I have a wool grower in my electorate who believes that, if the stockpile was still on the farm—if farmers still had it in their woolsheds so that every time they walked past it they could see the wool sitting there—they would have a different approach to the marketing of wool. They would understand that you need to have a market before you grow something and that just stockpiling it is not an answer. If this is a question of helping Wool International to be the main research organisation for the industry, then that is what should be going on and what we should be doing.It is recognised now by many observers that the Australian wool industry has experienced one of its most testing and turbulent periods—probably one of its toughest times in the history of this industry. Everybody has their own idea of how to fix it and get the problem solved—which, of course, leads to a lot of mixed messages going out generally. In an article in Outlook 99 earlier this year, a processor described his views of the market. I found these very interesting. He looked at what he sees as the problem with wool. He believes that it is not seen as glamorous and indispensable any more, and he believes that is why the demand for wool and the acceptance of wool has waned. The price of wool has dropped and the cost of producing the wool has increased, so there are no longer any margins for wool growing. Many growers are abandoning the industry. On top of this, you have cheap labour in developing countries, particularly in China, producing export goods which have had a huge effect on international wool markets—that is, other products are being produced from wool because of that cheap labour. So, having identified the main parts of the problem, the processor, Mr John Mitchell, looked at some solutions.He lands, I believe rightly, on the necessity to promote the product, and to promote it to the right people. Even as far back as my first speech in this House, I was talking about promoting our wool in the same way as other countries do—using a brand and style such as I saw in the Shetland Islands with Harris tweed and Dublin worsted. The wool was not great there, but the promotion of those products was brilliant. Everybody who was anybody had to wear their local product. It was part of their culture and part, of course, of the tourist mystique to buy those products.Mitchell says that we should be targeting designers and garment manufacturers. Yes, that is what we should be doing. We should be doing that in a great way—we should be right up to our necks in doing that. I would go a few steps further and talk to furniture, fabric, upholstery and carpet designers—as well as any other users in our domestic and our commercial life.I believe I can start a shortage of wool if we can get our Tasmanian tartan up and running. There is a promotion going with that in Tasmania. Hopefully, this tartan can be a marketing tool not only for our state but also for our fine products and our superfine wool. Wool is also well used in Tasmania for things like doonas, padded coats and pillows—for anything that requires a stable and light padding at the bottom end of the market. Wool might be able to be used for insulation, being a low flammable and well aerated product.Invent, experiment and try out what wool is good for and then promote, promote, promote. Get in there and promote the product; that is what we have to do. The people who are making something out of wool are those who have diversified their interests and started to look into design and downstream processing. Two small examples I can boast of in Tasmania are Casaveen and Laincot, who are actually experimenting with design and manufacture. They are only small, but they are in there producing things and they are in the marketplace. However, as Mitchell also says, there is a question of who will fund the efforts of promotion. Perhaps this could be by an export levy, or a levy across the whole industry in differing amounts, and depending on where the interest is in the chain towards the sale.The other point made in the article that I also think is sound is that we must learn as an industry to stop considering man-made fibres as the enemy and our greatest competition. I would suggest that, if a cooperative approach was made, it would be the opposite. It could be the answer and it would help widen the scope and expand the use of both fibres.Wool is also still seen as something that you knit with. Its woven and fabric uses are hidden to the general public. It is important that those who are promoting it move it away from that knitting image. It is one of the strongest and most versatile and inventive materials anyone could work with, and those who have an interest in and a flair for design will be able to think up a whole range of new products using wool.I am not sure this new bill is going to provide the necessary incentives or assistance to take the industry into the next century, or to help it be inventive and keen to develop the new products that are necessary. At least the producers will be able to help mould the direction of this company. But, if the government was really being innovative and really wanted to help this industry—which has been in this country since it began—they would be there with a plan and innovative ideas and they would be helping to promote those ideas and that innovation. But of course they are not.They really have not looked at the future need for wool and the wool industry, and they have not got there yet. It will probably take them a considerable amount of time to get there. I have not heard anyone on the other side speak about where wool is going to be in the future, and that is what has to happen—people have to start looking at and thinking and speaking about it.The industry needs to consider new technology to change the appearance of wool, to make it more user friendly and appealing. It might involve the addition of new processes and techniques which change wool's perform ance, or at least change people's perception of its properties, which are already very wide. Wool is an exciting fibre. We should not have got to this end where we are looking backwards at wool's past successes. The government has failed to see its potential and has been too busy hiding from possible attackers rather than going out and aggressively marketing our woolly gold.It is still one of our big potential exporters, and we should be marketing it for all it is worth. We on this side of parliament are disappointed that the government took so long to sort out what it was doing. It set sales back for years because of the silly freeze, the dumb mistake, made by that side of the House, made by the lawyers and the stockbrokers of the Liberal Party against the National Party.8H4HAWKERMr Hawker—What a load of absolute rubbish!BV5Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMS—People like the member for Wannon—from the Western District of Victoria—could not get his view up. He got rolled, I understand, with his view.8H4HAWKERMr Hawker—Wrong.BV5Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMS—I thought he was on this side. He seems to be indicating otherwise, so he actually was a part of making the wrong decision. I understand that the Deputy Leader of the National Party was knocked over on it, and most of the National Party members again failed to win the day.We hope that there will be a lot more support for the future wool industry. I think some entrepreneurial flair for the future will come out of the industry itself and that that will be the direction for the wool industry. We on this side of the House hope that the government might get its act together and might start assisting the wool industry to go down the track of starting to look into the future and building itself a very strong and positive future.16:17:005217Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—In joining this debate on the Wool International Privatisation Bill 1999 , I listened to the member for Lyons with some interest, but I ended up a bit confused. I thought his final point is exactly what the government is trying to do, but the problem the wool industry has had for too long is too much assistance from government, too much involvement of government and too much interference.This bill is all about reducing that and allowing the wool industry to become a commercial business. While this bill is dealing with only one aspect of the wool industry, it is a very positive step forward by the government. I am a little disappointed to hear the opposition, while it is not opposing this bill, sounding rather lukewarm and using somewhat confused logic when talking about what the bill really stands for.It is interesting to note that exactly six months ago we were debating another wool international amendment bill. In that debate I did highlight some of the great errors that the Labor government had made in the past, and that is why I was curious to hear the member for Lyons trying to criticise the government on recent developments and clearly overlooking what happened in the late 1980s.In that debate I also pointed out with some supporting graphs that, when the government first announced its freeze, we did in fact see the price of wool improve. It is true that an election intervened and the government's proposals were delayed somewhat but, when it was clear that the coalition government had been re-elected, we made it clear yet again that we would be proceeding with that freeze, and again the market recovered. That shows very clearly that the government, far from making a mistake in the freeze, got it absolutely right. It is not a question of saying that those with a private stockpile are benefiting; it is actually those who are growing wool who are benefiting. Those with a private stockpile are a relatively small part of the equation. It is the wool growers, about whom the member for Lyons professes to be concerned, who are the direct beneficiaries of what the government has done.As I pointed out in that speech, it is a very important development and it is all about allowing the stockpile to be turned into an asset. I am proud to be part of a government that has taken this vital step forward in assisting wool growers and the wool industry to start moving down the path to recovery. As previous speakers have mentioned, wool growers have faced a fairly difficult few years since the collapse of the floor price scheme early in 1991. I join with my colleague the member for Mallee in some of the comments he made earlier. As a wool grower myself, I am acutely aware of what those last few years since 1991 have really meant.I noticed that the member for Corio also made some rather strange and conflicting comments when he talked about the freeze not being a rational commercial decision. As I have already indicated, there is very clear market evidence to show that it was a commercial decision. As has been pointed out on a number of occasions, a relatively small increase in the price of wool more than offsets any loss in revenue from the stockpile sales and from the cost of holding that stockpile over the seven or eight months the freeze has been in effect.It is very easy to sit there and look at things in isolation and say that this might be costing money, but to growers it is the price of wool that they are selling on the market today that is the important issue. Contrary to what the member for Lyons was trying to say about an inventive way of selling wool in a down market, Wool International has been trying to do that for eight years and has not yet found it. There are some capable people there, and I think it is a good indication that you just cannot defy the market.This is all about taking the stockpile and turning it into a commercial asset. That is not meant in any way to decry the effort of Wool International in their management of the stockpile. Given the constraints they had and the objectives they were given, I think they have done a sterling job. The fact is that they were acting as a receiver, and they had to therefore work with those sorts of constraints.I commend the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee for their work in looking at this legislation. While I appreciate that their report has not yet been finalised, it is interesting to look at some of the submissions they received, and I will go into a couple of those in a bit of detail.Many wool growers and people in the wool industry see this legislation as part of this government's very significant move to give wool growers and the wool industry a chance to recover. There is no doubt that the last few years have been extremely difficult, and I think this government has shown real initiative and real leadership in what we have done—firstly, with the stockpile and, secondly, with setting up the wool industry task force, headed by the former Minister for Defence, Mr Ian McLachlan. I have no doubt, subject to one qualification, they will make some very worthwhile recommendations.It is very important to note what can and cannot be expected from this legislation and the move to form Wool International into a new company, WoolStock Australia. The submission that came from Mr Don McGauchie, the Chairman of the Wool Interim Advisory Board, sets out very clearly what this legislation is all about, and it also probably dispels some of the misunderstandings that are around. For example, as he pointed out, as of 31 December last year, the stockpile was 1,055,000 bales and was valued at around $656 million. The accumulated debt was $179 million and the net value of the stockpile was therefore, at 31 December, $470 million, or approximately $1.35 per unit of equity. So growers who contributed between 1993 and 1996 stand to get that back as shares in the form that has been detailed in the legislation. There are 349,403,135 units registered against 91,841 unit holders.The Wool Interim Advisory Board has been consulting widely and meetings have been held in all states where there is a major wool growing interest. The points that Mr McGauchie summarised from those consultations are important to note. A number of them are:The processors and traders generally supported the commercial arrangements to sell stockpile wool . . . . . . . . . . . .Most of the growers were comfortable with the privatisation of Wool International.. . . . . . . . .The concern expressed about any discounting of the stockpile wool price adversely impacting on the sale of fresh wool was responded to by explaining the objective of the new entity would be to maxi mise the value of the return from stockpile wool and any downward pressure exerted on the fresh wool price would devalue the stockpile and not be in the interest of shareholders.That is a very important point. It shows the difference that the new board will be able to exercise to their commercial approach that the previous board, Wool International, were unable to because of the legislative constraints that were placed on them in various forms during their lifetime.The Office of Asset Sales also made some very pertinent points in their submission to the Senate committee. They pointed out that this is an extremely professional approach to privatisation, and the fact that they have employed both Deutsche Bank and Blake Dawson Waldon to advise on legal matters shows that they have certainly taken their job very seriously. In their submission, they talk about protecting the rights of unit holders and they say:The unit holders' existing entitlements against WI will be preserved and the obligations to distribute surpluses to unit holders will be retained.As they say:The structure proposed preserves the rights of the unit holders and thus manages the risk that their constitutional rights have not been adequately addressed.They point out that they have addressed that point. Another point of importance to note is the taxation treatment. In the submission, they state:1. WSA will be tax exempt in relation to stockpile activities;2. Primary Production Income tax status continues in respect of distributions to eligible unit holders; and3. Small Business Capital Gains tax roll-over relief continues in respect of eligible unit holders.In other words, the government has shown that it is sympathetic towards the plight of the wool growers by recognising that the proceeds from the sale of the stockpile can be rolled back into the farming business.Another point that has caused some concern is the number of unit holders who have not been fully identified. In fact, it has been suggested that the figure is around 26 per cent. But the qualification of that is that roughly 25 per cent of that 26 per cent are identifiable but not in a legally binding name. For example, K. Smith would not be acceptable, but Kevin Smith would be. So approximately one per cent of the unit holders cannot be identified because either the address is unknown or, in some cases, it is a false address.It is important that we recognise that the opportunity will be there and must be exercised for growers, who in most cases will have already received some repayments when previous distribution was made from Wool International, to respond to the letter that will be coming in the mail shortly. This is to make sure their legal status is properly clarified so that they will have the opportunity to exercise their vote when the first general meeting of shareholders is held. I expect it to be some time in late August this year. So when they receive that letter they should respond to make sure that they are legally entitled to vote.I want to make a couple of other points. I congratulate Don McGauchie and his interim board on the very professional job that they have done with fairly tight time constraints to get this up and running. I believe that because of the very professional approach that has been taken we will see this whole body move smoothly. I think it is also important to note that three of the new directors will be up for election at that first meeting. It is important that growers take ownership of this new entity, WoolStock Australia, as quickly as can be arranged. It is also interesting to note that Mr McGauchie, in his appearance before the committee, pointed out the following:. . . we have had some quite encouraging correspondence from, and discussions with, the Australian Stock Exchange. Whilst not being a fully listed company, at least the Stock Exchange is looking to conduct a market for shares in this business. That would give anyone an opportunity to stand in the market and buy shares rather than try to buy the wool, if someone wished to do that. Likewise, in relation to anyone wishing to make an offer for the entire stockpile, once the new board is appointed it will start to lay out a process for that.Again, that is very important given the interest that has been shown in it. I mentioned something about the wool task force. I was extremely concerned to read a report in the Age last Monday, in the business section, headed up `Huge wool grower exodus tipped'. The opening statement read:Half of Australia's 46,000 wool growers will be wiped out in five years by the reforms necessary to make the industry competitive, according to a leading wool industry figure.It went on to say:A member of the Federal Government's wool industry Future Directions Taskforce, who did not wish to be named, told The Age that most Australian wool farms were too small to be profitable.I find that quite staggering and extremely disappointing. For a task force charged with looking to find a profitable future for wool growing to turn around and say that within five years half the people involved in it today are going to be wiped out is extremely negative, discouraging and, I would have thought, quite out of kilter with what should be expected from such a task force. There may be cases to demonstrate that a lot of so-called wool growers are not in fact full-time wool growers. In many cases that is because either they are in mixed farming or wool is a by-product of meat. If we look at the number of full-time wool growers, we may well find that those who are still in wool growing are not necessarily the smallest operators in terms of their flock size because they may not have any other enterprises on their properties or their farms. It disappoints me to see such reports. I would have expected something different. Maybe it is a softening up process for something better. Still, I do not expect the task force should be running those sorts of stories in the media at this stage.Another point I would like to touch on is that, while wool growers have been facing difficult times, we have also seen some very positive initiatives that have been developed by wool growers in consultation with, in some cases, state governments and state departments. In Victoria's case, the Department of National Resources and Environment has been looking at ways of improving productivity on farm. I think this does recognise that wool growing has not seen the productivity gains that some other farming enterprises have seen. For example, we have seen some quite dra matic improvements in productivity in the dairy industry.I would like to mention Bestwool 2010, which I think is a very positive program and is certainly being received very enthusiastically in many parts of Victoria, particularly in western Victoria where I come from. It is all about getting farmers to adopt new technology and to use the sort of group psychology that dairy farmers have used so successfully in programs like Target 10 whereby, through a friendly competition type of approach, they lifted their productivity, lifted their output and made themselves into some of the best farmers in the world. This approach, which has been adopted for some time but has been extended to the wool industry, is very positive and something we should all be encouraging.Privatising the stockpile is indeed a very important step that the government is taking. I think we can demonstrate that the decision for, first of all, the freeze with the intention of privatising on 1 July was the correct one. It does make a significant step forward for the wool industry. It will turn this stockpile, which has been such a dampener on the market for so many years, from being a liability to being an asset. It will also unleash the commercial powers that will make this industry so much stronger and help to regain so much of the ground that wool has lost in recent years. At the same time, I also recognise that this is only part of the program this government is taking to ensure that growers can go into the next century in a much stronger and more healthy position. I commend the minister, Mark Vaile, for the very positive approach he has taken to the wool industry. I believe that it will be for the benefit of the wool industry and also obviously for the benefit of Australia. I think it should also be remembered that wool, while it may not have had the best of fortunes in recent years, is still one of the biggest primary industries in Australia. It is still one of the big export earners with earnings of around $4 billion a year. That is down quite a bit on what it was 10 years ago, but there is no reason why, with the right approach, we could not see the wool industry regain some of the lost ground and improve its output. Already in the way wool growers are approaching the task there is every reason to be optimistic about this, and the work the government is doing is showing real leadership in this area.16:37:005221Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—In considering the ramifications of this move to get government out of the wool industry, it is interesting to cast one's eyes back over other debates at other times concerning the wool industry. It has been the subject of passionate debate throughout the first 99 years since Federation, and the argument over the advantages of a free or a controlled market for wool is not confined to recent years. Indeed, 48 years ago the Australian parliament was debating the wool contributory charges bills which, among other things, repealed the levy on wool sold in Australia. The levy had been introduced a year earlier, in 1950, and had yielded £45 million, a staggering amount by any standards. But, after a referendum of growers on the proposed reserve price was overwhelmingly voted against, the government introduced legislation to repay that money. The referendum result had come as a shock to both the government and the opposition of the day, with the then Labor member for Lalor commenting that his only regret was the fact that `the wool growers had so little confidence in the plan they kicked it ignominiously out the door'. I wonder if things have changed much in intervening years with government and the so-called industry leaders meddling in the wool industry and growers treating with deep scepticism most moves to improve the lot of the industry.Growers have seen governments and the so-called industry leaders in recent years sending a series of contradictory messages to world markets—markets that have exploited this uncertainty by forcing our growers to compete against themselves by virtue of the stockpile. It was for this reason that, after consulting many growers in my immediate area and beyond, I supported the freeze. There was not universal support amongst the growers, as everybody knows, but there was a recognition that there needed to be some pause to consider just what role the stockpile was playing in the marketplace. I and others firmly believe that it was an impediment to a market. In fact, many growers recognised that their own product was competing against them in the very market in which they were hoping to derive some reasonable returns from their newer clips.As we debate the Wool International Privatisation Bill 1999 and, hopefully, move towards the wool producers taking more charge and responsibility from yard to yarn, it is again sobering to note some other comments from that wool bill debate in 1951 when the then member for Riverina pointed out to the House how, in 1936, it had been necessary to establish a fund to promote wool. Why was this necessary? As the honourable member said:At that time the industry was said to be threatened by synthetics and all sorts of other dubious materials that were on the market. In fact, some of our best informed economists imagined that the end of the wool industry was in sight and never again would be a profitable industry. They prophesied that synthetics would obliterate it.The same debate detailed how the wool acquisition scheme of World War II resulted in an accumulation of 10 million bales. It was thought it might take between 15 and 20 years to get rid of that stockpile. Some growers sold their merinos in anticipation of a prolonged glut, but it took but a fraction of that time to sell the wool. Oh, that the world was so hungry for the product today when one million bales still pose a major marketplace hurdle. One must remember the roller-coaster ride wool had after World War II, with the pound a pound days of the Korean War replaced by despair not so many years later, climaxing in the 106c a kilo days of the early seventies.From that point on, there is a litany of examples of government stuff-ups that helped erode wool's share of the world fibre market, irrespective of the increasing improvement in other man-made fibre. As one producer in my electorate told me, virtually everything the government did could not have been better designed to maximise the losses, both financial and social, to Australia's wool growers. The producer, Ted O'Brien from Bylong, believes that, ever since the government hijacked the management of wool marketing, there has been no real talk of developing new markets for wool beyond fiddling around the edges of existing markets. Some might not agree with Ted when he says the present government's determination to dump the stockpile no matter what has caused more injury to people in the industry than the decisions of the Hawke government. But, whoever were the worst managers, it is agreed the industry itself, given the right circumstances and personnel, will make a better fist of marketing wool than government or quasi-governmental bodies have done in the past.But it is sobering to note the comments of NFF President, Ian Donges, who sees the process set in train by this bill as `reincarnating' Wool International. The intention of this bill should, of course, be to try to reincarnate the stockpile as an asset rather than as a burden. Thousands of farmer shareholders will now theoretically be responsible for disposal of this asset. I say `theoretically', because up to 40 per cent of the shares in Wool International are yet to be allocated and will be held by a trustee company. We do not yet know who will hold the voting rights for this trustee company. We do know that such a voting block has enormous potential to vote in a way not in the interests of those growers and shareholders who are out there active in the industry—actually growing wool, not speculating with it. There are other concerns with some growers questioning the structure of WoolStock Australia Ltd. What will be the motives of any trustee company vote? Short-term gain or long-term stability?There are growers in the industry who question why the government says it wants out of management of the stockpile and yet is controlling the appointment of board members. There is concern about the government's appointment of the first three directors who, in turn, appoint the rest of the board. This does not suggest to me a government getting out of the wool industry. However, I acknowledge the difficulties of establishing a board in the short term. I trust this arrangement will be temporary and shareholders will have a full and open opportunity to elect their own board not too far down the track. Board Chairman Donald McGauchie has made assurances the new company will indeed be a short-term operation, and that he is not settling in for the long term in, as Ian Donges puts it, a `reincarnation of Wool International'.The establishment of WoolStock Australia is but one step in the recovery of the Australian wool industry. The other vital process is that being conducted by the wool industry Future Directions Taskforce, charged with looking at a strategic path for the industry, a benchmarking of wool against its competitors, and reviews of wool marketing and promotion and structures for wool research and development. This process is going to be difficult, given the variety of views around the nation about what to do with our wool industry.But I know the growers in my area are frustrated at the lack of input they have had with the process that decides how and where their product ends up. Might I refer the House to comments from the head of the ANZ Agribusiness Advisory Unit, Bruce Brown, in the February issue of Australian Farm Journal. In that, he published a table showing how much it cost to sell Australia's wool and the complicated process to get the product to market. He says, in part:. . . the wool industry seems to spend more time hankering after its glorious past rather than making significant united efforts to revitalise and restructure a convoluted and cost plus handling distribution and processing chain that is incapable of delivering accurate information flows up and down the chain.That is the message I am hearing from concerned growers in my electorate. They feel they have had no part in the process over the years and they now feel it is time for them to take charge. Among many important points Mr Brown makes is the need for cost savings. I agree that core sampling, electronic selling and the movement of wool direct from farm to the wool dump and container would provide significant cost savings and, as Mr Brown says, `a pipeline similar to cotton'. However, he also points out—and this is the concern of growers I have spoken with—that attempts will be made, by entities with vested interests, to frustrate such reforms. Those vested interests with an unnecessary finger in the pie are part of wool's problems. I only hope the Future Directions Taskforce and the new WoolStock Australia are up to the job and are not captive to the same vested interests that have hampered the industry for so long.I have had several talks with Mr Edward Jones, a former marketing director and CEO of Fortuna Fabrics, a man who has developed markets in the textile industry all over the world and who was making commercial deals with China as long ago as 1968. Mr Jones, who lives in my electorate, was the author of the Jumbuck Paper, as a result of his concerns over meat marketing in the 1980s, and later became chairman of Tendapak Technologies. Mr Jones is also a former merino producer who now specialises in growing first-cross ewes. Mr Jones believes a total marketing strategy is needed for the wool industry. He believes the first essential is to deal with the stockpile and he has creative ideas about how the stockpile should be marketed. He believes the industry requires not wool specialists but commercial specialists who can market wool as a desirable and necessary product.Talking of the historical problems with marketing takes me back to some comments I made in the Wool International Amendment Bill debate back in November. I quoted George Gibbons, the Labor member for Calare who was elected for one term in 1929—I am pleased to say I have passed his record of one term—who said:The breeding of distinct types of sheep and the improvement of wool quality are essential if we are to maintain the high prices now obtainable for our wool—that is, at that time—despite the unscientific methods of marketing it.As Mr Jones says, unscientific methods of marketing wool have plagued this industry for too long. He has discussed what I believe are some quite exciting ideas about marketing wool and also marketing the stockpile. He has offered to meet the task force with a view to outlining those not insubstantial suggestions for a proper marketing strategy. He has a strong marketing background, a strong interest in the industry and also a strong background in the meat industry. However, the chairman of the task force, Mr Ian McLachlan, has not yet seen his way clear to inviting Mr Jones to present his ideas to the task force. Mr McLachlan wants Mr Jones to spell out his ideas in writing before he is considered for a guernsey. Mr Jones quite rightly wants to protect the commercial confidence of some of his ideas. Because of his track record in the meat and textile industries, I think his request warrants more considerate treatment than he has received to date. I only hope the task force looks for and listens to as wide a range of experience as possible and, importantly, experience outside the existing wool industry, because largely that industry has not got it right, along with government meddling over many years.The market for wool has changed enormously since the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s. We need far more creative marketing strategies to make people want wool. For too long it seems there has been a feeling that all will be well, that wool will re-establish its rightful place in the market. But times have changed, tastes have changed; markets have changed dramatically. There are no Soviet bloc or Chinese armies on the march, thank God. Nor is there a God-given place for wool in world markets anymore. Growers want more say in their industry from now on. But they also want government to put in place those necessary mechanisms to support the industry and, where necessary, help inefficient growers withdraw from the industry. They expect leadership on issues like disease control. This government has been dragged reluctantly into the Johne's disease control program and, despite the budget allocations, it seems government procrastination—both state and federal—over 20 years has seriously delayed a concerted attack on this disease which is causing so much distress in the industry.There has been a selfish producer element within the industry on this issue that has refused to acknowledge the seriousness of the disease—or perhaps wanted to hide its seriousness—to protect their flocks and income at the expense of the industry as a whole. It is imperative that government continue to support and encourage every endeavour by the wool industry to tackle the challenges ahead. There have been major troughs and peaks in the past, and I am hopeful we are finally on the path to getting it right.Any member who has kept in touch with his wool growing constituency will know the passion these producers have for their product. We all know what a quality product wool is. We also know just how much our rural communities still depend on wool, and the flow-on impact it has through the towns, the rural suppliers, the transport industry and so on.Normally I would not be optimistic about wool's chances in a current world market dominated by `all sorts of other dubious materials' as the then member for Riverina said in that debate way back in 1951. However, wool's competition today is not from dubious but from high quality materials, and it is a very serious challenge. But, because it is the wool growing community, I am confident the ingenuity of wool growers in both seeking niche markets and in finding ways to promote their product through closer involvement in the marketing process will win through. This bill will hopefully begin that process if it truly allows the producers to become genuine players in the marketing pipeline. With the reservations I have outlined, I commend the bill to the house.16:54:005224Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRNOK6Eden-MonaroLP10—The Monaro region of my electorate produces some of the best fine wool in the world. It also produces some of the best breeding stock in the country. Even with the horrendous drought the Monaro has seen over the past five years, the region has been able to maintain its high quality. Somehow the wool growers of the Monaro win the many battles put up against them. Whether it be the drought, low wool prices or state government legislation restricting their control of their land, they find a way through it.When the floor price of wool literally went through the floor, one wool growing family in the Monaro, Peter and Clare Smith, did something different. Instead of adding their wool to the stockpile, they made jumpers and other wool products. That company is Toorallie Wool and now has a number of shops right throughout Australia and overseas, including New Zealand and America.But many of the Monaro wool growers continued to add their wool to the stockpile. I have many constituents who have a vested interest in the stockpile. Therefore, I have a vested interest myself in the Wool International Privatisation Bill 1999 which will effectively privatise the stockpile. It is legislation to give back to the rightful owners of the stockpile their asset. It will be their asset to determine what happens to it. They can decide. Why should government be there making decisions on their behalf? It is right and proper for the people who have the real investment in the stockpile to make the decisions about its disposal. That is what this legislation is all about.It has come about as a result of dissatisfaction by the wool growers in how their industry was being run. Without going back over old ground, suffice to say the wool growers expressed their anger and dissatisfaction by voting out the board who had been acting on their behalf. As a consequence of that action, the federal government set up the McGauchie committee to look at the future of the stockpile and the McLachlan committee to look at the future of the industry, in particular the promotion and marketing of it.The Wool International Privatisation Bill 1999 is the result of the McGauchie committee's work. I believe it is the correct result. I know that some people in the industry in my electorate were not happy when the government last year froze sales from the stockpile. But it was a contentious issue, because it seemed that no matter who you asked you got a differing view. While many wool growers were very happy with the decision that we made in relation to the freezing of the stockpile, there was also a number of people who were not happy.I remember being at a function in Nimmitabel—right in the middle of the Monaro—one night shortly after we made that decision. I was sitting talking with a wool grower who is also in the broking area, and he was telling me that it was a wrong decision and that we should not have frozen the stockpile at that time. I said, `Well, I disagree with you. I think it is the right thing to do.' As I was debating the point with him, another wool grower walked behind me, patted me on the back and said, `Great decision that was that your government made in freezing the stockpile.' I stopped and said, `That says it all.' That was really the case.There were differing views, but I think the overwhelming view at the end of the day was that it was a right decision. We succeeded in achieving what we thought it would do—that is, stabilise the price of wool and move it up. I am not normally one who would support the interference of the government in the market with those sorts of things. But in this particular case I sat back and thought: the wool stockpile is a major asset. It is really no different from any other private organisation that has a product on the market. At any particular time the market is not going all that well, there is an oversupply, and therefore it is not unusual for a private organisation to hold back supply at various times until the market price improves. That is the normal way in which the free market works. I believe that, in doing that with the stockpile, we had some effect on the price. The initial reaction was a price rise, then there was a steadying, with some rises and falls since then, but certainly we are in a better position than we were before the stockpile was frozen.Having gone through all of that, the government needed to make a definitive decision about the asset—that is, the stockpile. We were firmly of the view that, at the end of the day, the wool growers themselves had to make those decisions. Wool growers who have paid into that stockpile will become the shareholders. Each existing registered equity holder will receive one share in WoolStock Australia Ltd for each unit held by them. Basically, the existing Wool International will be privatised and the private entity of WoolStock Australia Ltd will own the asset. WoolStock Australia will be exempt from income tax on any amounts received from sales of stockpile wool and incidental activities in connection with selling the stockpile wool and distribution of the proceeds. That is a very important aspect and, I think, a useful provision that has been put into this legislation; it is certainly something that wool growers in my area were extremely happy about.Another part of the structure is for the establishment of a trust company which will hold the units of persons and shares of members who cannot, for a number of reasons, have their units and/or their shares transferred to them. There has been some criticism of this measure by some commentators. However, the numbers that will come into that category within the trust account have diminished in recent times. I would suggest that, as we get closer to a meeting of the shareholders, many more of those unknown people will be identified. I think they will come out of the woodwork and be there as shareholders in their own right as we get closer and closer to this.Donald McGauchie has been appointed chairman of the new company, with Reg Clairs and Mr Van Rooyan as directors. These appointments have been made by government to allow the company to get under way. Additional directors will be elected by the shareholders ultimately in the normal commercial way. A meeting of shareholders will have to take place within three months of the formation of the new company, which effectively will be 1 July this year.One of the concerns of many wool growers is that WoolStock Australia Ltd will simply be Wool International mark II. As I came in the chamber to join in this debate, I heard the member for Calare also make the point that a number of people have raised that issue. I can understand the concerns of wool growers in that respect. They really have not been happy with the structure that has been there. I think there have been people looking after certain vested interests. Certainly, I recognise those concerns completely.I know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that in another capacity you have worked with me and others of the government to get to this point with this legislation, and the government has a real commitment to ensuring that we do not end up with Wool International mark II. We know only too well that, if we did end up with that type of result, it would not be healthy for the confidence of the industry. I think at this point in time we have to ensure that there is that strong confidence from the industry about where it goes from here.I have certainly assured wool growers in my electorate that we will not allow there to be such an outcome. I have expressed that assurance to wool growers such as John King, President of Region 11 of the New South Wales Farmers Federation in my area, and other wool growers like Sid Walters down at Dalgety. I know what they have endured, and I want to make sure that they have the best possible opportunity to have real control over their asset.One of the other matters of contention has been the issue of whether the stockpile should be sold holus-bolus. Some people felt that the McGauchie committee should have been able to make such a recommendation to government. While I strongly believe that anyone interested in purchasing the entire stockpile should be given every opportunity to put their offer, I do not believe that it is the right of government to consider and possibly accept any such offer. That is clearly a decision for the shareholders, the wool growers.I know that there are a couple of potential buyers who have been working very hard on quite legitimate offers. One of those is Keith Campbell who himself was a wool grower along with his wife Sophie in the Bombala district in my electorate; another is a group led by David Sasson. I know that Keith is very keen to put an offer to wool growers. He has put together very broad expertise, including banking and processing people, and has been working for some time on such an offer. I am not aware of some of the details of the other group, but I am sure, equally so, that an enormous amount of work has gone into their offer. Certainly market research has been done, people have been talking with overseas processors, bankers, accountants, et cetera.At the end of the day, I would want to see all of those offers being given every opportunity. I know that Keith is particularly keen to put that offer to wool growers. When we get further through this with the legislation being passed, I hope that will be the case. Certainly I hope that the interim board of WoolStock Australia will assist. The McGauchie committee, as it currently is, has access to a lot of information—a lot of due diligence I think has already been given to this matter—but I hope that whatever information they can legally make available to those various groups putting offers together is made available to them, because I would not like to see this go on for a long, long time. Whatever assistance can be given early on will certainly allow the process to continue a lot faster at a later time. I also hope that the board allows any ensuing offers, the ones that do come forward, to be put forward to the shareholders as soon as possible after the company's formation. The wool growers then can decide whether they should accept an offer or whether they should continue to dispose of the stockpile in other ways. That action is for them to decide.There is one other point regarding that decision. There was concern that legislation would call for a 75 per cent vote in those sorts of circumstances. It was a strong rumour that was running around in the development of the legislation. I do not know where it came from. I know that the government and the wool subcommittee on the government side always saw that it should operate under normal commercial terms—that is, 50 per cent plus one. That should be the voting pattern, and that is the voting pattern. That is what is provided in the legislation. As soon as the company is private, as soon as the additional directors are elected, as soon as the board can allow, these sorts of things should be the discussion of the shareholders. And the shareholders can make those decisions whether to accept a buy-out offer or whether to continue to sell down on the stockpile at whatever rate. They can make that commercial decision.This structure is a proper commercial structure. WoolStock Australia should be able to operate in a normal commercial way. Shareholders can elect directors. Shareholders can make decisions such as when and what price they will sell part or all of the asset, the wool stockpile. The shareholders are those wonderful wool growers of Australia, including many from the Monaro district in my electorate. They should have control of their destiny, and this legislation gives that to them. I commend the bill to the House.5227Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—(5.09 p.m.)—I want to take the opportunity to make some relatively brief remarks on the Wool International Privatisation Bill 1999 . I do so against the background of growing up in the bush in north-western New South Wales in a town called Baradine. At the age of 16 my father lost his job. The reason he lost his job was that there was a rural recession at that time. He worked in the town in the hardware store. Associated with that recession was a decision to implement wheat quotas—for government to enter into the market and to implement wheat quotas. Also at that time there was a very sharp drop in wool prices.As a consequence of all that, the prosperity of the surrounding farm lands had plummeted and that had affected the town itself. My father lost his job and we moved to Sydney. So I have an interest in this legislation because that whole incident brought into my mind the wisdom or otherwise of government getting involved in the sale and marketing of primary products. It did not seem to be a spectacularly successful involvement back in 1970, and I am not sure that anything we have seen in the 30 years since that time has demonstrated that governments seeking to effectively manipulate world markets for primary agricultural products has been successful.Against that background, I think I can say that the legislation that is before us today effectively is the end point of a set of policy decisions taken by the Labor government to get this large wool stockpile disposed of in a regular, predictable and orderly fashion. That has taken some time. As I say, the legislation does constitute the end of that road, which is pretty encouraging. But along the road, unfortunately, we have seen some major hiccups in the form of the coalition government losing its nerve at a critical time and putting a freeze on the stockpile. It is a freeze that I want to talk a little bit more about.Back in 1991 there were just under five million bales of wool in the stockpile. Now there are around one million bales. The disposal program that had been implemented by the Labor government and which was proceeding in a steady and predictable fashion came under a lot of pressure in 1997-98 largely because of the Asian crisis and weaker European demand. Those two factors pushed down the wool price. In fact, the eastern market indicator fell from 738c per kilogram clean in 1997 to 554c per kilogram at the start of 1998-99 and under 500c per kilogram before climbing again to 534c per kilogram in early April 1999.From 1994 to 1996 Wool International was required to sell wool from the stockpile according to a very clearly fixed schedule, but a new more flexible wool stockpile disposal schedule was introduced with the Wool International Amendment Act 1996. That act required Wool International to dispose of all the stockpiled wool by 31 December 2000, to impose lower and upper caps on its quarterly sales of stockpiled wool of 90,000 and 350,000 bales per quarter respectively and to retire the debt associated with the stockpile by the end of 1998.Then the first hiccup occurred. In March 1998 the target date for repayment of the wool stockpile debt was extended for up to six months. But then just before the federal election the coalition was spooked. The person who did the spooking was Pauline Hanson and Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party. They were so worried about the impact of One Nation in the bush that a decision was taken by the coalition cabinet to place a freeze on the stockpile. That decision was quite contrary to the recommendation of the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy and I think it is reasonable to expect that it was also contrary to the position of the Deputy Prime Minister.So the question must be asked: if the primary industries minister and the Deputy Prime Minister opposed a freeze on the stockpile, who supported it? The answer is that Pauline Hanson supported it; she was in effect in the cabinet room on that day. The other people who supported it would have to have been the Western Australian Liberal Party. So we had a situation where the National Party was rolled by the Liberal Party of Western Australia. Of course, the position was supported by Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party, because they had announced that it was their policy to freeze the stockpile. On 21 December last year the law was enacted to officially freeze the sale of wool from the stockpile until the end of June this year when Wool International was to be replaced by a private company—WoolStock Australia. Today we are debating the enabling legislation for that.The decision to freeze the stockpile was a folly. There are some estimates that it cost Australian wool growers up to $20 million in the form of interest charges and extra storage fees. What did it achieve? It achieved absolutely nothing. There has been no positive impact on the international price of wool from this decision to freeze the stockpile. It was an ill-conceived policy with no benefit to farmers. In fact, the effect of moving from a scheduled, predictable reduction in the stockpile to a temporary freeze was to add unnecessary uncertainty in the international wool market. So it is reasonable then for buyers to respond to that by wondering when the resumption of the disposal of the stockpile may occur.It is quite possible—in fact I think likely—that the decision to freeze the stockpile, by creating added uncertainty, actually could have contributed to weaker prices in the international wool market. We have a situation where the coalition government almost clutched defeat out of the jaws of victory by implementing this freeze. Yet again we have an example of the National Party letting down the bush.HX4KATTERMr Katter—Are you one of these economic rationalists?83VEmerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON—I hear from the member for Kennedy. The second example that we have of the National Party letting down the bush is in last night's budget where, of course, the National Party acquiesced to the full sale of Telstra by having all of the proceeds from the full sale of Telstra incorporated into the budget. It is there in the documents for all to see, including the member for Kennedy. I would be fascinated to hear what his reaction is to the fact that his National Party colleagues in the cabinet have sold out the bush by agreeing to the full sale of Telstra and completely reneging on the promise that they made, that the Deputy Prime Minister made, that there would not be a full sale of Telstra unless an independent inquiry found that service provision in the bush was adequate. We know that, as a result of the decisions taken in putting that budget together, there is absolutely no point in that inquiry proceeding, because the decision has already been made. In the freeze of this wool stockpile we have a classic example of the National Party letting down the people of the bush. That same pattern was repeated in last night's budget, with the National Party yet again letting down the bush and provincial Australia.I find it fascinating that the coalition is against a national coal authority on the basis that they do not believe that a national coal authority could effectively and positively influence the international price of coal. I happen to agree with them on that point, yet they have believed that a national wool authority can affect the world price in a positive way. I would be very interested in hearing from the National Party the explanation for their belief that a national wool authority can affect to our advantage the international price of wool but that a national coal authority cannot do the same with respect to coal. My own belief is that neither of them can in the long term produce good results for rural Australia.We do have to recognise that synthetics and other countries offer very genuine and tough competition for Australian wool. As a result of that we are not effectively price setters in the international market for wool. So now we have the creation through this legislation of WoolStock Australia, effectively a privatised company. It is a policy that was announced by the Labor government several years ago. It has been a fair while coming. As I say, there have been a number of major hiccups along the way as the National Party and the coalition government have intervened in this process and implemented a very silly policy of a freeze in the stockpile.Having said that, I am happy to wish WoolStock Australia very well. I note that in the constitution for WoolStock Australia, to be approved by the minister, is the provision of up to $300 million—about 0.6 per cent of the estimated net value of the stockpile—be used for the purpose of investigating and sponsoring new business activities. We heard from my colleague the member for Lyons. He believes that there is capacity for a privatised corporation to come up with more innovative business activities and marketing strategies, perhaps more innovative than a more constrained operation that has been held in government ownership could come up with.The member for Calare raised the issue of whether the government really is getting out of wool marketing. The proposal is for the appointment to the board by the government of the first three positions in this new privatised organisation on the board, with the rest of the board to be appointed by the first three directors. There is a realistic situation, which I hope does not emerge, where the government can very strongly, at least initially, influence the policies and behaviour of this privatised board. I hope that will not be the case. I accept that there is possible justification for this in the transition to a fully independent board.I end on this note, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would be very interested to hear from the member for Kennedy who is to speak next. I would also be very interested to hear from the member for Dawson who is not here but often has opinions that she likes to express. I would be interested to know just what their attitudes are to the very disappointing and shameful decision that has been taken in the context of the budget to completely repudiate the commitment that the National Party made that there would not be a full sale of Telstra unless an independent inquiry—and I emphasise `independent'—was first convened and unless that independent inquiry found that there was adequate provision of services by Telstra.Neither of those things is really going to happen because an official government decision, as incorporated in the budget figures, has been made to fully privatise Telstra. As a result we can certainly expect to see yet a further withdrawal of services in rural Aus tralia. That has been condoned by the National Party—by the member for Kennedy, who would have been in the party room, and by the member for Dawson when both honourable members said before the election that they would go to the barricades on this issue of the privatisation of Telstra. They have rolled over and have had their tummies tickled. They are obviously quite happy now to sign up to the full privatisation of Telstra with no independent inquiry and with no safeguards on the future service provision by Telstra.17:24:005230Katter, Bob, Jnr, MPMr KATTERHX4KennedyNP10—If only I had two hours but I will have to make do with what I have got. The spirit of Mark Latham is not dead in the Labor Party, I can see, and it worries me greatly that there are people like this in the Labor Party. I thought they had learnt their lesson after the terrible hiding they got in the last election after imposing 12 years of economic rationalism on this country. I do not cast aspersions on the Leader of the House at the present moment, because I think he got punished severely for having the temerity to question the policies of economic rationalism, and we applaud Mr Swan for his courage at the time.One of my good friends, a journalist from Queensland and one of the people from my own homeland, the mid-west of north Queensland, wrote in an article recently that only sheep have to wear wool. That is the problem for the sheep growers. The basic point that she is making is that we have to accept the world market price. There are no great characteristics about wool which ensure that people will have to wear wool as they wear leather shoes.The National Geographic had a cover story on wool some years ago. It was an excellent article. It said that wool has three times the absorption rate of almost all other fibres. This is a very important characteristic, as you would be well aware, particularly with respect to clothing. The Mongols of the deserts west of China use it for raincoats, blankets, tents and everything known to man, and it has been very effective in providing a range of virtually everything that they need in the way of clothing and protection from the elements.Wool has a property of non-combustibility. One of the excellent advertising campaigns is done by the group from Toowoomba that sells wool insulation. The lady involved puts the artificial fibre on top of the wool fibre in her hand, strikes a cigarette lighter, and then burns the insulation material. She then puts it down on the desk and there is a bright flame. It graphically illustrates the enormous insulating properties that wool has, which makes it such a remarkable fibre. In an age when we have natural and renewal fibres that are all the rage, it should be a commodity coming into its own because it is a natural and renewable fibre. The trend and the fashion would indicate that wool should be flying high.I was a very young man in the dark days of wool in the last 1960s and because my father was a member of parliament—and even before he was a member of parliament—I went to a number of the meetings. It was clear to me that wool was finished. In the 1960s many of us decided that wool was a commodity that had no place in the modern world. Labour costs in this country and throughout the world were soaring and, of course, it was a high labour input commodity. Therefore, it had no place in the modern world.We had gone through a long period of drought at that time in Australia and it was clear that it was very difficult indeed to make a profit in wool, or in cattle for that matter, because of the dry nature of this continent. That was the second reason people like me decided that there was no future in wool.It was the age of artificial fibres. We all thought we were very suave and up-market when we ran around in our nylon shirts. They abraded us underneath the arms but we wore them because we were a bundle of style in those nylon shirts. But after a while the style wore off and the abrasions became quite acute so we moved back to cotton and more natural fibres.The third area was mechanisation. It was an age where if you could not mass-produce an item with machines then, clearly, that was an item that we should not have; it should not exist. For all of those reasons there was no faith in that industry whatsoever. Those people who took a longer view—I did not—looked at wool and said, `It has been around for about 10,000 years. As long as man has been man it has been around, so maybe there is some value in it.' Those people who made those financial decisions made an awful lot of money.At the time, there was a politician of some considerable force and some considerable leadership in this country, and he took a position which was not the position of the official spokesmen of the industry. The official spokesmen of the industry believed we should stay on the free market system, in spite of one of the finer intellects the country has produced in agriculture, Sir William Gunn, advocating strongly that we should involve ourselves—that is, the government or semi-government instrumentalities or the producers acting collectively—in the marketplace, but he was ignored. In fact, he had tomatoes thrown at him on three or four occasions at meetings that he had addressed where he had put up his `communistic proposal', as it was called at the time.That very famous Australian, who deserves very, very great accolades from all of this nation, was Doug Anthony. I am very proud to say that he was the Leader of the National Party. Doug decided to do what he did in spite of the fact that the industry leadership said, `No, we want a free market system,' in spite of the fact that one of the courageous leaders, Sir William Gunn, was thrown out of his leadership position in the industry, in spite of the fact that he had tomatoes hurled at him at a number of meetings, in spite of the extreme unpopularity of that position—and in spite of the fact that he did not really have permission from the government and he did not have the clearance of cabinet. The extraordinary courage it took to do what he did was, looking back on it, quite remarkable indeed.He started buying wool in. Any wool that came on the market—I cannot remember the exact figure; I think it was 40c cents—under 40c he brought in on a buy-in scheme. For some 18 months, in my opinion, he kept buying. The Japanese buyers stayed out of the market saying, `He will lose his nerve.' But he just kept buying. Eventually, the Japanese buyers said, `Heavens, these people are serious. They really are not going to sell their wool any more under 40c.' They said, `I suppose we'll have to pay 40c.' It would have been good if the honourable member who has left the house, who was such a wonderful advocate for the policies of economic rationalism—one of Mr Latham's leadership team, obviously—had stayed here to listen, because when the minimum price scheme was introduced the price went up 300 per cent over the next two years.For those who think that intervention in the marketplace has nothing to do with it, is it not a most remarkable coincidence that when Mr Keating removed the minimum price scheme the price went down 300 per cent in the two years afterwards? Is that not the most remarkable coincidence? The other possibility is that we are not moving in a free market system here, that we are moving in an oligopolistic market system, and maybe you need intervention in the marketplace to get a fair go. Or maybe collectively selling your product is a hell of a lot better than 50,000 of us individually selling a $6,000 million a year commodity, as it was at the time.An argument put up is that there was a hole in the buy-in policy because there were no controls on production—and it was not possible, I would have thought, to get legislation through the House, even in those days, for controls on production, and most certainly getting agreement from the industry would have been impossible—so there was a tendency to overproduce and when the minimum price scheme was kept fairly moderate it did not stimulate overproduction. That is the argument. But on the production levels in the late 1960s, we overstimulated by one hell of a lot because we almost doubled our production of wool when the price went up 300 per cent. You can say, `Why weren't the world markets swamped, and why didn't the price collapse?' I will tell you why: because we advertised.For those of you who like reading important books, I strongly recommend—the author was reviewed in Time magazine as being by one of the most important men of the century, John Kenneth Galbraith; whilst he was not noted as one of the top 100, he most certainly got mentioned as one of the also-rans—The Affluent Society. He puts forward the proposition—and you cannot read this book without accepting the proposition—that you can affect supply by advertising. There is about a $3,000 million a year industry out there at present in Australia that says, `Yes, you can influence the demand for a product with advertising.' Of course, Doug Anthony also put in the advertising element as well.When I buried my father I gave a speech at the funeral. One has to give a lot of thought to what are the really important things to say. At that funeral I said, `Really, the most important thing that ever happened to us west of the Great Dividing Range, in inland Australia, was the introduction of the statutory marketing arrangements in the wool industry.' For the first time in my family's lifetime, in 110 or 120 years in Australia, we saw really solid incomes, the sorts of incomes that meant we could reinvest our money with some degree of confidence in inland Australia—that was for the first time ever.We look across the range to the sugar industry, where they enjoy an income of $89,000 per farmer per year. They have had some terrible times, believe me—they are probably going through one now—but their average income has been $89,000 for the last seven or eight years. And our average income in the wool industry is $13,000 or minus $2,300, depending on which set of figures you want to look at. I read in one recent report that in Queensland we are averaging a suicide every two months in the wool growing areas. Most certainly I know a number of people involved in the industry who have taken that terrible option.For 18 wonderful years, we enjoyed a safe and secure income. Our little towns showed the first modicum of prosperity probably in 60 or 70 years since the Second World War. Then the terrible times occurred. A government and a Treasurer were elected in Australia that believed in this wonderful free market system. I think every intelligent person believes in the free market system. But I think also that every intelligent person realises that certain markets are oligopolistic markets that are controlled by very few buyers and that you are not normally dealing with a free market system. Where you have, as you do have in the wool industry, a market that is dominated by five or six players, and where you have in Australia some 30,000 or 40,000 sellers, then you clearly have an oligopolistic marketplace. Evidence of that fact is that when the minimum price scheme was introduced the price went up 300 per cent over the next two years and when it was removed the price went down 300 per cent. I always enjoy getting into arguments when you produce that simple fact, which everyone is well aware of. Really, there is no argument that one can sustain against that very simple fact.Mr Deputy Speaker Hawker, you yourself did a very wonderful job, in my opinion, of chairing the wool subcommittee of the coalition. You called the 17 members together on the issue of the price freeze which was criticised by the last speaker. I think there were 17 of us on the telephone hook-up that day. All 17 voted—some not—with enthusiasm maybe but most certainly with great aggression for the freezing of that stockpile. One of my great bitches—in fact, I made a very unrestrained attack upon the leadership of my own party at the time over this most important issue; that was the main burr under my saddle at the time—was the failure to freeze the stockpile. Itoh is the biggest buyer of wool, arguably, in the world. Their buyer in Australia said, `If you do not freeze the price, it is going to go down 20 per cent.' If your buyers are saying to you that you should freeze the stockpile, then I think you should really seriously look at freezing the stockpile. I thought that if we froze the stockpile the price would still go down significantly and people would say, `See, it is your fault because you froze the stockpile.' But I was absolutely confident that it would not go down anywhere near as badly if you took 15 per cent—arguably, maybe 20 per cent—of the world's supply of wool off the world's market.Mr Deputy Speaker, as chairman of that committee, you would be well aware that that is what we did. We froze the stockpile and— miracle of miracles as far as I was concerned—not only did the price not go down but it actually went up four or five per cent. I deeply regret that one of our ministers made remarks—which I hope he now regrets—that undermined the confidence in the marketplace. Then the head of Wool International made a second statement which said that it was not fully legal and undermined the confidence in the marketplace again. And then the spokesman for the wool industry councils throughout Australia made a third remark which pulled the price down again. So I hope each of the people making those remarks deeply regrets what they did to the confidence of the industry.Let me come back to what actually happened with the collapse of the price. There was overproduction because the price had gone very high—it went to 1,200c at one stage there—and there was pressure upon the buying group at the time to put the minimum price up to 1,000c. In fact, the New South Wales farmers demanded, at one of their conferences, that it go to 1,000c. They fought off that temptation, but they had to yield a bit, so they went to 870c a kilo. Mr Kerin and Mr Keating had three infamous press conferences. At each of those press conferences—and I watched all three of them—they clearly indicated to the world market that the Australian government would no longer stand behind the price for wool. Mr Keating was very ideologically driven. The member for Petrie suffered his violence. So also did Senator Button, who was a very great loss to this place. But by making those statements they undermined the confidence in the marketplace. You have to understand that what happened here, Mr Deputy Speaker, was like a service station owner putting up a big sign saying that petrol was going to be 30 per cent a litre cheaper next week. So everybody stopped buying petrol, because they were going to fill the tank the next week when it would have been 30 per cent cheaper. That is exactly what the world wool buyers did. They said, `These blokes are not going to stand behind the minimum price scheme. Clearly the Australian government thinks the price is going to go down. We had better stop buying here.' So, of course, they stopped buying, and the price went through the floor because the confidence in the marketplace had been broken by Mr Kerin and by Mr Keating. They were the people who were responsible.Before those infamous press conferences, the price of wool was 890c a kilo and the minimum price was 870c a kilo. We had about a 20 per cent buy-in, if my memory serves me correctly. Whilst 20 or 30 per cent, whatever it was, was a high buy-in level, there was nothing dramatically wrong with the system. But after those infamous press conferences, of course, there was a hell of a lot wrong. The buyers just withdrew en masse from the marketplace. Then Mr Keating used his own destruction of the confidence in the marketplace as an argument—which he intended all the time of course—to dismantle the minimum pricing arrangements because of his profound, blind, ideologically driven belief that everything had to be determined by the marketplace. Someone should have explained to Mr Keating about oligopolism and the influence on the marketplace of a few buyers meeting so many sellers.This brings me to the final point I want to make. The United Graziers Association has been a very conservative body that really always tends to favour a free trade position. John Hamilton from Nelia in North Queensland said to them, `Mr McGauchie, I am not interested in this buying group providing shares and great share value. I am not interested in share value. I am interested in the value of the price of the wool. I am not a share trader. I am a wool producer.' Almost every single one on that council backed Hamilton very strongly. I would hope that the minister and Mr McGauchie take into consideration that there is a group out there—as Mr McGauchie, strangely enough, said in his own speech that day—who prefer to sell into the spikes rather than into the troughs. If they perform in the marketplace, they most certainly can affect it and they can move back towards the sort of situation which kept us a very happy industry and in prosperity we had never dreamed of for nearly two decades in the bush. I would plead with everyone who is a decision maker involved in this to look back to those golden years and to learn the lessons from the history of this industry.17:44:005234Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTrade10—in reply—Firstly, may I thank all members who have participated in the debate on the Wool International Privatisation Bill 1999 . It is a historic and quite significant bill in terms of the wool industry in Australia and exactly where we are as far as the wool industry in Australia is concerned at the moment.This bill, which provides for the conversion of Wool International into a Corporations Law company—WoolStock Australia—has received the closest scrutiny through a lengthy consultation process. As the previous speaker, the member for Kennedy, indicated, the chairman of the Interim Advisory Board, Mr McGauchie, has been consulting widely across Australia with wool growers, the shareholders and the entitlement holders in the stockpile.It has received the closest scrutiny through a lengthy consultation process at a number of different levels. I am confident it enjoys the strong support of the wool industry. Wool International unit holders will retain their rights to share in the equity from the stockpile sales and will additionally be issued shares in WoolStock Australia. The new company will operate on a commercial basis, independent of government control, and will have a fully commercial board of directors. Importantly, WoolStock Australia will be exempt from income tax on its stockpile activities.The rights of Wool International equity holders will be protected, although there is scope for the company to take new directions if there is strong support from shareholders to do so. Up to $3 million can be used by the company to investigate and possibly support new business activities.Over the past few months, there has been widespread debate within the wool industry on this issue. One thing is very clear: the wool industry supports the privatisation of Wool International and can see the many benefits of a fully commercial operation free from the constraints of government influence and control.I recently announced the appointment of Mr Donald McGauchie as chairman-designate of WoolStock Australia and Mr Reg Clairs and Mr Brian van Rooyen as directors-designate. I am particularly pleased that these prominent commercial directors have agreed to participate as members of the board at the launch of this new company. The Interim Advisory Board's work so far in developing a business plan for the new entity has been invaluable. They are well placed to manage the new company to maximise the benefit to unit holders and shareholders. Stability is the key to a profitable and successful company in the future, and these appointments provide that stability. I also believe that the unit holders have the right and the obligation to make decisions on who runs their company.Under Corporations Law, a further three directors will be appointed by the board of WoolStock following consultation with industry. Their appointments will be subject to shareholder endorsement at the inaugural general meeting of the company, which will be held soon after conversion. As is normal Corporations Law practice, the terms of one-third of the board will expire each year. I firmly believe this process strikes a balance between the interest of the shareholders in choosing a board accountable to them and the need for stability in the critical first months of the company's existence.The role of the trustee company received considerable focus in recent weeks during that extensive consultative process that I indicated had been undertaken. I hope that the number of shares managed by TrusteeCo will fall quickly. I am aware the board-designate of WoolStock sees as a priority the need for those unit holders whose names are incorrectly registered to be encouraged to properly record their details before the first general meeting of the company. I can confirm that the role of TrusteeCo will be an independent one. The chairman or directors of WoolStock Australia will not sit on the board of TrusteeCo. The TrusteeCo board will act only in the interests of its beneficiaries. Mr McGauchie fully supports this approach, and this should dispel any concerns that may be raised. The government is aware of the considerable interest in increasing the depth and liquidity of the market for WoolStock shares. While WoolStock Australia will not, at least initially, be a listed company, it is the intention of the board-designate that exempt markets for the units and shares be developed. Mr McGauchie has, therefore, initiated investigations into the development of such a market for WoolStock equity with a number of potential sponsors.Some in the industry have indicated that some shareholders may wish the company to conduct business activities beyond selling the stockpile. This is a serious matter for the shareholders to decide and is not something for the government to be involved in. It should be decided by the new board after serious consideration of the wishes and rights of all shareholders. I believe the wool industry will support the protection being written into the company's constitution.In conclusion, I wish to acknowledge the considerable contribution made to this process by the Interim Advisory Board, headed by Mr Donald McGauchie. The Interim Advisory Board has worked very hard not only in developing a draft business plan for the new company but in liaising and consulting with the wool industry throughout the process. The appointment of Mr McGauchie to the chair of the WoolStock board-designate and of Wool International in the period until 30 June will facilitate the transition to a private sector company. I am very conscious in particular of the uncertainties that have faced the staff of Wool International about their future, and this arrangement will assist in the bedding down of the new organisation.We have before us this evening a new era in stockpile management. I certainly consider it a privilege to have been involved in this process of taking the decision that was taken by the government prior to the last election to the point where we are now on the verge of taking this legislation through this House and through the Senate so the rightful owners—the shareholders and entitlement holders—in that stockpile will take control in the ultimate destiny of that stockpile. I look forward to the active participation of those shareholders and the new board in the management of that stockpile beyond 30 June. On behalf of the government, I commend the bill to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.5235Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Vaile) read a third time.Bills5235r6535235Motion (by Mr Slipper)—by leave—agreed to:That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration moving an amendment to Schedule 1 of the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 during the consideration of amendments made by the Senate to the Bill.5235Consideration resumed from 18 February.Senate's amendments—(1) Clause 2, page 2 (line 1), omit ", 9, 10, 18, 29, 36, 49, 59 and 69", substitute "and 9".(2) Clause 2, page 2 (lines 4 and 5), omit subclause (3), substitute: (3) Items 19, 20 and 24 commence on a date to be fixed by Proclamation.(3) Clause 4, page 2 (line 12), omit "amendments made by items 44, 45 and 46 apply", substitute "amendment made by item 46 applies".(4) Schedule 1, item 8, page 3 (line 27), omit "100 penalty units", substitute "1,000 penalty units".(5) Schedule 1, item 9, page 4 (line 2), omit "100 penalty units", substitute "1,000 penalty units".(6) Schedule 1, item 10, page 4 (lines 3 and 4), omit the item.(7) Schedule 1, items 11 and 12, page 4 (lines 5 to 23), omit the items.(8) Schedule 1, item 13, page 4 (lines 24 to 26), omit the item.(9) Schedule 1, item 14, page 4 (line 27) to page 5 (line 14), omit the item. (10) Schedule 1, items 15 to 17, page 5 (lines 15 to 23), omit the items.(11) Schedule 1, item 18, page 5 (lines 24 and 25), omit the item.(12) Schedule 1, items 21 to 23, page 6 (lines 13 to 20), omit the items.(13) Schedule 1, item 25, page 7 (lines 4 to 12), omit the item.(14) Schedule 1, items 26 and 27, page 7 (lines 13 to 16), omit the items.(15) Schedule 1, item 28, page 7 (line 17) to page 8 (line 3), omit the item.(16) Schedule 1, item 29, page 8 (lines 4 and 5), omit the item.(17) Schedule 1, items 30 and 31, page 8 (lines 6 to 13), omit the items.(18) Schedule 1, page 8 (after line 13), after item 31, insert:31A Subsection 186(1)After "must send", insert "or arrange for the delivery of".(19) Schedule 1, items 32 to 35, page 8 (lines 14 to 21), omit the items.(20) Schedule 1, item 36, page 8 (lines 22 and 23), omit the item.(21) Schedule 1, items 37 to 42, page 8 (line 24) to page 9 (line 22), omit the items.(22) Schedule 1, page 9 (after line 25), after item 43, insert:43A Subsection 287(1) (paragraph (b) of the definition of associated entity )Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (b) operates wholly or to a significant extent for the benefit of one or more registered political parties.(23) Schedule 1, page 9 (after line 25), after item 43, insert:43B Subsection 305(1)Omit "during that disclosure period", substitute "at any time".43C Paragraph 305(1)(a)After "person" (first occurring), insert "during that disclosure period".(24) Schedule 1, item 44, page 9 (lines 26 and 27), omit the item.(25) Schedule 1, page 9 (after line 27), after item 44, insert:44A After subsection 305B(3)Insert: (3A) The return must also set out the relevant details of all gifts received by the person at any time, being gifts used to make gifts the whole or part of which were used to make gifts totalling $1,500 or more in a financial year to the same registered political party or the same State branch of a registered political party and the amount or value of each of which is equal to or exceeds $1,000. (3B) Relevant details for the purpose of subsection (3A), in relation to a gift, are: (a) the amount or value of the gift; and (b) the date on which the gift was made; and (c) in the case of a gift made on behalf of the members of an unincorporated association, other than a registered industrial organisation: (i) the name of the association; and (ii) the names and addresses of the members of the executive committee (however described) of the association; and (d) in the case of a gift purportedly made out of a trust fund or out of the funds of a foundation: (i) the names and addresses of the trustees of the fund or of the funds of the foundation; and (ii) the title or other description of the trust fund or the name of the foundation, as the case requires; and (e) in any other case—the name and address of the person who made the gift.(26) Schedule 1, page 9 (after line 27), after item 44, insert:44B After section 306Insert:306A Certain loans not to be received (1) It is unlawful for a political party or a State branch of a political party or a person acting on behalf of a political party or a State branch of a political party to receive a loan of $1,500 or more from a person or entity other than a financial institution unless the loan is made in accordance with subsection (3). (2) It is unlawful for a candidate or a member of a group or a person acting on behalf of a candidate or group to receive a loan of $1,500 or more from a person or entity other than a financial institution unless the loan is made in accordance with subsection (3). (3) The receiver of the loan must keep a record of the following: (a) the terms and conditions of the loan; (b) if the loan was received from a registered industrial organisation other than a financial institution: (i) the name of the organisation; and (ii) the names and addresses of the members of the executive committee (however described) of the organisation; (c) if the loan was received from an unincorporated association: (i) the name of the organisation or association; and (ii) the names and addresses of the members of the executive committee (however described) of the association or organisation; (d) if the loan was paid out of a trust fund or out of the funds of a foundation: (i) the names and addresses of the trustees of the fund or of the foundation; and (ii) the title or other description of the trust fund, or the name of the foundation as the case requires; or (e) in any other case—the name and address of the person or organisation. (4) For the purpose of subsection (2), a person who is a candidate in an election is taken to remain a candidate for 30 days after the polling day in the election. (5) For the purpose of subsection (2), persons who constituted a group in an election are taken to continue to constitute the same group for 30 days after the polling day in the election. (6) Where a person receives a loan that, by virtue of this section, it is unlawful for the person to receive, an amount equal to the amount or value of the loan is payable by that person to the Commonwealth and may be recovered by the Commonwealth as a debt due to the Commonwealth by action, in a court of competent jurisdiction, against: (a) in the case of a loan to or for the benefit of a political party or a State branch of a political party: (i) if the party or branch, as the case may be is a body corporate—the party or branch, as the case may be; or (ii) in any other case—the agent of the party or branch, as the case may be; or (b) in any other case—the candidate or a member of the group or the agent of the candidate or of the group, as the case may be. (7) In this section: financial institution means an entity which carries on a business that consists of, or includes, the provision of financial services or financial products and which is: (a) a bank; or (b) a credit union; or (c) a building society; or (d) any other entity registered under the Australian Financial Institutions Commission Codes as a special service provider. Note: See section 111AZB of the Corporations Law for the Australian Financial Institutions Commission Codes. loan means: (a) an advance of money; or (b) a provision of credit or any other form of financial accommodation; or (c) a payment of an amount for, on account of, on behalf of or at the request of, an entity, if there is an express or implied obligation to repay the amount; or (d) a transaction (whatever its terms or form) which in substance effects a loan of money.(27) Schedule 1, page 9 (after line 27), after item 44, insert:44C Subsection 314AA(1) (definition of amount )After "gift", insert ", loan or".(28) Schedule 1, item 45, page 9 (lines 28 and 29), omit the item.(29) Schedule 1, page 10 (after line 2), after item 46, insert:46A After paragraph 314AC(3)(b)Insert: (ba) if the sum was received as a result of a loan—the information required to be kept under subsection 306A(3), or the name of the financial institution, as the case requires; or(30) Schedule 1, item 49, page 10 (lines 18 to 21), omit the item. (31) Schedule 1, items 53 and 54, page 11 (lines 5 to 23), omit the items.(32) Schedule 1, item 59, page 12 (lines 14 and 15), omit the item.(33) Schedule 1, page 12 (after line 23), after item 63, insert:63A Subsection 58(1)After "shall send", insert "or arrange for the delivery of".(34) Schedule 1, item 69, page 13 (lines 17 to 20), omit the item.17:53:005238Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—I would like to indicate to the House that the government proposes that amendments Nos 1 to 20, 22 to 25 and 27 to 34 be agreed to, that amendments Nos 21 and 26 be disagreed to, but that amendments be made in place thereof, and that an unrelated amendment to schedule 1 be made. May I suggest, therefore, that it may suit the convenience of the House to first consider Senate amendments Nos 1 to 20, 22 to 25 and 27 to 34 and, when those amendments have been disposed of, to consider Senate amendments Nos 21 and 26 individually and then the unrelated amendment which I propose moving.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hawker)—Is the house in agreement with that proposal?YU5TANNERMr Tanner—Yes.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—I move:That Senate amendments Nos (1) to (20), (22) to (25) and (27) to (34) be agreed to.The Senate debated the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 in February 1999 and passed the bill with 34 amendments. It is obviously clear that the government would have preferred the bill to pass unamended. However, upon consideration, the government is moving to accept the majority of the amendments made by the Senate to the bill.In those instances where the government is not agreeing with the amendments adopted by the Senate, the government is moving its own amendments which better achieve the aims the bill sets out to accomplish. As I have foreshadowed today, I am therefore moving government amendments to replace Senate amendments 21 and 26 and correct an anomaly resulting from the Senate amendments, as well as an additional amendment to correct two technical drafting errors.17:56:005238Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—The Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 has been around for too long. It was first introduced into the Senate on 14 May 1998. It did not get through the last parliament because the bulk of its proposed measures were devised with the sole intent of providing political advantage to the conservatives. Of course, the parliament saw through why the government was trying to ram it through on the eve of the election. In particular, the legislation as proposed by the government encapsulated the Liberal Party's long obsession and paranoia about unsubstantiated electoral fraud, measures to disenfranchise large numbers of electors, and massive increases in electoral funding and disclosure thresholds to allow large sums of money to go undisclosed.The Senate was very effective in eliminating most of the negative, partisan and politically motivated measures contained within this legislation. In fact, the Senate has actually eliminated most of the legislation. Of the 70 items contained in the legislation, only 26 remain unamended. These are mostly non-controversial. But perhaps, more importantly, the Senate also approved opposition amendments to close the Greenfields loophole once and for all.So what are we actually left with in the legislation? Items 1 to 9 deal with electoral roll information and penalties for misuse. As we have said previously, we do think it is useful for parliamentarians to have access to further electoral roll information, such as electors' date of birth and salutation details, in order to more accurately address constituents and target information more directly. We also think it is useful to extend the range of permitted purposes for use of the electoral roll information to research regarding electoral matters. However, given potential privacy concerns, the sensitivity of this information and its value to commercial marketing companies, it is important that there exists sufficient penalties for misuse of such information.As we have argued earlier, 10 penalty units or $1,000, as it currently stands, is clearly inadequate as a deterrent against misuse of this sensitive and valuable information. The government's proposal to increase the penalty to 100 units or $11,000 was a step in the right direction. However, we believe that a more severe penalty should be imposed, given the increased access to electors' information and the sensitivity and value of that information.Labor amendments to increase the number of penalty units to 1,000, or $110,000, for disclosure or using for a commercial purpose electoral roll information were successful in the Senate. Despite the parliamentary secretary's remarks in this chamber last year that `The increase proposed by the Labor Party is inappropriate. It is a stunt. The government's increase is adequate,' I am glad that his senior minister, Senator Ellison, saw the wisdom of our arguments and pulled the government in behind the Labor opposition to support our amendments.The Senate rejected the government's attempts to remove the voting rights of all prisoners. The legislation will remain with the current five-year rule, whereby only prisoners serving a sentence of five years or longer do not get a vote. However, they retain the right to remain on the electoral roll.The Senate also rejected the government's proposed changes to the enrolment period. More importantly, the Senate saw through the government's attempts to disenfranchise thousands of voters at each election with the early closure of the rolls. The real devil of these measures was in the detail. Not only did the government want to close the roles three working days after the issue of the writ, but they also wanted to prevent first-time voters from getting a vote at all by preventing new names being added to the rolls at the issue of the writ. This would have affected about 80,000 people at each election, mostly young Australians and new Australian citizens.The Senate also recognised the precedent for avoiding transparent funding and disclosure by the conservatives and rejected the government's attempts to increase the funding disclosure thresholds. The changes would have increased from $1,500 to $10,000 the amount above which a donor to a political party must furnish a return for the financial year.Honourable member interjecting—YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNER—John Howard thinks you are conservatives. They would have also increased from $1,500 to $5,000 the amount that political parties are required to disclose during a financial year for funding received from a person or organisation.The Senate deliberated for some time on the issue of assisted voting in the marking of ballot papers. The government's proposed changes provided that a presiding officer at a polling place is the only person who can assist a voter to mark their ballot paper. Voters' friends may still be present. However, for the first time scrutineers would be required to observe the process. On the surface this may seem a reasonable proposition. However, if you consider a scenario where someone needs an assisted vote—they either have a disability, English language problems or they are illiterate—as the Electoral Act currently stands, this person would take just their friend in to help them vote.The government was proposing a situation where at least four people are in the compartment of the booth—the voter, their friend, the presiding officer and scrutineers, which is pretty intimidating for voters with a disability, literacy or English language difficulties and certainly not in the spirit of the act that a person's vote should be personal and confidential. Now your secret ballot would be shared by at least three others. Clearly, this would be particularly intimidating for Aboriginal voters in the Northern Territory, Western Australia and regional Queensland.For these reasons, the opposition supported Green amendments to omit items 32 to 35 and items 37 to 42 in the Senate. Unfortunately, the Green amendments neglected to pick up the important equivalent amendments to the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984—that is, items 55 to 58 and 60 to 65. We acknowledge that the government has taken on board some of the concerns of the Senate and tried to offer amendments which embrace some of the amendments which embrace some of the suggestions made by Senator Harradine. However, the government's amendments on assisted voting still contain some provisions whereby party scrutineers will have a right to actually witness people voting. (Time expired)18:01:005240Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—I take this opportunity to speak now and I also want to speak to the next part.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—You can only speak for three minutes by agreement.IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDON—We will see. I may need more than three. I do want to make mention of the suggestions made by the honourable member prior to me about the question of assisted voting. I think it would be more appropriate that I speak to the next element of the amendments, which is one we will oppose.Amendments agreed to.18:02:005240Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—I move:That Senate amendment (21) be disagreed to and Government amendments (1) and (4) be made in place of it.At the outset I want to reject the suggestion made by the honourable member for Melbourne that what we wanted to do with this legislation prior to the debate in the Senate was in some way to rort the electoral system. What the coalition has sought to do in the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 is to make sure that we have integrity of the electoral roll and of the electoral system so that the result as declared on polling day after an election represents what the Australian people wanted to happen. It did not do any credit at all for the Labor Party in this place and in the Senate to seek to undermine the safeguards of electoral integrity, which the government was seeking to build into the legislation.I think it is a matter of eminent regret that all of the legislation, all of the provisions of the bill that were originally moved and carried in this place, was not supported by the Senate. We are all about openness and fairness. We are not about disenfranchising people, except those people who do not have a right to be on the electoral roll or those people who do not exist. All we seek to do is to make sure there is integrity in Australian elections, integrity in the electoral rolls. We want to make sure that our Australian electoral system remains fair and open and is honest and accountable. The opposition in the other place sought to thwart that very laudable aim by the coalition. They defeated some provisions of the bill with the result that the bill ultimately enacted will not be as good as the bill which was originally proposed by the government. Having said that, the majority of Senate amendments are being accepted as a matter of reality. The legislation after it does pass both houses will not be as good as it would have been, but it certainly will be better than the law as it currently exists.I would like to explain for the benefit of honourable members why the coalition is not accepting Senate amendment No. 21. Senate amendment No. 21 would leave the assisted voting provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act as they currently stand. Yet, ironically, the Senate passed revised assisted voting provisions to the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984. This would mean that there would be different rules applying to Commonwealth elections to those which apply to referenda. This disparity would lead to elector confusion at referenda and also at elections. Secondly, there has been considerable concern expressed about the current procedures for assisted voting.Mr Snowdon interjecting—0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—You ought to know, my friend, because a lot of the rorting occurred in the Northern Territory. You know it and everyone knows it. The reality is Nick Dondas should have been elected. People in the Northern Territory wanted Nick Dondas, but because of rorting in voting in that place we find that the parliament is saddled with your presence rather than the continued sterling, diligent, impressive service of our former colleague the Hon. Nick Dondas.Mr Snowdon interjecting—Mr Hockey interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. J.A. Crosio)—I call the minister to order, as well as the member for the Northern Territory. I advise the parliamentary secretary to take the debate through the chair.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—Through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I point out that it is because of rorting in the Northern Territory that we see the return of the gentleman opposite and the loss of a person for whom I believe you and all of us had a high regard, the Hon. Nick Dondas.As I was saying before I was diverted by my colleague opposite, considerable concern has been expressed about the current procedures for assisted voting, and the government believes that the most appropriate solution to these concerns is to provide that only a presiding officer may assist the voter to cast his or her vote. Government amendments 1 and 4 also address concerns about assisted voting raised during Senate debate on this issue. We are all about making sure the electoral system is fair. Australians are citizens of a nation which has a very strong and highly developed sense of fair play over 99 years of federation. What we aim to do through this bill and its provisions is to make sure we have integrity in the electoral system. (Time expired)18:07:005241Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—We will be opposing this proposal from the government. Section 234 of the act and other related legislation currently provides that, if a voter's sight is impaired or if they are incapacitated or illiterate, the voter can appoint a person to assist them in voting. The voter has a say in who helps them. That is appropriate and that is what the legislation currently says. It is something which I think should be retained. The government's bill in its original form proposed to radically change this, as mentioned by the member for Melbourne. I will not repeat what he said. Quite rightly, the Senate rejected that approach. But what the government has now come back with in terms of assisted voting is that the presiding officer marking the paper and the scrutineers will be able to watch. Generally, scrutineers will now be able to watch if the voter is happy with that, but the government has left in scenarios where scrutineers will be able to watch whether the voter wants them to or not. This is about the rights of the voter—not the rights of the Labor Party or the rights of the Liberal Party, but the rights of the voter. What we are seeing here is an unprecedented move by the government to remove the rights of illiterate voters, voters with English as a second language and visually impaired voters to vote with the assistance of a friend without some galah from the CLP, the ALP or anywhere else oversighting their vote and pressurising those people to vote in a particular way.Madam Acting Deputy Speaker Crosio, the way in which this is being used in the Northern Territory is something for you to understand. I want to make it clear that the Northern Territory CLP has made complaints to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters on a number of issues. It has made complaints about what they say is the improper use of voters' friends by voters. I think it is extremely relevant to point out that, in paragraph 30.3 of the Australian Electoral Commission submission to the Joint Committee on Electoral Matters on 4 May, it says:At the outset, it should be noted that: (a) The AEC has received no formal complaints from Aboriginal voters themselves about the conduct of assisted voting in remote mobile polling in the Northern Territory or elsewhere in Australia; (b) The AEC does not accept that there is any balanced or credible evidence to support generalised claims that assisted voting in remote mobile polling in Aboriginal communities has been conducted improperly or illegally, either at the last federal election or at previous federal elections; (c) the NTCLP did not put its allegations about illegalities under the Electoral Act before the Court of Disputed Returns for judicial consideration following the 1998 federal election.This is a scurrilous attempt to deny people the right to a secret ballot and ensure that they are pressurised either into not voting or making a vote which suits the CLP or any other scrutineer who might be present. We should not be arguing for an approach where the presiding officer, or anyone else other than the voter's friend, is the person who assists the voter with the vote. A proposal has been put up which would suggest that the voter's friend be allowed into the booth, but that the presiding officer should accompany them. I make an observation: paragraph 7.5.13 of the submission by the Australian Electoral Commission—submission No. 88—this year makes comment about this suggestion:It has also been suggested that the nominated friend might remain to facilitate assisted voting but with the addition of a presiding officer or other polling officer in attendance to strictly ensure the integrity of the process. However, the effectiveness of such a process in many circumstances will be limited by the language abilities of these officials—self-evident, I would have thought—that is, in some Aboriginal communities, as well as in metropolitan areas with high non-English speaking populations, it is difficult to see how polling officials who only understand English could monitor a conversation between voters and their friends in another language.This is about the right of individuals to cast the vote they want to cast, and not a vote which the CLP, the ALP, the Liberal Party or any other particular party wants them to vote, and not be pressurised in the booths.I would like to go into some detail about the approach adopted by the CLP in the Northern Territory to try and prevent Aboriginal people in this instance from casting a valid vote by the use of intimidating tactics—calling police into booths; not by informing the presiding officer, but by using a voter's friend to call police into the booth and intimidate voters. These are the sorts of tactics which they are using to try and deny people their right to vote and thereby try and ensure that they return a member of their political persuasion. (Time expired)18:12:005242Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—I want to return to my observations on the matter that the member for the Northern Territory has just been dealing with. So much for a secret ballot. The government's amendments on assisted voting are still unacceptable. It remains our position that we would prefer to consider this quite difficult and complex issue in some detail through the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and, in the interim, omit the government's proposed changes and leave the Commonwealth Electoral Act as it is.We would like to consider the issue of assisted voting with the benefit of the views and advice of officers of the AEC from the Northern Territory and other regions with high numbers of assisted voters. We would also like to hear what representatives of those groups in the community who have a high number of assisted voters—namely, indigenous and ethnic communities, as well as people with disabilities—have to contribute about their experiences.The only measures the opposition was not successful in defeating in the Senate were the imposition of changes to enrolment witnessing and proof of citizenship procedures. However, we note that Senator Allison gave commitments inside and outside the chamber to include the opposition in consultations regarding the make-up of the final regulations. We intend to hold her to that commitment. This takes me to perhaps the most controversial of amendments adopted by the Senate—the opposition's Greenfields amendments. With government support, our amendments to the definition of `associated entity' were successful. The definition will now read `operates wholly or to a significant extent for the benefit of one or more registered political parties', omitting `mainly', to be replaced by `to a significant extent'.Amendments to the disclosure period for gifts were also accepted with government support. The opposition's changes will close the loophole in the event of a loan being forgiven ultimately becoming a gift. The disclosure of loans was the critical amendment. Opposition amendments will prevent loans from being received from anyone other than a registered financial institution unless certain information such as terms and conditions of the loan are disclosed. We also inserted a definition of a loan as per Income Tax Assessment Act section 109D, subsection 3.The primary problem we have with the $4.65 million Greenfields loan is that we have no evidence to suggest or prove that it is a loan given on commercial terms—in fact, to the contrary: we do know from their annual return that the Liberals made annual payments of $100,000 to the Greenfields Foundation. A $100,000 per annum repayment on a $4.65 million loan is certainly a very lucrative rate—about 2½ per cent. There does not appear to be any indication that there would be any commercial rate of interest or that the loan was made on a commercial basis.The evidence mounts that this loan has been forgiven. The loan would then constitute a gift. During questioning in Senate estimates, the AEC conceded that a 2½ per cent interest rate on a loan would give reasonable grounds to assume that the loan was not on a commercial basis and possibly even constituted a gift. Well, of course it is. It is $4.65 million that the Liberal Party will never have to repay in full. That is just the $4.65 million that has been disclosed so far, up until the end of the last financial year. We do not know what money changed hands after that, in the lead-up to the October election.Our amendments would prohibit a loan from being received from anyone other than a registered financial institution—thereby guaranteeing its commercial nature—unless certain basic information was disclosed, such as the terms and conditions of the loan and details about the individual or organisation from whom the loan was received. I believe this information would greatly assist the AEC in their investigation and pursuit of possible or suspected associated entities. The amendments do not prohibit loans from being received. They just say that if you get a loan from an organisation other than a registered financial institution then you have to disclose enough about that loan to inform the AEC as to whether it is on a commercial basis or not or, indeed, if it would actually constitute a gift.The minister, Senator Ellison, flagged some concerns with these amendments. Initially these were about certain credit cards such as Diners Club and American Express being caught up by not fitting our definition of registered financial institutions. So credit card debts may need disclosure. This is clearly not the intent of the amendments, so we offered to work with them to find a suitable form of words to close that off. We altered our amendments to insert, after `loan', `of $1,500 or more' to eliminate minor credit card transactions. We were also advised by the AEC that significant payments to credit card companies such as Diners Club and American Express are not featuring in the annual re turns. So either the government were looking for problems where there were none or the Liberal Party is not disclosing its payments to American Express or Diners Club.The minister also indicated the government had concerns about there being no definition of a `loan' in the Commonwealth Electoral Act which may present problems for our amendments regarding loans. That is why we inserted in our revised amendments a definition of `loan' lifted directly from the Income Tax Assessment Act. The government have been peddling the pathetic lines of their national director Lynton Crosby, who has been making a fool of himself in the national press by trying to set his own definitions of a loan versus a debt. Hopefully, this definition as set out in the Income Tax Assessment Act will help Lynton Crosby and Ron Walker, along with the Special Minister of State and the Prime Minister, to understand exactly what constitutes a loan. Senator Ellison has finally worked out that there is no support for their position on Greenfields. There is no point trying to defend the indefensible. He has swallowed humble pie on behalf of the government and the Liberal Party of Australia and is now trying to work with the opposition on these amendments. (Time expired)18:17:005243Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—I want to add a few more comments to those I made initially. We need to understand what this debate is fundamentally about. I have expressed a view that it is about the rights of people to cast a valid vote. The proposition being put by the government that the presiding officer and/or his delegate should be the voter's friend for the purpose of being the voter's friend in terms of these amendments is actually quite impractical. The fact is that in some Aboriginal communities—certainly in my electorate—where you might get some hundreds of people voting, generally early in the morning, it is quite likely that 50 or 60 per cent of those voters will need assistance and they will require a voter's friend.Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not have to tell you that the resources of the Electoral Commission are not that great. In this instance, we would have the prospect of persons unknown to the people in that community trying to assist them to vote, possibly not being able to speak or understand their language or understand the cultural imperatives that might prevail in those situations. This is not only a circumstance which arises in the Northern Territory; it arises elsewhere in Australia and it arises in urban situations.We have here a proposition by the government that the person who should assist that voter will be the presiding officer, with the possibility that scrutineers could oversight how the vote is being cast. That is a recipe for ultimate disaster. The way to deal with this is to leave the legislation as it is, to educate party scrutineers on how they should properly operate within and around booths and to ensure that the presiding officers have the means and the mechanisms at their disposal to ensure the appropriate observation of the rules within the area of the booths.In the case of the Northern Territory, they would like to amend the legislation so it mirrors the Northern Territory legislation which, as the Australian Electoral Commission observes in its submission, is unfair. The ultimate reason is they are concerned that in election after election that I have contested I have received between 75 and 80 per cent of the vote of Aboriginal people who live in rural and remote areas. That is what this is about.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—Do they know they are voting for you?IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDON—This is the arrogance—and ultimately a racist sentiment—which is being expressed by my friend opposite. That mirrors what is being said by the CLP in the Northern Territory that somehow or another these voters are incapable of determining who they want to vote for.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—They are being led astray.IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDON—That is the attitude which is being adopted by the government in putting this proposition forward. The fact of the matter is these people know exactly who they want to vote for. When they go into a booth and they hand the presiding officer or the voter's friend a card and they say, `How do you want to vote?' and they say, `I want to vote for the Labor Party' or `I want to vote for the CLP,' that is an indication of how they want to vote. But what we see happening time after time on these booths is CLP scrutineers muscling in and trying to tell these people that is not the way they want to vote.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—Rubbish!IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDON—I can tell that these people opposite have no idea what happens in these booths. I have had experience of this operation for over 25 years. I can tell you, without a shadow of a doubt, that the issue which is at the forefront of people's minds when they go to have a vote is to do what you and I do when we go and have a vote: that is, cast a valid vote for the party or persons of our choice and not be intimidated by overbearing standover merchants and goons who come to these booths with the intention of trying to prevent people from voting.I had the experience of taking affidavits from people who were involved in the Ernie Bridge case in Western Australia where conservative party scrutineers almost physically intimidated people at booths to prevent them from voting. They did so because of their concern that these people would not vote for their candidate. This proposal, if it were to get up, would be a recipe for disaster. It would be a disaster on two levels. It would not reflect the views of the population, but most importantly it would deny Aboriginal people their legitimate right—in this case in the Northern Territory—to vote for the candidate or party of their choice.18:22:005244Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—I have a couple of words to say in relation to what the member opposite has said. I believe that the member for the Northern Territory has been exceptionally offensive in the comment that he just made. As a government we are not seeking to intimidate people. We are trying to bring about a system whereby the people of the Northern Territory, whether Aboriginal or non-Aboriginal, or the people in other parts of the country, have a mechanism for assisted voting which will help them to cast their votes in accordance with their wishes so that their vote goes to the party or candidate of their choice.Regrettably, there is widespread abuse under the current provisions of the Electoral Act in that many people in the Northern Territory who wished to vote for one party or candidate may well have ended up having their votes cast in favour of the member for the Northern Territory, when the last thing those people wanted would have been for their votes to be put against the tally of the member for the Northern Territory. We are seeking to bring about a system of fairness and a system of openness—a system where we put in place provisions for assisted voting that genuinely do assist people.Mr Snowdon interjecting—0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—At the moment there is provision for widespread intimidation. One simply cannot say that the result as declared in the Northern Territory represented what those people in the Northern Territory actually wanted to do on polling day.With this legislation we aim to bring about openness, fairness, accountability and integrity not only of the electoral roll but also of the result which stems from the way in which people vote. We just want their votes to be cast in accordance with the way they want to vote. At the moment there is intimidation, which largely happens through the offices of people who support the Australian Labor Party in the Northern Territory. But what we are seeking is not party-political advantage; we are simply seeking integrity of election results.It should also be noted that section 327 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act makes it an offence for a person to interfere with the free exercise by another person of his or her political rights, and the penalty is $1,000 or six months imprisonment. So there is a current provision which imposes a penalty. We believe that the legislation, as we are proposing it, will greatly assist the integrity of the electoral result. It will mean that people can go to the polling booth with confidence that they will genuinely be able to receive assistance when they require it, and that is assistance to vote in the way in which they, the voters, wish to vote.18:26:005245Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—It was not my intention to get up on my feet again, but I cannot let pass the comments made by the honourable member. He is saying that the vote of the people of the Northern Territory who voted in these remote booths was not an accurate expression of their will. There is absolutely no evidence of that, nor is there any Aboriginal person I know of in the Northern Territory who voted in one of those booths who would say that. The parliamentary secretary comes from somewhere around Brisbane. He would have absolutely no idea of the conditions which prevail in the Northern Territory, let alone in the rest of remote Australia.I think it is an absolute scandal that the government should have this person, as a parliamentary secretary representing the government, standing at the box today and saying that the way in which people voted in the Northern Territory was not an accurate reflection of their will and then saying that somehow or other this vote was rorted by the ALP. I find that absolutely offensive. I am sure that the voters in the Northern Territory will find it offensive, because I will let them know that the attitude of this government—as represented by the person who spoke before me—is that they have not cast a valid vote, that somehow or other their vote was interfered with, and that somehow or other they did not express their will. I have to say my comments about you earlier are accurate. Your arrogance, your demeanour, your attitude is one—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. J.A. Crosio)—Order! You will take it through the chair and you will stick to the debate.IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDON—I will take it through the chair. The attitude of the member who spoke before me is one of arrogance. The arrogance which he represented in his statement—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—I will ask the honourable member for the Northern Territory to come back to the debate, which is on clause 21 of the Senate amendments being disagreed to. I ask you to stick with the debate before the House.IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDON—I am, Madam Deputy Speaker. This person who arrogantly got up and spoke said that in relation to this particular amendment—DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The member for the Northern Territory is clearly not sticking to the line of the debate. I would ask that you bring him back to the debate before the House—not simply a whole line of slur and innuendo in the course of the process.RH4KERRMr Kerr—On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker: I find it extraordinary that the minister rises to make that point of order, when the parliamentary secretary charged with the conduct of this legislation has made damaging allegations that go to the legitimacy of the vote in the seat that the member for the Northern Territory holds in this House. I would have thought that no more serious allegations could have been made. To hold that the member cannot respond in the powerful and passionate language that he is would be entirely unworthy.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! There is no point of order, but I will ask the member for the Northern Territory to stay with the debate that is before the House.IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDON—Absolutely, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am referring to the comments which were made by the previous speaker. I think it is a scandal. I want to know whether his party endorses the view he has expressed here this afternoon: that the people who voted in the poll last year did not cast a legitimate vote, because that is what he is saying.That is what this amendment is about. This amendment is about the government trying to pressure people to vote in a way or to vote informally. They know what this is about. You have only to read the submissions made by the Northern Territory CLP to the Joint Committee on Electoral Matters to understand what they are about. I might add that the submissions which the Northern Territory CLP made to the joint committee have been responded to point by point by the Australian Electoral Commission, which has rebutted every argument they have put up.I made the observation earlier on that, in the context of the allegations that have been made, they have not substantiated any of them—not one of them. What they have demonstrated is their own ignorance and their incapacity to deal properly with the rights of people to cast a valid vote. They should stop interfering with this process and allow people to determine who it is they want to assist them in the voting process. What they should do is ensure that that happens so that these people—that is, the government—do not have their will and deny people their legitimate right to express their will and their view as to who they want to elect either individually or as a party. I think this House deserves an apology from the member who spoke previously for the way in which he represented the voters of the Northern Territory in this House.18:31:005246Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLPForestry and Conservation; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—I am quite interested in the remarks of the member for the Northern Territory simply on—Mr Kerr interjecting—SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—I only had to have one or two minutes of his speech. I have known him for longer than you have. But I too have lived in the remote areas of Western Australia for a long time and the proposals, as I understand them from reading the briefs on this legislation—Mr Kerr interjecting—SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—Oh yes, we get people from New South Wales who went to Tasmania to get elected—Mr Kerr interjecting—SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—You had to move back, didn't you.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—No, I did not. I will remind the minister, I never moved to Tasmania, nor did I move back again.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker, you are quite right. But, on the other hand, there are processes by which you might discipline members for interjecting.However, all we are saying in this legislation is that there is a simple way of maintaining the reputation of the voters of any part of Australia; that is, to make sure that they personally cast their own vote and that they are not helped by certain people. That help can be given in an appropriate way where the actions, for instance, of the returning officer or the polling officer are overseen by someone else, a proper witness. But you seem to tell us that that is inappropriate.We have two options in all of this. The first option is for people—and most people are capable of handling the ballot paper which is written in English—to go into a polling booth and privately cast their vote. There are some who request assistance from the returning officer, and this legislation says that there should be a process for that. If you suggest that is wrong, then you have a worry—you have a little worry that, in fact, you might lose some votes.Mr Kerr interjecting—SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—The reality is that, if you object to a proper process—and a proper process simply saying that there will be proper supervision when a voter requests assistance—you have a problem; if a proper process is put in place, you will have a problem that your current arrangements will have to confront. You can explain to us the process that you now practise. But I ask you: why are you frightened of a process which simply says that, if someone seeks assistance, there will be arrangements whereby assistance will be properly looked at and properly overseen?Mr Snowdon interjecting—SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—It does not.IJ4SNOWDONMr Snowdon—It does; read the act.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—I have read the act.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—Are we going to go into debate across the floor or through the chair? I remind the member for the Northern Territory that he has had his say; the minister has the call.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—There is considerable criticism of the current arrangements and they need to be improved. Why are you so committed to the present arrangements and so worried about those as proposed? Only because you see that you have something to gain by remaining under the current arrangements.The reality of all this is that people's voting intentions go to their personal choice and should not be manipulated by others, and we are proposing a very sensible process that puts that above criticism. Anybody who objects to it, in my mind, does so because they believe that they are advantaged by the present system.You cannot criticise this process; it does not offend anybody. It just says that, if you make a request to be assisted with your voting, that process should be properly overseen by other people because that is not the way we vote normally. Once you ask for the arrangement to be abnormal, then it is fair enough for the interested parties to have some involvement. You are saying that they should not have that involvement. I think you realise the benefit it brings to you electorally and not to the voter.18:35:005247Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—I wish to conclude my remarks. As the parliamentary secretary pointed out, I have been speaking in globo on the amendments. But that essentially has been to assist the government with time rather than for any other purpose.Since the Senate debate, Senator Ellison has raised some concerns about potential unintended consequences arising from our amendments. We are happy to work with the government to overcome these concerns, provided that what is done does not detract from the intent of our amendments. The government is proposing to insert a point of clarification about credit cards to ensure that only individual transactions above $1,500 are reported rather than cumulative transactions to that value. They have also inserted a definition of a credit card from section 12DL of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 1989. We are happy to incorporate these amendments.The government is also proposing to insert a further point (e) into our definition of a financial institution to allow entities as prescribed by regulation. This is intended to pick up mortgage originators and credit facilities such as Diners Club and American Express. Again we are happy to incorporate this amendment. It is not the intent of our amendments to force disclosure of a personal or home loan or credit card just because they do not come under the Australian Financial Institutions Commission's code as a registered financial institution.The government has proposed a couple of technical amendments relating to drafting inconsistencies arising from omissions by the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill 1997. We will support these non-controversial amendments. That concludes my formal comments on the various amendments.May I add to the comments of the member for Denison my disgust at the reflection on the legitimacy of the member for the Northern Territory's position in this place as expressed by the parliamentary secretary, and the reflection that has been cast by him and effectively by the Minister for Forestry and Conservation on the legitimate voting intentions of those people who have elected the member for the Northern Territory. I think some of the comments we heard here this afternoon were pretty disgraceful.18:37:005248Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELINHV5GreyLP10—I need only a couple of minutes. I heard the debate and I want to add a couple of things which I think are quite important. In the electorate of Grey, there is a significant Aboriginal population, and significant remote polling booth apparatuses set up by the AEC. The important statistic to remember in all of this is that informal voting in the electorate of Grey and nationally is around 3½ to four per cent. Informal voting in the remote polling is 1.4 per cent. The comments made by constituents who witnessed events at some of these remote polling booths were of alarm. When they challenged the AEC officials, they were abused.We have a very strong democratic system in this country run by the Australian Electoral Commission. It is essential to the integrity of the system that the AEC be accountable. That is why I support the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 . There is enough evidence to suggest that there are some anomalies. I repeat: just over one per cent informality compared to four per cent for the national average in remote booths. I simply make the point that, for the sake of the AEC itself, there should be an accountable system. They need to be accountable, in my opinion, to the extent of how many people are actually assisted and who assists. In the report on each electorate, that should be very clearly spelt out. It is very important for the essence of our democracy itself, and it is very important from the perspective of the AEC.18:40:005248Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—I want to add a few notes. When the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 was before this place in December last year, it contained some positive measures aimed at improving our democracy. They included various steps to reduce the possibility of fraud, allowing the presiding officer to help the sight impaired and physically disabled vote, and requiring people to notify the Electoral Commission within a month when they change address. But there are also various measures contained that I could not support because, in turn, they infringed citizens' human rights and were possibly unconstitutional or they invaded the privacy of citizens or generally weakened our democracy.Back in December the measures I objected to in the bill were the removal of the right to vote from imprisoned people, permitting MPs access to the birth and salutation details of electors for research purposes, increasing the threshold at which political parties must count individual donations from $500 to $1,500, and increasing the threshold at which political parties are required to disclose amounts received from individual organisations from $1,500 to $5,000 and increasing the threshold from 1,500 to $10,000 the amount above which a donor to a political party must furnish a return for a financial year.I am pleased to see the first of these—a proposal to disenfranchise anyone serving any period of imprisonment—has been removed by the Senate by omitting proposed new section 109. I am glad also to see the Senate has rejected this proposal because, as far as I am concerned, the right to vote, to have a say in who governs the country, is a basic human right. As I said in December, to take away that right is to say you do not believe in the concept of rehabilitation. Unfortunately, the Senate has not dealt significantly with the other measures of concern. No amendments have been made to proposed section 91, which gives MPs access to birth and marriage details of electors for so-called research.These changes on their face might seem insignificant, but they will see the privacy of electors invaded. If these proposals go through, they will open the door for more and more targeted mail-outs from MPs, especially during elections. With regard to proposed increases in disclosure thresholds of political donations, I note that the Senate has made detailed amendments. However, they certainly do not throw out or even scale back the large increases in donation thresholds proposed in the original bill. They simply add sections to include loan arrangements—I presume loan arrangements like that entered into between the Liberal Party and the mysterious Greenfields Foundation.What the Greenfields exercise shows is that, for whatever reason, the major parties—and One Nation is showing a trend towards this—simply do not want their funding sources identified. The threshold increases contained in the bill may not seem significant in real terms, but in percentage terms we are talking about massive increases: 300 per cent for the threshold before which one-off donations to parties have to be counted, 330 per cent increase for donations received over a financial year and over 600 per cent for the donation threshold above which a donor must lodge a return to the AEC.The Senate amendments do not address these increases. The amendments to the relevant sections simply bring under the scope of the new threshold loan arrangements which, under the current legislation, have effectively disguised the true source or nature of the donation. No wonder there has been little, if any, opposition to the proposed increases to the disclosure threshold contained in this bill by either or any of the major parties. These changes will make political parties less accountable.The simple fact is that, for a strong and accountable democracy, electors have to know as much as possible about which individuals, companies, unions or other organisations are funding political parties or their associated entities. We might be talking only about $1,500, $5,000 and $10,000 at the moment, but inevitably if these changes go through in a few years time we will be voting on $3,000, $10,000, $20,000 and so on. For all these reasons at the moment, until I look a little more carefully at the amendments, I cannot support this bill even in its amended form.18:43:005249Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—This exercise is about ensuring people can cast a valid vote and not be pressurised into voting a particular way. I have a view on the role of scrutineers in these particular instances where a voter's friend is assisting a voter. Sometimes, indeed often, the presence of scrutineers looking over the shoulder—and I have experience of this—of voters to ensure that the voter's friend casts the vote in the way in which the voter intends is an absolutely intimidating experience.What we have here is a proposition that this will happen again, not only with the voter's friend but that the voter's friend be the presiding officer. Frankly, that ignores all of the realities that exist in remote communities and, I dare say, in communities in Sydney where there are people for whom English is a second language. How the hell is the presiding officer going to communicate with someone who does not speak English? You do not have to be Einstein to work it out. There are many Aboriginal communities in remote Australia where people cannot read English; they find it difficult to express themselves in English. When they go into a voting both and can articulate the person they want to vote for—because they have seen a photograph out the front, they may have had discussions with party scrutineers or people handing out how-to-vote cards beyond the six metres—they come in with a view. What is being proposed will expose them to the fact that they will not have a secret ballot, because it will potentially be observed by three, four or five other people. That opens up the question of how people who vote in a particular way might well be intimidated after the event.I suggest that honourable members opposite—I take note of what the member for Grey said—read the submissions from the Electoral Commission to the joint committee. I think they carry a lot of weight because of the logical way in which they have represented the arguments and the logical way in which they have rebutted the views expressed by the CLP in its submissions to the inquiry. They have rejected the proposals put by the government and demonstrated clearly that we have here the potential for the abrogation of people's rights. That is what this is all about. Unfortunately, I think some people on the other side have confused that issue with their own political imperatives. What we should be about in this place is what is good for the people of Australia. We should give them the right to express their will freely. The proposal which is being canvassed by the government and which we will oppose does not do that in any way, shape or form.Question resolved in the affirmative.18:47:005250Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—I move:That Senate amendment (26) be disagreed to and Government amendment (2) be made in place of it.In relation to the matters raised by the member for the Northern Territory, there have been allegations with respect to electoral fraud. The Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 is simply aiming to improve the integrity of the electoral system to make sure that each of us, when declared to be elected, has genuinely been elected as a result of the wishes of the voters in our individual electorates.I have moved that the House disagree to amendment No. 26 because it has the potential to have an unintended application to certain loans and to loans from certain entities. In particular there is uncertainty over the treatment of credit card debt and concern that credit providers, such as American Express and Aussie Home Loans, were not included as financial institutions. To correct these deficiencies government amendment No. 2 provides a definition of credit card, expressly provides that each credit card transaction is to be treated as a separate loan and provides for an entity to be prescribed by regulation as a financial institution for the purposes of sec tion 306A. I think my friend has already spoken to this motion.Question resolved in the affirmative.18:49:005250Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—I move:(3) Schedule 1, page 10 (before line 3), before item 47, insert:46B Paragraph 314AEA(1)(b)Omit ", together with the details required by section 314AD".46C Subsection 314AEA(5)Omit ", 314AD".46D Subsection 314AEA(5) Omit "314AB(1)(a)", substitute "314AB(2)(a)".[technical correction]This is essentially a technical amendment, and I am quite certain that all of us on both sides in this place will be more than happy to see this technical amendment carried by the parliament. Government amendment No. 3 removes redundant references to section 316AD in section 314AEA. Section 316AD was repealed in July 1998 by the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Act 1998. It also amends the reference in subsection 314EAE(5) from 314AB(1)(a) to 314AB(2)(a). This corrects an oversight in the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Act 1998 that renumbered paragraph 314AB(1)(a) to 314AB(2)(a).This bill will improve the level of accountability governing our electoral system, which in turn is a protection for democracy and our way of life. I commend the motion to the chamber. I present the supplementary explanatory memorandum and the further supplementary explanatory memorandum.Question resolved in the affirmative.Motion (by Mr Slipper) agreed to:That in the message returning the Bill to the Senate, the Senate be requested to reconsider the Bill in respect of amendment No. 3 made by the House of Representatives to Schedule 1. Bills5251r7785251Debate resumed from 31 March, on motion by Mr Hockey:That the bill be now read a second time.18:51:005251Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—I invite the House to cast its mind back to this day exactly one year ago, 12 May 1998, to budget day of last year. In that budget the Treasurer announced a range of initiatives relating to changes in the regulations of do-it-yourself superannuation funds. These changes included the transfer of superannuation fund regulations to the Australian Taxation Office, a lowering of the regulatory charge for DIY super funds, a new definition of the DIY superannuation funds to be called self-managed funds, changes to the penalty regime and new investment rules.Many members may recall that there was an enormous public outcry from small business owners that run a do-it-yourself superannuation fund over the issue of the investment rule changes. The government caved in before the month of May was ended and announced that the proposed changes would not be made retrospective as was proposed by requiring funds to unwind investment decisions that they had already made.It was, I dare say, the fastest government backflip on a budget announcement in the history of the Commonwealth parliament. It was also an example of policy making on the run and by press release. But it is an indictment of the government that we are debating this bill today on the first anniversary of the 1998 budget announcement. It indicates the contempt with which the Howard-Costello government has treated superannuation fund members, the trustees and the fund administrators, beginning with the superannuation surcharge tax in the 1996 budget, the abandonment of Labor's superannuation co-contribution in the 1997 budget, and now it is the turn of the DIY superannuation funds, courtesy of the 1998 budget. Indeed, it is my intention to move a second reading amendment which indicates our concern about these things. I move:That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:"whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House condemns the Government for the financial uncertainty and hardship it has caused Do It Yourself superannuation fund trustees and fund members, many of which are operated by small businesses, in taking nearly 12 months since it announced its changes to introduce and debate this legislation.On the subject of the government's superannuation initiatives, the government has pulled around $5 billion out of superannuation since it came to office. The surcharge tax alone pulled out around $1.4 billion which the government claimed would be paid by higher income earners but which is actually paid by all superannuation fund members through higher administration costs and by those fund members who are under the threshold but who have not provided their tax file number to their superannuation fund.The Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia has estimated that surcharge tax administration has cost superannuation funds some $190 million to collect, that is, $190 million less in retirement incomes that working Australians on low and middle incomes will have to spend when they retire. That is a $190 million cost to the funds themselves. I have, in fact, asked the Treasurer a set of questions on notice about how much it is costing taxpayers to collect all this. So far he has not responded to that question. I might have to have a word to the Speaker about that in due course.Senate estimates last week revealed that some 65,000 surcharge tax assessment notices would be sent to fund members who have not provided their tax file numbers to their fund or to the tax office. I expect that many of those members would not be high income earners at all.Last night's budget quantified the backflip made by the government in abolishing the advance instalment of the superannuation surcharge tax. The government will lose $120 million in revenue in the year 2000-01, $10 million in 2001-02 and $5 million in 2002-03. The government's 1997 budget decision not to proceed with the superannuation co-contribution ripped a further $4 billion from the superannuation accounts of low and middle income earners. So that is over $5 billion taken from superannuation accounts of Australian workers in just two measures. Throw in the damage caused by a flawed choice of funds policy, an announcement—but as yet no legislation—about allowing opting out, and the inclusion of superannuation assets in the means test for over 55s, effectively forcing older Australians to fund their own unemployment benefits, and you get a picture of the disdain with which this government has treated superannuation and collective savings vehicles in general.You also get a picture of a government which has no retirement incomes policy of its own and one which is trying to tear down the world-leading, best-practice policy established by successive Labor governments. Having done that damage, ringbarking Labor's superannuation tree, this government then turned its beady little eye to the excluded superannuation funds.This bill gives effect to the government's 1998 budget changes to the regulation of small superannuation funds and to a recommendation of the financial system inquiry known as the Wallis inquiry. It amends the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act of 1993, or SI(S) Act, and a range of other related financial services, taxation and superannuation acts, firstly, to establish a new category of small superannuation fund with fewer than five members, to be called a self-managed fund, where all the members of the fund must have a business or family relationship, that is, a non-arms-length relationship, and all of them must become trustees of the fund.Secondly, it transfers the regulation of self-managed funds from the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, or APRA, to the Australian Taxation Office, with effect from 1 July this year—so it is coming up very soon. Thirdly, it provides for a reduced supervisory levy, from $200 to a maximum of $50, to be payable by self-managed superannuation funds.I have already said that this government ought to be condemned for the delay in introducing this measure which was first announced on 12 May last year—so its anniversary this year—but was not introduced to the parliament until 31 March. The generous Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp—and more on him later—released an exposure draft but provided only two weeks for interested parties to comment: a measly two weeks, when the government took almost a year to produce and release an exposure draft. That is nothing short of contemptuous. This delay has caused unnecessary uncertainty especially amongst small business owners.Let me turn firstly to the new definition of self-managed superannuation funds and fund membership changes. The DIY superannuation funds are currently subject to less onerous prudential regulation than larger funds, which come under control of the SI(S) Act and its regulations. This is based on the presumption that most DIY fund members are closely associated with the fund and its trustees and are likely to be able to represent their own interests as non-arms-length members. Some 16 per cent, or approximately 30,000 of the 180,000 DIY funds, contain arms-length members—that is, members who are not closely related to the fund sponsors—who might not be able to protect their interests in the superannuation fund and who do not have the prudential protection of the regulator, APRA.To overcome this potential problem the bill requires all members of a self-managed fund to be family members or business relations, on the assumption that family members or business partners will be able to look after their own interests. In addition, all fund members will be required to become trustees. A member who does not into one of those categories will be transferred out of the fund. Alternatively, the fund may not wish to be a self-managed fund, in which case it either has to appoint an independent trustee and be regulated by APRA or has the option of winding up.The government has not provided any evidence in support of this change which will inconvenience many small superannuation funds, many of which are run by small businesses. While anecdotal evidence exists that some arms-length fund members may not have adequate protection of their interests, the government has not provided evidence of this. In addition, the bill will also force fund trustees to expel some arms-length fund members, potentially incurring substantial costs to the funds, its members and the transferring member. This has caused considerable consternation amongst those small businesses which operate a DIY fund.However, there is also anecdotal evidence which suggests that some DIY funds may be using their fund assets for investments which are not in the long-term interest of arms-length members. So, in that instance, you have arms-length fund members having little protection, and they may benefit from these changes. We think that the government needs to justify its decision to change the status of self-managed superannuation fund members.Secondly, I want to address the regulation transfer from APRA to the ATO. This has been described, let me say, by one highly regarded superannuation commentator as `like putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank'. I have to say that the Taxation Office, for its part, has been at some pains to assure us that this is not the case. Small superannuation fund operators and their accountants or administrators are worried that the ATO not only will crack down on people allegedly rorting the system but also may take a stricter line with funds which appear to be operating within the law.While this measure is in line with a Wallis inquiry recommendation, it appears to be based on the fact that it is impractical for APRA to do anything but superficially regulate these funds. APRA generally conducts field audits and would require large additional resources to have any hope of auditing the 180,000 DIY funds it currently regulates. By way of comparison and contrast, there are only 5,000 industry, retail, corporate and public sector funds.The fact is that APRA, and the ISC before it, could not effectively regulate DIY funds which did lead to anecdotal evidence of abuse of investment rules and possible taxation rorts. Transfer of the regulation power to the ATO may curtail this if it is occurring. How ever, it is up to the government to provide evidence that it is in fact occurring.Before the Wallis inquiry, superannuation funds were only regulated by the Insurance and Superannuation Commission, or ISC. The transfer of prudential regulation for self-managed super funds to the tax office will result in superannuation being regulated by three different entities—APRA, ATO and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, or ASIC. This, in my view, is in direct contrast with the main Wallis recommendation that essentially only two bodies—APRA and ASIC—should be responsible for the regulation of the financial services sector.The third issue is that of a reduced supervising levy to be payable by self-managed super funds. Until the formation of APRA last year on 1 July, all superannuation funds paid $200 and larger funds paid a percentage of their assets to cover the costs of their regulation. APRA claims that the $200 paid by DIY funds cross-subsidised the prudential regulation of larger funds. Changes to the levy structure within APRA and the removal of the supposed cross-subsidy by capping the amount payable by the DIY funds to $50 have led to larger superannuation funds now paying substantially more in their prudential regulation levies. That means lower retirement incomes on the part of members of larger superannuation funds, who are more likely to be low and middle income earners. Very few low and middle income earners are in DIY funds, which are predominantly recommended to persons with more than $100,000 to invest, although some may be arms-length members.There has been little evidence produced to date to support the argument that DIY fund levies were subsidising larger superannuation funds. The government is using the lowering of levies for self-managed funds as an offset to other changes, including changes to investment rules which are the subject of a draft Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1999, the one which deals with the investment rules. This bill raises more questions than answers. It should be subject to a thorough investigation by a Senate committee. The principal aims of the bill are to protect arms-length members, essentially by eliminat ing them, and to bring self-managed funds into closer tax scrutiny. However, it is still not clear whether this change is necessary.I have received correspondence from a range of industry practitioners, who have raised some technical deficiencies, which I will touch on here but which may best be raised and considered by a Senate committee inquiring into and conducting hearings concerning the bill. One of the key issues appears to be that if a fund is forced to transfer an arms-length member out of the fund because that person is not a trustee it could trigger a capital gains tax liability for the fund, the member or both. The question arises as to whether the government should provide rollover relief if a capital gains tax liability is triggered.In addition, the Australian Taxpayers Association has raised the issue of the size of the self-managed funds being less than five members. What if a family has three members who are members of the fund? This could present problems in certain situations. The issue has also arisen as to whether there could be a clash with another piece of legislation, the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 , which provides provisions for fund trustees to accept binding death benefit nominations. Under the current law governing excluded funds, a same sex partner may be able to be nominated as a dependant for the purposes of receiving death benefits. However, under the new rules the same sex partner may not be able to be nominated in the same manner. This issue has been raised by the private member's bill of the member for Grayndler and is one which perhaps should be examined further in the context of this bill.The issue of single trustee funds has also been raised as an issue which is worthy of further examination. The explanatory memorandum states that changes to the superannuation supervisory levy are expected to have a budget revenue cost of around $19 million on each of the financial years 1999-2000 to 2001-02. However, the Treasury stated in a briefing on this bill that they expect this revenue to be recouped through user charging principles applied by the tax office and by APRA. So the opposition will not be oppos ing the government's bill. Instead we will refer it to a Senate committee for examination. Whatever the merits of this bill, it is disappointing that the government has kept the DIY funds waiting for so long on an uncertain footing. The government ought to be condemned by this House for doing so.In the period since the government made its announcement—back in the budget of last year, in fact—there was evidence that the rate of increase in the establishment of do-it-yourself superannuation funds had declined by half, from 1,000 to 500 each week. This was reported in the 1999 edition of Superfunds in an article by Susan Hely which went on to say:The main reason behind the decline is the new investment rules announced in May 1998, according to Daniel Butler of Daniel Butler and Associates, who . . . said that the superannuation surcharge had also been a significant factor.So it is significant to note that there has been that dip in the growth of DIY funds since the government made this announcement. I also draw the attention of the House to a report by Michael Laurence concerning the issue of changes in the superannuation rules. This article was entitled, Super rules, super anger . He stated:North Queensland financial planner Kevin Hardwick is deeply disturbed by successive federal coalition proposals that are eroding the tax advantages of all super, particularly DIY schemes. "What is happening is a tragedy for country towns," says Hardwick . . ."In rural Queensland, self-managed funds invest in the local economies," Hardwick says. "They buy the premises of the local panel-beating shops and banks to act as landlords. The funds buy blocks of land to develop and to generate eventual retirement income. Local builders and other businesses get all of the associated work."They were very concerned about the impact of government changes. I will quote once more from Michael Forsdick who said:The tax breaks of super are simply disappearing. The tax package all but removes the tax benefits of super for those earning less than $75,000; those earning above $75,000 already get precious few tax breaks from super anyway. Superannuation is being hammered.The article continues:In interviews with eight super specialists, highly emotive words were used to describe the coalition's super measures since coming to office; for example, `attack by stealth', `doesn't realise the implications of what it is doing', `another nail in super's coffin'.This is the very strong language used by those who are familiar with the changes made by this government to superannuation. In addition, in this area, I received—and no doubt other members received—correspondence from a number of bodies which are familiar with and concerned by these changes. For example, in March of this year I received correspondence from Managed Superannuation Services with the heading `Proposed changes to superannuation fund investment rules creating confusion and eroding confidence'. They said:We are writing to you because we are concerned about and committed to encouraging growth, competition and confidence in our superannuation system—concern and commitment that we fear are not shared by the Federal Government.They then talked about their own company, and said:By way of background, we are a superannuation administration and advisory company providing services to and representing the trustees of more than 2,000 superannuation funds, which in turn comprise in excess of 10,000 members. The majority of those funds are representative of the small business community, with a substantial exposure to the regional and rural sector.. . . . . . . . .We are disheartened and frustrated by the Government's apparent lack of regard for such an important issue as superannuation. This was exemplified last May when the Government announced in its Budget that new investment rules would apply to superannuation funds.That is an example of the concern which they were expressing. They pointed out that, in the 10 months since those measures were announced, there had been no supporting legislation and it had put fund trustees in a most invidious position. They said:. . . it is unclear exactly how the measures are intended to apply and superannuation fund trustees have been left with the following options:. to defer any investment decisions until the relevant legislation is introduced;. to only invest in areas that are potentially beyond the scope of the new restrictions; or . to continue to make investments in line with an existing strategy but in an environment of total uncertainty.None of those options is desirable.It was really unfair to trustees that the government was putting them in that position for a period in excess of 10 months. It was quite unconscionable putting fund trustees in an impossible position, not knowing whether to continue their investment strategy or change it. This problem was also described by the Australian Society of Certified Practising Accountants as requiring the small funds to drive blindfolded:Businesses and families have been unable to make sound decisions about their savings because they haven't been able to see everything that the Government is planning to do to their super funds.Eventually, what we got was a backflip on those aspects of the budget announcement. It was quite clear to those of us who had been following this debate that Treasurer Costello had been rolled by small business minister Peter Reith. Frankly, the Treasurer had only himself to blame, given that the delay in acting on the budget announcement was quite unconscionable and trustees had been put in that situation. The Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business could not resist visiting the scene of the crime. One day after the Assistant Treasurer put out the press release indicating the backflip, the minister for small business put out his own press release regarding the small business superannuation backflip.I think one of the difficult things about superannuation that we are experiencing in Australia at the moment is that the minister responsible for superannuation, the Assistant Treasurer, simply does not have the credibility in the superannuation community or the standing within the government to ensure that superannuation is treated with proper respect and proper accord.I note, for example, that recently in the Financial Review, concerning the disastrous handling by the government of the high rollers amendment for casinos in relation to the GST, the Assistant Treasurer was described as `pleasant but lightweight'. I think that a lot of people in the superannuation industry would prefer to have a minister who was unpleasant but heavyweight—and there are a few around the parliament on both sides, I have to say!One of the problems for superannuation in Australia in the last couple of years has simply been that the minister has been incapable of having superannuation treated appropriately seriously by this government. Indeed, in recent times the Assistant Treasurer has become something of a laughing stock as a result of his defence on the 7.30 Report and in other places of the government's GST legislation in relation to casinos. People like John Laws made him an object of contempt and ridicule, frankly, for his weak defence of what the government was doing in relation to the GST.To conclude, we will not be opposing this legislation in the House. We will be supporting its referral to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee, with a view to considering the technical issues which are raised by it and giving anyone who is concerned by any of its provisions the opportunity to appear before the Senate committee and raise those issues so they can be properly considered before the legislation is finally passed.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! Is the amendment seconded?8T4FERGUSONMr Laurie Ferguson—I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.19:17:005256Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—In opposing the opposition's amendment and in speaking to the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1999 , I start by referring to last evening's budget. It was amply demonstrated last evening when the Treasurer delivered his fourth budget that this government is committed to ensuring that Australia provides a financially secure environment that will prosper, grow and provide greater opportunities for all Australians both now and in the future.The Costello budget also demonstrated this government's commitment to reform—reforms in the tax system, in health, in education, in the workplace and in the financial system. Our commitment to regulatory reforms in the corporate and financial sector has already paid dividends in the ability of our financial institutions, including our banks, to withstand the Asian downturn. Our emphasis on the financial services industry, with a budget commitment of $7 million of funding for initiatives to promote Australia as a centre for global financial services, is a testament to the reform agenda that was undertaken as soon as the coalition came into government.It was back in June 1996 that the Treasurer established the financial systems inquiry with a mission to provide a stocktake of the results arising from the financial deregulation of the Australian financial system since the early 1980s. The forces driving further change were to be analysed and recommendations were to be made on the nature of the regulatory arrangements that would best ensure an efficient, responsive and competitive financial system to underpin strong economic performance consistent with financial stability, prudence, integrity and fairness.The report that resulted from this inquiry into the finance industry made a series of recommendations in the area of financial regulation designed to improve market conduct, disclosure, safety, stability, competition and competitiveness. Pertinent to this bill before the House, the inquiry made a number of recommendations concerning the regulation of superannuation funds. Not surprisingly, the administrative complexity of superannuation arrangements and compliance costs had been a matter of serious concern to both the industry and the consumers.Given the expected growth in superannuation as a proportion of household and financial system assets and given the fact that superannuation is the largest component of the funds management industry in this country, reforms leading to improvements in the regulatory framework for superannuation funds have been a priority of this government. Australia finds itself in company with all other industrialised nations where ageing populations are placing increasing pressure on government funded pensions and programs. We are about to experience a huge demographic shock as the population over the age of 65 increases and the population paying tax decreases, and the consequential number of retirees in our society will have profound implications on the economic and fiscal wellbeing of our ageing population.The government's commitment to superannuation reform is a response to this situation and is designed to encourage individuals to take greater responsibility for their retirement funding and to ensure that their retirement security is adequate to meet increases in life expectancy and to meet the saving challenges on those who retire early. We have the opportunity now to make changes to our superannuation legislation in order that individuals can take this greater responsibility for the management of their funds and can protect their particular interests. The timing is opportune as the baby boomer generation swirls the ranks of the aged and the retirees simultaneously deplete the ranks of the working population as they resort to their retirement funding.The government has acted on the recommendations of the inquiry and, in the 1998-99 budget, announced changes to the regulation of self-managed superannuation funds known as excluded superannuation funds. An exposure draft was released for public comment and industry consultation and numerous responses were received. This bill—No. 3—to amend the superannuation legislation gives effect to the 1998-99 budget announcements. It reflects the government's response to the financial systems inquiry as it pertained to small superannuation funds and the regulation of those funds. It takes account of the views of the large number of industry bodies who made submissions to the draft bill.The issue addressed by this bill relates to excluded superannuation funds. The government's aim is to ensure that all members of excluded superannuation funds are able to better protect their interests. The objective is to amend the definition of an excluded superannuation fund. Put simply, it is a fund with fewer than five members. Excluded superannuation funds are subject to less onerous prudential requirements under the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act, the SI(S) Act. This act regulates all superannuation entities, including industry funds, public offer funds, employer related funds as well as excluded superannuation funds.Excluded funds are exempted from onerous requirements, such as the requirement to establish internal complaints resolution systems, the requirement to have a registered company auditor and many other detailed requirements for the reporting to members. Excluded funds are exempted from these requirements on the basis that members of the fund are capable of looking after their own interests. This is on the assumption that they are related—husband and wife or business partner arrangements and the like—and this is normally the case. In these situations, the members usually act as trustees and therefore have control or can manage the administration of the fund.This is all well and good, but a situation has arisen over time where excluded superannuation funds have included members who are not in any position to protect their own interests, in that they have no control. This is because the definition of excluded funds does not currently require a relationship or a particular common interest between members, and it does not have any requirement or does not ensure that all fund members have equal power or influence within the fund.The obvious examples where an excluded fund can include members who are not in a position to protect their own interests are where a family fund has been extended to include a non-related employee of the fund's employer/sponsor. The employee becomes an arms-length member. This person generally has no relationship with the other members and thereby lacks a commonality of interest with the other members. The situation also arises that, as the employee is not normally a trustee or related to a trustee, that person lacks the equality of influence or power within the fund and therefore is not able to be involved in trustee decision making and, consequently, is not able to adequately protect their interest, or is at least exposed to that very real possibility.This bill amends the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act to establish this new category of small superannuation fund with fewer than five members, to be called a self- managed superannuation fund. The new definition of a self-managed superannuation fund will require that, in addition to the fund having fewer than five members, all members of the fund have a business or family relationship and be trustees of the fund.According to the bill's explanatory memorandum, at present the number of excluded superannuation funds has grown rapidly from around 60,000 in 1991 to a current estimate of 180,000, representing some $42 billion in assets under management. Excluded superannuation funds comprise 97 per cent of the total number of funds but account for only 12 per cent of total industry assets and 1.8 per cent of fund members.The annual return data from the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority indicates that approximately 16 per cent of excluded superannuation funds contain arms-length members, that is, members who are not relatives or associates of trustees of the fund—so people who are not in a position, as we put it, to look after their own interests. Being excluded superannuation funds, they are exempted from the prudential requirements which in other circumstances would give the protection of additional prudential requirements which are otherwise available to protect members in such a situation.Therefore, the amendments will ensure that an excluded superannuation fund—to be renamed a self-managed superannuation fund—will contain only members who have a commonality of interest, either related or business partners, and that all members be trustees, and it provides the mechanism for all members of such a fund to be involved in trustee decision making. The amendments also ensure that any current excluded fund containing arms-length members who would be in need of prudential protection and do not choose to transfer those members out of the fund will not be classified as self-managed superannuation funds. They will remain regulated by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority and, therefore, the prudential requirements from which small funds are usually exempt will apply to protect the interests of arms-length members in such funds.The amendments provide an alternative, whereby such funds can transfer an arms-length member to a prudentially regulated fund in order to satisfy the definition of a self-managed superannuation fund with all members having commonality of interest. In essence, what this will mean is that members in excluded funds who are not trustees will be required to either transfer the arms-length members to another fund or have these members become trustees where it is possible in accordance with the act, or the excluded fund could cease to be an excluded fund and appoint an approved trustee within the meaning of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act or have the existing trustee become an approved trustee within the meaning of that act. It may well mean that approved trustee companies will see an increase in the number of small funds under their trusteeship. Arms-length members of an excluded fund can have their benefit transferred to a prudentially regulated superannuation fund and thus receive regular detailed reports, access to complaints resolution schemes and the like.The regulation of self-managed superannuation funds will be transferred to the Australian Taxation Office from 1 July 1999. That is very soon. The regulation of all others remains with the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority. The change in the definition will not impose a cost on all self-managed superannuation funds—rather only on the trustees of excluded superannuation funds that currently contain arms-length members. So it is confined to the 16 per cent. The extent of these costs will depend on whether the trustees decide to transfer the arms-length members to a prudentially regulated superannuation fund or whether the trustees wish to keep arms-length members in the fund and appoint an approved trustee.As we move into the 21st century facing the great challenge of an ageing population living longer, we must focus on retirement savings and the protection and enhancement of them. This bill is another step in delivering an efficient, responsive and progressive framework for the regulation of self-managed superannuation funds with minimal prudential regulation, but is designed to protect the interests of fund members, to encourage involvement in the management of funds and to encourage savings for retirement with a view to increasing the returns to retirees as the fund members take responsibility for their investments.The proposed changes give arms-length members far greater access to information about their superannuation benefits, whichever option an excluded fund takes in order to satisfy the new definition. These members will receive regular information about the operations and investments of their superannuation fund, and this will give them a clearer picture of how their superannuation benefits are being managed to provide a retirement income. They will also have access to regular and detailed member information ensuring that the member is better informed about the growth of their benefits and returns. So the amendments confer powers and the administration of relevant parts of the SI(S) Act on the Commissioner of Taxation, provide for annual returns to be lodged with the ATO and remove the application of the culpability test.Debate interrupted.Adjournment525910000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 7.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn.525919:30:005259Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRNOK6Eden-MonaroLP10—A few days ago I received a phone call from the chief executive of the Heinz cannery in Eden. During that phone call, I was informed that Heinz had decided to close its Eden operation. As from 30 June, the Heinz Greenseas Tuna cannery in Eden will no longer exist and nor will the jobs of its nearly 150 employees. This news is devastating to those soon to be redundant employees. It is devastating to the families, devastating to the town of Eden and devastating to the entire region.In a region that is already suffering from low morale due to the untimely decline of its timber industry, the loss of this industry represents another blow to the Eden community, one that the community just cannot afford. The Eden community needs help and it needs help from government. However, as the community seeks this help, it is becoming more and more obvious who is prepared to rally behind them and who is not. The coalition government is.Over the last few days Centrelink has begun providing an extensive information and support service, which includes seminars at the Heinz cannery site as well as two customer service officers dedicated specifically to people affected by this closure. I thank Minister Truss for his assistance in this regard. In the next few days, a Job Network touch screen will be installed in Eden to provide better access for workers in Eden to the thousands of jobs available on the system. I thank Minister Abbott for implementing this so quickly.Today, a delegation from the Bega Valley Shire Council travelled to Canberra to meet with federal government ministers to talk about the big picture, to examine possibilities for Eden within various federal government portfolios. With the recent cutbacks in the timber industry due to irresponsible New South Wales Labor government policy, it is vital that we actively pursue alternative industries and alternative employment opportunities for the survival of the Eden region. I thank Ministers Tuckey, who is in the House tonight, Minchin and Moore for meeting with the council delegation today at such short notice, for giving their time and for their total understanding of the issues at hand. The delegation received strong support from all three ministers, and we are now able to pursue opportunities within each of the departments.The coalition is prepared to rally behind the Eden community. But what of Labor? The Eden community has been fruitless in its attempts to talk to the Carr Labor government. Neither Carr nor any of his ministers have yet agreed to even speak to the people of Eden. The Eden community is busily seeking alternatives. One alternative that has the potential to pull the region out of this slump is the proposed naval ammunitioning facility and the multipurpose wharf. This project has the potential to attract a wide array of new industry to Eden and to provide the employment boost that Eden so desperately needs. In the budget brought down by the Treasurer last night, $3.58 million was committed to doing the necessary preliminary work on this project. The coalition is behind the Eden community.I am very disappointed in Heinz. They have operated the Eden cannery for 25 years, and it was there for 25 years prior to that. I understand businesses make certain commercial decisions, but I believe they have done the wrong thing by the Eden community by giving them virtually no notice. There are various new industry ideas for Eden, but we need more time to develop them. Heinz should have given us at least six months, if not 12 months, notice of closure. We could have had a number of these things under way in that time, but less than two months I think was quite outrageous. I will be writing to them asking them to delay this closure so that we can provide some alternatives for the town.I will be in Eden on Friday to talk with the community again, and I will have an officer from Invest Australia with me to provide the community with information on how they can assist. The community really is in shock, I think it would be best described, and I can very much understand some of the reactions from many people. I was in Eden last week and certainly people were very angry. Even young school children were putting petitions around, and I admire them for what they were doing in that respect to bring that community together. It is a very resilient community. It has suffered a lot of blows in the past, but there are so many superb natural features in the region.I am very confident we will work this through. Certainly, with the assistance of a variety of ministers and departments at a federal level, they will make great gains there. I think Heinz have a responsibility to the community in which they have been operating for quite some time to do the right thing and help the community through this by giving us more time before they move that operation. (Time expired)526019:35:005260McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—I rise tonight because I want to say a few words to recognise the life of a great Australian and a great Australian artist who died recently. I refer of course to Arthur Boyd. I had the great privilege of meeting Arthur Boyd at the time he was presenting to the nation Bundanon, a wonderful property on the Shoalhaven which he so generously donated and which has been transformed by the Bundanon Trust into a great cultural centre for the creation and presentation of the arts.What many people may not know is that later in that year Arthur Boyd assigned the copyright on all his works equally to his children and to the nation so that the revenue which flowed from that might assist in funding the development of Bundanon. He was a person of great generosity—great generosity of spirit, great generosity financially. We are, as a nation, the richer for that. It was a pleasure for me on behalf of the Keating government to be able to provide the cheque for $5.4 million to the Bundanon Trust to develop and manage the property. I think the Australian people are going to get an enormous return on that investment, particularly as it is reinforced by the flow of revenue from those things which Arthur Boyd himself donated.But, generous as that action was, significant as that contribution was, far and away the greater contribution was that which Arthur made through his art. It is art that is unquestionably at the forefront of world art. As well as Arthur being an outstanding Australian artist, he challenged and raised great ideas and great issues in his art. He asked questions that were very profound and very difficult. He did not pretend that he knew the answers to all the questions, but he raised things that a country is enhanced by considering. He did it in a way that was very beautiful. You did not have to get into the ideas, you could just enjoy the beautiful work. You do not have to go to art galleries to see it. I think one of the great things about Australia is the way in which it is possible to see in public buildings great works of art. The Victorian Arts Centre has a wonderful display of the Shoalhaven series of Arthur Boyd's paintings—or it did the last time I was there—and has done for many years. It is there on display for Australians to enjoy. That is what Arthur would have wanted.He presented a great face of Australia to the world. He was an international artist, an artist internationally renowned. He was described most recently as the Australian Chagall. Whether that is fair to Arthur or to Chagall many people can have wonderful debates about—I am not really concerned. All I want to say is that he was an artist that the world saw as a leading exponent, and he was recognised as an outstanding Australian in a generation of great artists, particularly his friend Sir Sidney Nolan. They between them significantly changed European, American and particularly British views about Australia and Australian art in the way that before them Tom Roberts, Arthur Streeton and the Heidelberg School did.Every nation to be great needs diverse sources of inspiration, diverse opportunities for people to develop and display their talent. In Australia we take great pride in the success of our sporting people, and we should. We take great pride when Australians win Nobel prizes for science, as Peter Doherty did recently, and we should. We do not always give due recognition when Australians are recognised internationally as outstanding artists. We produce many across the broad field of the arts; none greater in this generation that is just passing than Arthur Boyd. He was a fine artist. He was a great Australian. I was privileged to know him and to meet with his wife, Yvonne, and his daughter, Polly. I think Australia is the poorer for his passing.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—May I identify the parliament with the remarks made by the member for Fraser. As the Speaker, my office is the gentler and the more colourful for the two Boyds that hang in it. Thank you.526119:40:005261Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—I rise tonight to regale the House with a tale of three preambles: the preamble to the Native Title Act, the preamble to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Amendment Bill (No. 3) and, of course, the Prime Minister's draft preamble to our Constitution. The first preamble I will speak about is one universally celebrated by members opposite, applauded by a large section of the media and embraced by all good, self-respecting, politically correct ideologues. These social democrats and small `l' liberals—not to be confused with my coalition colleagues—could barely contain themselves as they shouted aloud to the world that the preamble captured for eternity the ultimate and most accurate expression of the unique place this nation's `original inhabitants' held in our society and in our history. I would like to quote one person heavily involved in the conception of the preamble to the Native Title Act:It is quite a splendid preamble because, for the first time, along with the recent ATSIC Bill, it tells the truth about the history of this nation—the history that we ought to own. It says:The people whose descendants are now known as Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders were the inhabitants of Australia before European settlement.I ask you to note, Mr Speaker, that this quote uses the word `inhabitants', not the words `custodians' or `occupants'. To continue to quote this person:I do not find this preamble one bit odious. In fact, I wish what it said had been enshrined in our constitution.Note: `enshrined in our constitution'. The speaker was of course none other than the then senator and Leader of the Australian Democrats, the current member for Dickson. She fervently uttered these words on 17 December 1993 during debate on the Native Title Bill 1993.What I think personally about the issue of the preamble to our Constitution is not important, but what sickens me is the ugly criticism of the Prime Minister by people who cannot hold a principled or consistent position themselves. When I first read that passage from Hansard and then looked back at the preambles to the ATSIC Act and the Native Title Act, I must say that I was stunned—stunned by the sheer hypocrisy, cant and duplicity of my colleagues opposite.Let me remind you what the Prime Minister's draft preamble—the third preamble in this tale of mine—says about indigenous people:Since time immemorial our land has been inhabited—note the word `inhabited'—by Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, who are honoured for their ancient and continuing cultures.One would think that Labor and the Democrats, when drafting a preamble to the Native Title Act, would not have been afraid to let loose their inhibitions and pen poetry. Why not indulge their bent for words other than `inhabitants', words like `custodians' and `occupants'? They used the word `inhabitants' three times in the Native Title Act preamble, and there was not a mention of `custodian' or `occupant'. I will tell you why they did not use those words. It is because `inhabitants' was, and remains, an adequate and accurate choice of words to describe the circumstances in question. If `inhabitants' was the first choice for the preamble to the Native Title Act itself, then why would it not be preferred for our Constitution preamble? After all, at the time the member for Dickson thought it was so catchy and endearing that she wished to promote it into our Constitution. Now the Prime Minister has given her the chance to make that wistful thinking reality, and she turns her back on it.The second preamble I mentioned earlier was another which the then Senator Kernot took a liking to when, on 22 November 1993, in speaking to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1993, she said:This is an improved version of the preamble which was removed from the original ATSIC Bill.You might ask why it was improved. She goes on to answer that question when she says:It talks about how Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders were the inhabitants of Australia before European settlement.So `inhabitants' is good enough for two preambles structured by the ALP and the Democrats, but not good enough for the member for Dickson to use in a preamble to our Constitution. Is it because the thought police have taken the thesauruses away from the members opposite or is it because they are devoid of any consistency and originality that they oppose everything for opposition's sake? (Time expired)526219:45:005262Sidebottom, Peter, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM849BraddonALP00—On Anzac Day recently we recognised those who fought, suffered and died in defence of the freedom we all enjoy today. Australians have fought on distant shores since before the turn of the century and gone into battle in both world wars and later the Korea, Malaya and Vietnam conflicts. Yet on Anzac Day I met and spoke with some of those who are still fighting for recognition for their wartime efforts. They did not see active combat but were trained and prepared to go to war. They are the Australian servicemen affectionately dubbed nashos—there are over 200,000 of them.Let us not forget they too served their country. It involved personal sacrifices and in many cases interfered with people's careers. It changed the direction of their lives and often disrupted their families. It is long overdue that their efforts be formally recognised. All they ask is for government recognition in the form of a medal for national servicemen. It is not a competition between the value of one type of medal over another. It is a question of national recognition of service to the nation. Yet they remain disillusioned and frustrated in their attempts to have their military service in Australia acknowledged.I was approached by several national servicemen at the Anzac Day services I attended in my home town in the beautiful village of Forth and nearby Ulverstone. They are disillusioned because they are still being ignored and frustrated and because they still have nothing to show for their service. Instead of taking their place in Anzac Day marches many take a back seat. Would it not be far better—and I am sure they would be much happier—for them to be seen carrying on the Anzac tradition?The former Minister for Veterans' Affairs and, I would assume, this government know well what I am talking about. Last year national servicemen made representations to the former minister Bronwyn Bishop, seeking recognition for their service, but I am sorry to say—although not at all surprised—they received short shrift. The minister said in correspondence of 2 October 1998:. . . that National Service was no more demanding than normal peacetime service and does not in its own right warrant the award of a medal.What the minister failed to realise was that national servicemen are not arguing that their service was more demanding than normal peacetime service—although a case could be put to argue the contrary—but that normal peacetime service is voluntary whereas national service was compulsory. National servicemen had no choice.Understandably, national servicemen were not satisfied and were angered by the former minister's response. Let us hope the current Minister for Veterans' Affairs takes a more understanding and compassionate view. Let him consider, as an example, the efforts of conscripted military personnel who served in Australia during the Vietnam War. They were called up in the belief that a direct military threat to Australia existed, as determined by three consecutive prime ministers. Sir Robert Menzies told this very House, on 29 April 1965, that the takeover of South Vietnam would be a direct military threat to Australia and all countries of South and South-East Asia. Prime Minister Holt said, in The Australian Military Forces Pocketbook issued in 1967:. . . we here in Australia could soon find ourselves facing aggressive communism close to our shores.In 1968 the cabinet of Prime Minister John Gorton gave serious consideration to Australia developing a nuclear capability because of the fear of attack on Australia by Indonesia and China. This information was only made public this year, under freedom of information.Our national servicemen of that era were conscripted, trained and prepared for war. They had comrades killed. They were criticised, harassed and attacked by fellow Australians for serving Australia during the war. Indeed, their preparation for war was not only physical but psychological, making it all the more real even though they did not see active combat. In the case of the Vietnam War, it is a case of fairness and equity for national servicemen—a recognition of their military service in Australia.For this reason I ask the minister to undertake an independent review of medals and recognition of our national servicemen. It could follow the lead of the Tasmanian branch of the RSL, which raised the matter at its recent state congress. It highlighted the depth of feeling over the issue. After considerable debate, the state congress passed a motion that a medal be issued to all persons who have served their country in the armed forces within Australia since 1945 and that a bar be attached recognising their type of service. This motion will be put to the RSL's national congress in Hobart in September.This government would do well to show some leadership on this important issue and not simply put it in the too-hard basket. I am sure our national servicemen will not give up their fight for recognition—and nor should they.526319:50:005263McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHURVH4CorangamiteLP10—I want to draw to the attention of the House the results of the landmark report called Tracking Australia , under the outstanding chairmanship of the member for Hinkler, who is in the House. I wish to draw to the attention of the House the upgrade work on the standard gauge between Geringhap and Ararat, through the heartland of the electorate of Corangamite and in particular the Pura Pura—Maroona track. On 29 April this year I visited that work and observed Transfield, a private sector company that is doing an outstanding job in terms of quality and efficiency in upgrading that track. It is using a modern wonder, an $8 million sleeper laying machine, the SMD80, which lays the tracks and the sleepers and puts the rails in position. Attending on that occasion was Peter Parkinson, the human resources manager of Transfield; John Sutton, CEO of VicTrack; Russell Trevaskis of VicTrack; local members of parliament Dennis Napthine and Bruce Chamberlain, and councillors of the rural city of Ararat.The key element of our visit was the exciting cooperation—and I mean that with all sincerity—between the federal and state governments in deciding to fund the upgrade of this particular section of national gauge track from Pura Pura to Moroona as part of the Adelaide-Melbourne standard gauge. The major problems of this section are well known to members of this House. Under the One Nation program of the previous government some $412 million was spent. I concede that they did a good job in making the standard gauge from Perth to Brisbane. But some other sections of the track were very poor, and in particular this track was very substandard. The objective is to get the track speed to 115 kilometres per hour for passenger trains and to 100 kilometres per hour for freight trains.This follows on from an inspection that the chair of the Standing Committee on Communications, Transport and Microeconomic Reform, who is in the House, the committee and I undertook in June 1998 where we looked at the Moroona to Pura Pura section where the sleepers were stacked on the side of the track, the rail was poor and there was mud underneath the sleepers. It was an absolute disaster. We drew that to the attention of this House. The committee recommended that the government spend $750 million over three years to improve the standard track around Australia, because to date the speeds on this standard track had been only 50 kilometres per hour, especially on this track. The really exciting part about this visit is finding that the Victorian government is spending $15 million and the federal government is spending $8 million to upgrade this 44 kilometres of sleepered track in a cooperative venture. The track is being improved with new rail from the old rail, and approximately 70,000 concrete sleepers are being laid. They had been sitting stacked up on the side of the track for the last two or three years—the chairman and I well remember that. And new ballasts are being laid at the correct depth. The project is being managed by VicTrack and, more importantly, 30 local people are being employed. We have in the gallery tonight some people who are interested in train travel: Greg and Heidi Wane, who come from the electorate of Corangamite at Ocean Grove. They produce a magazine called the Whistler News and use West Coast Rail to transport their publication from Terang in western Victoria. West Coast Rail is a very efficient privatised railway from Melbourne to Warrnambool. The Wanes use that particular railway for their business. Also in the gallery we have future train travellers who might be in the Ghan and the Overland on this new track going from Melbourne to Geelong—through Cressy and the heartland of Corangamite along those flat planes. They are my daughter Sarah and my sons James and Andrew, with their friends Adam, Becky and Nichole Hounsell. Today they sang Waltzing Matilda at an international gathering held at the Polish Embassy. In the future they could provide Australia's traditional song to the train travellers of the future on the Melbourne-Adelaide run. And on that occasion it will take only nine hours, not the 13 hours it now takes on this substandard track.526419:55:005264Wilkie, Kim, MPMr WILKIE84GSwanALP00—Going from trains, I would like to move on to planes. The Westralia Airports Corporation recently established a draft master plan for the future use of Perth airport and the probable impact of this expansion on the community over the next 20 years. This is a critical document. By and large it details significant movements in traffic and the effects on the local community into the next century.Prior to the last election, the corporation submitted this plan to the then federal transport minister, Mark Vaile, for approval. The minister, on advice from Airservices Australia, rejected parts of the document on the basis that they believed that projections of traffic levels on the proposed parallel runway would be unrealistic. Airservices Australia called for traffic to be transferred to the main runway and for the submission of a new Australian noise expectation footprint, ANEF.It is this new forecast which has particularly caused difficulty for the people of the city of Canning. Vast areas of the city will, under the new ANEF projections, suffer a dramatic increase in noise; so much so that, according to the Australian standards, some residential properties would not be fit for human habitation. As a result of this new forecast, the state's housing department, Homeswest, has suggested, for example, that its entire urban renewal program for Queens Park may be at risk if this plan is approved.When the ANEF map was produced, the Westralia Airports Corporation wrote to the City of Canning and gave them four days to respond to these new dramatic projections. Yes, Mr Speaker, four days to respond to a plan which has the potential to affect the lives of thousands upon thousands of residents. Obviously this is not enough time to consult with the people. Those who had previously considered they were not affected unduly and who had not made submissions or comments should now be given the opportunity in light of these new forecasts. I would like to acknowledge the presence today of the Mayor of the City of Canning, Dr Mick Lekias, and the chief executive officer, Mr Ian Kinner, who have considered this matter to be of such importance that they have flown from Perth to attend a meeting I arranged with the Minister for Transport and Regional Services earlier tonight regarding this issue. In fact, that meeting is progressing as I am here addressing you tonight. I would also like to thank the minister for agreeing to this meeting and for considering the views of local representatives.In response to these proposals and to the noise issue in general, there have been a number of events organised by the local community and local government concerning this document. I have attended these meetings and also supplemented these meetings by assisting in the information flow, detailing possible action and developing responses. I can report to this House that, at the numerous meetings in the community, hundreds of people attended who expressed concerns with the new proposals. I have tabled petitions today concerning this issue where over 4,500 people have called for action. My office has also received hundreds of phone calls, faxes and visits by concerned residents. It is sad that no member of the government has been involved in these initiatives or attended any of the public meetings, despite being encouraged to do so.Let me finish by indicating what I believe would be the most appropriate course of action. The draft master plan must be put on hold, as requested by the City of Canning, for a period of three months to allow for further community consultation as the 18 May date of certification is too narrow a time frame to allow adequate input. The minister should visit the local area to understand the importance of the issue to the local community.The federal government should introduce a noise amelioration program for Perth International Airport to address areas currently affected by aircraft noise and bring Perth International Airport within the ambit of the Aircraft Noise Levy Act 1995 and the Aircraft Noise Collection Act 1995. Prior to or contemporaneously with the signing of the Perth International Airport draft master plan the government should initiate a comprehensive social, economic and environmental study to examine the longer term ramifications of any proposed expansion of the airport with a view to implementing a compensation or other noise amelioration plan for areas identified as being affected.We need to ensure that the local communities are informed, empowered and included in considering this plan in light of the current changes. Only then can the process of developing the airport be a success for both the Westralia Airports Corporation and the wider community.10000Wilkie, Kim, MPMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 8 p.m., the debate is interrupted.20:00:005265House adjourned at 8.00 p.m.Notices5265The following notice was given:Mr Bevis to present a bill for an act to amend the Workplace Relations Act 1996 to ensure that leave for participation in activities as a member of the Australian Defence Force Reserves be one of the matters which can be taken to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission for conciliation and arbitration.1999-05-12Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Nehl) took the chair at 9.40 a.m.Statements by Members526752675267Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—I rise to speak on a publication called Airport Economics , written by Mr Leon Warren, who is a member of a Campbelltown anti-airport group. Mr Warren is one of many residents of Western Sydney who have taken a keen interest in the government's proposals to build Sydney's second airport at Badgerys Creek. One of the important issues addressed in Mr Warren's book is the suggestion that employment growth will result as a consequence of the second airport. On page 37, Mr Warren refers to a forecasting model used to estimate employment growth set out in the draft environmental impact statement on the Badgerys Creek airport. In this model it is suggested that the range of employment growth identified in Australia and overseas studies is between 500 and 800 passengers per job for direct employment and between 400 and 700 passengers per job for indirect employment. Mr Warren, in reference to this modelling, said:The model in this case is subject to both airports in Sydney operating at their maximum capacity. The assumption suggests that employers increase their staffing levels automatically each time they exceed 400 or 800 parameters. It does not take into account improved productivity gains and increased workloads that would be borne by existing staff.Take banks, for instance, even though their profits and the gross national product has been rising, banks are shedding staff and closing branches all over Australia.Reference is made in this book to the general fall of employment in the aircraft industry. The FAC annual report shows that in 1996-97 the total work force in this industry was 1,180 compared to the 1992-93 figure of 1,366. At the same time passengers per employee rose from 34,271 in 1992-93 to 51,316 in 1996-97. As to whether Badgerys Creek airport will generate a large number of jobs, we have only to look at the promise of jobs made in the EIS into the third runway. I quote from Mr Warren's book:The Department of Arts, Sports, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, in its environmental assessment report on the third runway, noted that an estimated 17,500 jobs could be generated in the airport subregion between 1995 and 2010 as a result of the operation of the new runway, with a further 27,000 jobs generated in the wider Sydney region.No attempt has been made to measure the employment impact of the third runway, but productivity gains and reduced employment numbers reported by the FAC and airlines would indicate that there has been no employment gains.I would like to congratulate Mr Warren on his important contribution to the Badgerys Creek airport debate and wish him and his organisation well in their future campaign.52675267Thompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON84CBlairLP10—I want to address the committee on two meetings—and their ramifications—held in the community of Gatton recently. The issue concerns the further development of the Gatton campus of the University of Queensland. The first meeting was held at the Gatton shire hall—there were about 50 people in attendance—and was addressed by Craig Pearson, the Chief Executive Officer of Gatton campus, a former CEO and various other local dignitaries, including Bernie Sutton, the mayor of Gatton Shire and the former Deputy Premier of Queensland, Bill Gunn.The reason for this meeting was anger at what is perceived to be the demise of the Gatton campus of the University of Queensland. This is an important facility. When it was taken into the University of Queensland, it was done on the understanding that a leading facility would be developed at Gatton—a facility that would lead Australian health and agricultural research into the next millennium.That, unfortunately, has not happened. What we see out there is growing concern at what is perceived to be the demise of the college. It seems that academics at St Lucia would like to see that University of Queensland involvement in agriculture and veterinary sciences consolidated into the St Lucia campus for their own academic ends. I do not think that is something that industry groups in agriculture and with veterinary concerns would support. I would like to see further support for the maintenance of the University of Queensland Gatton campus.It was a great relief to me last night to see the investment that the government is planning to make in relation to research into genetics. It seems that, for example, the government understands what the university does not and that genetics is a revolution that is waiting to happen. We need a great deal of academic research and investment in that area. Since then there has been a meeting between representatives of the University of Queensland Gatton campus and the Premier of Queensland, Mr Beattie. Unfortunately, there has not been entirely a positive outcome. People who are concerned about the needs of agricultural industries in Queensland have to stand up and come forward and speak to the Premier. I have certainly spoken to the federal education minister, Dr Kemp, and I believe there is growing concern in this regard. I would like to see more members speaking up because, without support for agricultural research, we will be doomed. (Time expired)52685268Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—This government has continually applauded its efforts in introducing a Work for the Dole Scheme. It is a scheme that has targeted the most vulnerable, unemployed youth in Australia and a scheme that the government has expanded in this year's budget.The government expanded the Work for the Dole program and it is now targeting unemployed Australians aged between 25 and 34 years—Australians who this government has failed, Australians who cannot find a job. It is a program that is penalising the victims of unemployment. Unlike the LEAP and Jobskills programs that Labor had in place, it does not provide any formal training. The people that are involved in the Work for the Dole program go away with nothing. They do not go away with any training that they will be able to take to another job. It is rather about the mutual obligation that these young unemployed Australians have to receive their money and not about assisting them to move from welfare to work.I have had a number of young people in my electorate come to see me about problems that they have been experiencing with Work for the Dole. There was a young girl who has put a lot of effort into retraining and preparing herself to enter the work force. She has undertaken secretarial and receptionist courses. She is working voluntarily for some agencies within the area, but she is not doing enough hours to satisfy the requirement that would prevent her from having to work for the dole, so she has been directed to do labouring work building a bridge. This is a young person who has used her initiative to train and prepare herself to enter the work force in her chosen field but, because of the program this government has in place, she is being forced to go out there, interrupt her preparation to enter the work force and build bridges.Another young person came to see me very recently. I might add that it was the parents of these young people that contacted my office because they were so angry about the way their children and young people were being treated. A young boy went along to a session where they talked about the Work for the Dole program and signed up for it. What he signed up for was a labouring program but he thought he had signed up for a marketing program. He did not turn up for the labouring program because he was going along for the marketing program in a week. He had his youth allowance stopped simply because it was not explained to him fully. Once again, it was the most vulnerable people in society being penalised. (Time expired)52695269Washer, Mal, MPDr WASHER84FMooreLP10—If you had to name one aspect of our tax system that will leave Australia on the starting blocks as we enter the new century while others take advantage of exciting ages before us, it would have to be the level of capital gains tax in this country. Our current level of capital gains tax categorically ensures that Australia cannot compete with other countries when it comes to attracting the necessary venture capital. The fact that Australia has a wealth of intellectual assets in our scientists and researchers in areas such as health and agriculture and biotechnology makes this situation even more frustrating.It is time to follow the example of the US and the UK and significantly lower the rate of capital gains tax, particularly for R&D investments. Governments in these countries have recognised the need to remove tax disincentives, to invest in new companies and to create new and lasting job growth. Australia, in the words of one commentator, is in danger of becoming irrelevant in an area where it should be a leader. This is why American pension funds, which are the largest source of venture capital in the world, have not invested one cent in Australia. They have around $80 billion in capital to invest and most of it stays in the US, where investments held for longer than five years attract a capital gains tax of only 18 per cent. The rest goes to countries with similar generous capital gains tax levels.These pension funds are probably the most prudent investors on the planet. Why, from a business point of view, would they invest money in ventures that are often high risk and take many painstaking years to yield results if, in the end, most of their returns are eaten up in tax? This also applies to Australian investors and, indeed, to the companies and researchers themselves.We are risking the loss of our brightest innovators, who will simply take their business to countries that encourage and nurture R&D. What is the point of investing in the education of young Australians if they are not going to benefit from their enormous potential? Why become world leaders in health and research and biotechnology if we cannot profit from these developments? We cannot underestimate the impact of lower capital gains tax levels on jobs growth in Australia. As part of a business tax revolution that includes lowering the company tax to 30 per cent, I agree with BRW's Robert Gottliebsen when he predicts that, when we look back, this may be more significant than the GST. The problem has been identified by both the Ralph report and the health and medical research strategic review, chaired by Peter Wills. I hope the option of lowering the rate of capital gains tax, particularly for R&D investment, is transferred into legislation as soon as possible.52705270Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—I rise to register in the strongest possible terms my condemnation of the decision by government senators in consultation with and with the support of Senator Colston to oppose a Senate inquiry into the Brisbane Airport master plan. The details of this master plan are well known to the residents of Brisbane. Essentially, they involve the future construction of parallel runway which would have a huge impact on the residents of Brisbane's south side and north side—altogether some 100,000 persons.I register my condemnation for three basic reasons. The first is this, and it is perhaps the most important: to date we have not had any form of objective analysis by anybody as to any alternative runway option. We have simply had this one option put before us and had it said to the community, `Take it or leave it.' The only option therefore available to the rest of the community is to look to a Senate inquiry as a vehicle through which alternative runway options might be examined. The public at this stage do not have a database, do not have objective information on which they can be convinced that this is the only viable alternative for Brisbane's future air transport needs.The second basis for my condemnation is this: Senator Colston, who supported government senators in the Senate on this matter, has absolutely no track record at all on airport matters in Brisbane—none whatsoever. It is simply an opportunistic intervention by him to support government senators in their hour of need in order to produce a 38-all vote and thereby prevent it from proceeding.My third reason is this: it simply delays the day. The Senate numbers will change as of 1 July, and this motion will be put before the Senate again. It is at that stage when I look forward to this inquiry proceeding, its terms of reference being accepted and the prospect of public hearings being held across Brisbane's south side so that the truth of this matter and the interests of Brisbane's residents may be properly served.52705270Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—On Thursday of last week, I had the opportunity to attend and witness the signing of a new home and community care agreement between the federal Minister for Aged Care, the Hon. Bronwyn Bishop MP, and South Australia's Minister for Disability Services, the Hon. Robert Lawson MLC. As the secretary of the government's health and aged care policy committee, it gave me great pleasure to be present at this event, as the care of our aged is a very important issue in my electorate of Makin.People in Makin and elsewhere want to have the opportunity to remain in their own homes for as long as possible without having to seek institution care. The new agreement signed last week will take effect from 1 July 1999. The Home and Community Care Program is a joint Commonwealth and state program which provides community care for frail, older Australians as well as for younger people with disabilities and their carers.An amount of $823 million a year is spent on this worthy program, and, in my home state of South Australia, 55,000 people are assisted by the program, which provides home help such as cooking, cleaning and washing as well as transport, food services, personal care, community nursing, home maintenance and respite care. Home and community care funding in South Australia for this year is $72.6 million, representing $44.8 million from the Commonwealth and $27.8 million from the state government. This represented an increase of $2.2 million in the current year. I would like to take this opportunity to commend the South Australian government led by Premier John Olsen for agreeing to a contribution of $27.8 million for the Home and Community Care package, bringing the total funding to $72.6 million.The most important aspects of the new agreement are: reduced duplication between the Commonwealth and state governments; increased service efficiency; emphasis on quality assurance and measuring standards; increased availability of post-acute care; and involvement of the private sector to ensure that the best possible providers are selected. These measures underline our commitment to ensuring the best possible care for our elderly and infirm. This commitment is further evidenced by the measures included in the Treasurer's `right for the times' budget, a budget for the new millennium. These measures include an enhanced primary care package for our older Australians and people with chronic conditions and, equally importantly, it contains more funding for respite care.The Home and Community Care Program has allowed many people in my electorate of Makin to continue to live in their own homes while receiving the care that they need. This makes an enormous difference to their quality of life, their dignity and their happiness. I commend the government for expansion of this program and for the dignity and quality of life that it has made possible for so many people in my electorate of Makin.52715271Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—I rise to acknowledge and commend the contribution to multiculturalism made by the National Multicultural Advisory Council in its recent report titled Australian multiculturalism for a new century: towards inclusiveness . The report, published in April 1999, was written, as I understand, after extensive community consultation. The report advocates an attitudinal change which, if Australians are to attain our national aspiration of social harmony, is absolutely necessary.The electorate of Lowe, which I am privileged to represent, is one of the most culturally diverse electorates, with some 40 per cent of the population being born overseas and more than 30 per cent being born of non-English-speaking background. Lowe has a large community from Italian, Greek, Chinese, Vietnamese, Korean, Lebanese and Sri Lankan backgrounds. The Lowe community prides itself on social harmony and warm acceptance of diverse customs and culture.I am relieved to see that Australia has finally discarded its policy position of the 1950s, where a white Australia was the only politically acceptable Australia. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! In accordance with standing order 275A, the time for members' statements has concluded. The Main Committee will now consider government business.Bills5271r770Billsr773Bills5271Debate resumed from 25 March, on motion by Mr Williams:That the bill be now read a second time.09:59:005271Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—This debate deals with two related bills—the Customs Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 and the Import Processing Charges Amendment Bill 1999 . The first bill proposes to amend the Customs Act 1901 by introducing a new reporting and registration scheme for bulk cargo consignments of high volume, low value cargo into Australia. The second bill proposes to amend the Import Processing Charges Act 1997 to reduce the screening charges to apply to those who register as special reporters under the scheme to be established by the first bill.The Customs Act requires pilots of aircraft and owners of ships to report to the Australian Customs Service information about cargo intended to be discharged at a port or an airport in Australia. The Australian Customs Services uses these reports to screen cargo and to carry out its responsibility to protect Australia against the importation of prohibited goods. The proposed reporting and registration scheme that these bills envisage is designed for high volume cargo such as documents and consolidated mail orders which are valued at less than $250 per consignment and transported by specialist operators. Currently, such consignments are reported at a consolidated level and the Australian Customs Service relies on physical random checks to inspect individual consignments.The new scheme is intended to allow operators who register as `special reporters' to report cargo at a consolidated level, provided the ACS has access to their computer facilities where information relating to individual consignments is stored. Operators by registering would be aware and agree that the Australian Customs Service would have access to their relevant computer databases and would be able to make necessary privacy and security arrangements if this is a matter of concern to them.The powers to the ACS under new subdivision D would ensure compliance by special reporters with the conditions and requirements in amendments to division 3 which establish the new registration and reporting scheme. These powers appear to be comparable to existing powers and provisions of the Customs Act which deal with search warrants in respect of things believed to be evidential material.This scheme is intended, effectively, to enable a smoother transition of product of this nature through the border control, to enable Customs to work with those who are registered under the scheme to undertake appropriate checks through the course of their import. As the scheme will be less expensive to manage than the current arrangements, the government has made consequential proposals to reduce the charges for reporting under the new scheme. That, of course, is a consequential and, I assume, not unwelcome concession by the government in relation to the arrangements that they have proposed.In relation to the working of Customs, this is an agency which is in considerable crisis at the moment. Customs has faced challenges which, plainly, it has failed to discharge, not the least being the two instances whereby large vessels sailed down the east coast of Australia and beached—one in Queensland and one in New South Wales—avoiding coastal surveillance. We are aware that there have been large and increasing consignments of illicit materials, particularly drugs, coming into this country at a rate which the government concedes is such that the availability and purity of those drugs is higher than ever before.Of course, this has had consequences in Minister Vanstone's own administration of the department. Her department is operating with a crisis of morale. Within Customs, there is a real sense that the arrangements that the government has put in place necessary to provide support to them have been inadequate. There are now currently major inquiries being pursued as to the future arrangements that should apply in the area of the management of Customs resources. It is widely believed that Customs Minister Amanda Vanstone has lost the fight to prevent the breaking up of the Customs Service.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. While there is a cognate debate and therefore one would expect debate to range somewhat more widely than if the debate was on one bill only, what the honourable member is now saying is well beyond the purview of either bill. I ask you to ask him to come back to the legislation before the chamber.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—I thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration. In recalling the honourable member for Denison, I am sure he will stick to the contents of both bills.RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERR—Mr Deputy Speaker, it is not within the standing orders to require, in relation to a debate on the second reading of the bill relating to Customs, that I not speak in relation to the administrative arrangement for Customs when these matters plainly flow from changes in the processing of arrangements internally in Customs.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I will listen very careful to what the honourable member is saying. Please proceed.RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERR—I was simply making the point that Customs is in crisis. It is widely reported that the minister has lost the fight to keep the Customs agency in the form it is now. There have been major breakdowns in the framework for the protection of Australia's border security. The arrangements in this bill are supported by the opposition; they are convenient and appropriate. But that should not prevent us, in a debate of this nature, drawing attention to the obvious fact that the agency that is the subject of this legislation is due for a major shake-up, and to ask how that shake-up is going to be effected.Reports that have been received from a number of sources suggest that the federal government is about to strip somewhere between 1,200 and 1,400 staff from the agency. There is an intention to create a new agency, Border Australia, to be set up with an amalgamation of these staff from Customs, 500 from the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service and 80 from the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. And Customs is set to lose its commercial functions, which, reports suggest, will be transferred to the Department of Industry, Science and Resources, which will be responsible for the commercial side of Customs, for tariffs, antidumping and collections. So the functions now in this bill which are presently in the Customs agency will in fact be stripped from Customs and transferred to the Department of Industry, Science and Resources.Moves in this direction were first proposed in a secret report to the Minister for Finance and Administration, John Fahey, in a bid to gain efficiencies and cost savings in border control. That so-called Sturgess report, named after its author Gary Sturgess, who is a former key adviser to the Greiner government, was handed to the Howard government last September. The secret report—the opposition has sought access to that report on a number of occasions and has been refused—is understood to have recommended the setting up of a single border agency and also to have been critical of the management of Customs. The report is also understood to have suggested that the new single border agency could be established outside the Public Service Act, with a corporate structure similar to that of Employment National, which of course has raised fears within the Customs Service of future outsourcing and privatisation. At the time of that report it is understood that Minister Vanstone opposed its implementation and succeeded in retaining the present structure. But the failures of Customs over recent times have weakened the minister's position.The current government, after the recent election, has dusted off the recommendations of the Sturgess report. It is now part of a review which is being conducted, with Max Moore-Wilton as the chair, as part of a departmental task force set up to look at coastal surveillance and associated matters. It appears from reports that the decision has already been made, although not yet announced, that Customs will be broken up into a new Border Australia agency of the kind that I have indicated, bringing in resources from AQIS and Immigration, and that Customs will lose these commercial services that are presently the subject of this legislation. In other words, the structure that is presently in place will entirely be left. I cannot imagine what present functions undertaken by the Customs Service will be left as stand-alone agency functions for Customs if these reports are correct.The Sturgess report was commissioned to get cost savings and to set up the border control process for possible privatisation. Labor rejects any quick fix on this. The weakness in Australia's border security needs a more comprehensive solution than simply dusting off an old, presumably rejected report and re-presenting it as a solution to a major problem that it was not designed to address. We will not be satisfied with rebadging a cost saving report. Labor is extremely wary of pea and thimble tricks after the `cost savings' of the government on law enforcement during its last term.In relation to cost savings of the government during its last term, I was interested that the Treasurer, Mr Costello, referred last night in the budget speech to initiatives on law enforcement, particularly what he called creating a safer Australia. That took me back, because I used to be justice minister. I remember a report called the Justice Statement, which I was instrumental in the carriage of during the Keating government. The Attorney-General, Michael Lavarch, the then Prime Minister, Paul Keating, and I announced that in Queensland. In the Justice Statement there were a number of initiatives. Those initiatives were cut by the incoming government. What was included in those initiatives? What a surprise: the safer Australia initiatives and all the initiatives that were highlighted by the Treasurer, Peter Costello, last night. There they were, bold as brass.They are damn good initiatives. But what a budget backflip—programs that were cut by the Howard government during its first term, announced by me as justice minister as part of the Justice Statement and the safer Australia initiatives, being recycled as government initiatives in the budget.What we are concerned about here, in relation to the customs area, is that we have seen cuts right across the law enforcement areas, and the consequence of those cuts—leading to a morale loss in agencies like the Australian Federal Police and Customs—has been to weaken the capacity of those agents to be the front line law enforcement agencies that this country requires. So we are now seeing catch-up responses, renewing funding initiatives which were cut during the previous term of this government, rebadging those as Liberal government initiatives and—the worst in relation to Customs, I fear—that a proposal that was designed in the context of the previous government's attempts at cost cutting and rationalisation will be re-presented to the Australian community as if it is an answer to the crisis facing the Australian Customs Service in terms of border surveillance. That is not going to be good enough.When I indicated that the opposition had heard these reports—we had heard that the government had already made these decisions and that announcements were likely in the near future—Minister Vanstone responded by saying that I was the subject of misleading reports and my information was wrong. That puzzles me. Obviously, when my colleagues who are sitting opposite were in opposition they would have had similar reports when initiatives of this nature were in contemplation. I have had a number of reports which suggest a degree of credibility and strength on those matters beyond that which is merely speculative. The timing of the announcement and when the change will occur are something of which the sources were not aware, but the fact that those decisions had been made and were certainly widely understood throughout the department and the agencies I do not believe can be gainsaid.We put that on record as a marker of our concern about the future. We do not want to see a recycled report, a design for an entirely different purpose, being dressed up again as a comprehensive response to what Australia needs by way of an effective border surveillance mechanism. We need to look at new initiatives. Perhaps we need to look at a type of coastguard structure. We need to look at these things more thoroughly, and there should be public input. There has been no consultation whatsoever with any of the commercial users of Customs. When there have been previous changes mooted in the administration, there has always been an undertaking to consult, not just with the unions, but also with the commercial sectors that are affected—the airlines and the shippers. They have not been consulted, notwithstanding undertakings that they would be.Secondly, the reports as to what went wrong in relation to breaches of border security have not been made public. This is a shameful thing. When Minister Vanstone was challenged after the first boat instance, she set up her own inquiry to ascertain what went wrong and who was responsible. Somebody had to take responsibility. The minister said that she would not comment on the factual basis or responsibility until she had that report. Then a second boat sailed down the coast. It got as far as northern New South Wales.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Scotts Head.RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERR—Of course, you would be very concerned about that.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I was there on the morning.RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERR—I think you made some public comment at the time. Again, the minister said that she was broadening her inquiry, that she wanted to identify what went wrong and who was responsible. She said that she would not make comment until she had that report. A deadline for that report was imposed by the Prime Minister. That was the end of last month. The government has that report. It will not release it. The minister will still not explain what went wrong and who is responsible. Even Premier Kennett said that somebody has to take responsibility for these failures. But what we have now is a response from the government that says that these reports have just gone into the Max Moore-Wilton inquiry, and when Max Moore-Wilton tells them what they are going to do with the reorganisation that they have talked about previously they might consider releasing those reports—`might consider'.There was a clear impression left in the mind of the community by the minister and the Prime Minister that when these reports were received they would be put out before the Australian community so that the Australian community would know that somebody accepted responsibility for these mishaps and that action would be taken to address that problem and responsibility would stand where it should fall.It is not good enough for a government still not to speak on those incidents after those inquiries have been made, after the minister has that report, and after she must be aware of where the fault lies. All I can think is that the blame must be politically embarrassing because if the blame were not politically embarrassing those reports would be out in the public domain. Why should the Australian public and its parliament, having been promised that the minister could not speak in relation to what went wrong until she had the reports, tolerate the minister still not speaking about what went wrong in two of the most publicised and significant breaches of Australia's border security after she has received an official report from her investigator and after those reports are in her hands?What possible excuse can she provide? It is a complete contempt of the public. But worse than that, it is an effective misleading of this parliament, because those assurances were given that there would be an independent inquiry, that the minister could not speak in relation to those matters until she had that report. What is the implication drawn from that by reasonable people after they heard her say that when she had that report she would be able to detail how these events could have transpired, what went wrong, who was taking responsibility, what the processes for accountability were and how this was going to be prevented in the future? We have not heard one word. There has been silence.What we understand, however, by way of the political reality, is that the issue has been taken out of her hands entirely. She has been left as a cipher on the sidelines. When she is asked questions about the Sturgess report—the Sturgess report was the report that I mentioned before, about the possible future of Customs and its integration into other border agencies—she says, `It's not my report. It was a report commissioned by Minister Fahey. I can't answer questions about it,'—and this was in Senate estimates—`but maybe I'll be able to say something about it at the next meeting of the Senate estimates in a fortnight.' That is in a week's time.Again, that fits in with the fact that decisions in relation to the Sturgess report have already been taken, not by the minister, but by Max Moore-Wilton and his group, who have not had any public input; who have not called for submissions; who have not consulted the commercial community; who have not had discussions with the affected employees, their professional associations or their trade unions; but who obviously have gone back to the Sturgess report as a basis of what they intend to do.The minister is being left out of the loop. Her opposition to the implementation of the Sturgess report seems to have been overridden. She is now having an imposed solution, firstly by Minister Fahey, who set up this inquiry into her turf, which she fought off successfully in the first instance. Now it has been passed on to Max Moore-Wilton in the Prime Minister's department. She is trying to bury the reports that she commissioned herself about what went wrong with customs operations on her watch and will not answer questions about it, because she passed those reports to Max Moore-Wilton. She is being eliminated as a minister other than in name. She has not got effective control over the future and the administration of her own department.A minister who is a minister actually administering her department would have given the Australian public what she promised them implicitly by saying, `I will commission an independent report on what went wrong'—by presenting that and saying, `I accept responsibility for these mishaps. I have identified the failures in the system. I am taking responsibility. I am addressing the question of responsibility. If there have been acts of omission or negligence, I will ensure that they are pursued. If there have been those within my employment who have failed, I will address that. If there have been physical or technical problems in equipment and surveillance, I will identify that and address it.'If you had a minister with control over her portfolio, those would be the responses that we would be hearing now. Instead, we have a minister whose future is being decided not by her, but rather by the Prime Minister's office in an inquiry process which has no input—or, I suspect, very little input indeed—from the minister herself. I suspect that these are decisions that are being taken by other than her and imposed upon her. That is why, when pressed on these issues, we continually find a refusal to table materials which in any other circumstances would be tabled.There is no plausible reason why a report, commissioned by the minister in the aftermath of two of the most serious instances of breaches of border security, is to be withheld from the public with no undertaking now to provide that report, even after Max Moore-Wilton completes his larger inquiry into the structure of customs arrangements. No undertaking to table it has been given.What we are to understand essentially is that no-one is going to take responsibility for what went wrong in the past. Nobody accepts political responsibility in the Howard government for mistakes. Nobody will address the failures of equipment, performance or personnel in relation to incidents that were on the front pages of newspapers causing concern—and not just to Labor members. It might be predictable that the opposition spokesperson on justice and customs would draw attention to these matters. That is part of the role of opposition, to highlight deficiencies in government administration and call ministers to account.In this instance, the concerns that I expressed were expressed in stronger language by colleagues of the minister. Backbench members who resided in New South Wales and Queensland expressed those concerns in stronger language than I used. I was anxious to have the matter resolved so that we had systemic solutions that would prevent this occurring in the future. They were angry that this could have been allowed to occur.I thought the most telling remark, as I mentioned before, was from Premier Kennett, who said, `Somebody must take responsibility.' But what do we have? We have the no responsibility account. We have the cover-up approach. The minister cannot talk before she has a report; she will not talk after she has a report. When does she talk? She never talks. She never speaks to us about what goes wrong. We have just had two huge amazing episodes of—Mr Pyne interjecting—RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERR—She might talk about all sorts of things. She might have edifying conversations on the back bench about the factional infighting of the South Australian Liberal Party. I am certain she takes a very loud and active role in that. But in these instances, she is paid by the Australian community as minister responsible—as Minister for Justice and Customs—to be the political administrative head of a department of state—sharing it with the Attorney-General, but a joint administrator of the Attorney-General's Department, specifically charged with the responsibility for the Australian Customs Service.When a major development occurs which demonstrates a weakness in her administration—it is on the front pages of newspapers all over the country, and is the subject of criticism by her own parliamentary colleagues and by the premiers of Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria—she says, `I cannot speak on this issue until I have a report.' When she receives the report, she says, `I cannot speak on this issue now that I have a report.' What is expected? That we will forget about it and that, with the administration of a key department of state with one of the basic responsibilities that Australia has of protecting its coastal security, an incident like this can happen without any public examination put on the table for the Australian community to be reassured that somebody is acting in their interests and that faults and failures are being addressed?This is not part of Max Moore-Wilton's brief. Max Moore-Wilton is not set up to examine what went wrong. Max Moore-Wilton has a much wider brief to look at what departmental arrangements the government will impose on a minister who has failed.So when are we going to hear? We still have no undertaking that there will be any accountability on this issue. The fundamental tenet of political government in Australia is what is called responsible government. What does responsible government mean? It means that, when you accept the commission of the Governor-General to become a minister, you accept political responsibility for what occurs within your portfolio watch.This government is spurning that basic convention. We want to see that report. We will not be happy with half-measures in relation to customs services. We will not be happy with half-measures in relation to accountability. We will not be happy with the recycling of the Sturgess report, as if it is a response to these serious issues which need a much more systemic response from a government to assure the Australian public that these instances will be addressed thoroughly and properly.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Before I call the next speaker, I would just like to make a comment pursuant to the point of order raised by the honourable parliamentary secretary. The content of these bills, as with many, is very specific and quite explicit. However, the relevant factor is the long title of the bill. I will not read it in full. But both of these bills end with the words `and for related purposes'.When the government drafts a bill with the words `related purposes', anybody can draw a very long bow indeed. So for the information of all members, I make that point that the long title of a bill is the relevant area when we are looking at relevance.10:29:005278Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—It is my pleasure to speak on behalf of the government on the Customs Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 and the Import Processing Charges Amendment Bill 1999, which basically is mechanical in its scope. It is about introducing a new registration reporting scheme. Among other matters, it permits owners of ships or aircraft who are already registered users under the air cargo automation system or the sea cargo automation system under section 67(c) of the Customs Act 1901 to register as special reporters under the scheme.Mr Deputy Speaker, the member for Denison certainly has drawn a very long bow. What a beat-up! This is basically a mechanical bill produced by a department to speed up the efficiency of processing of high volume, low value goods coming into the country. We have had a monumental beat-up by the member for Denison on matters which ranged to illegal immigrants coming into the country, as if there were no boat people or illegal immigrants who came into the country during the 13 years the previous administration was in office. In his extraneous examples—we have not seen this or that report—he fails to commend the minister for the excellent changes and reforms that have been carried out.Over the past few years, my previous life has been involved in tourism and there has been a remarkable turnaround in the general approach and efficiency in the way in which Customs handled people and processed documents coming through Sydney and other airports around the country. The minister and the officers of the department need to be commended for the way in which they responded to the challenge right across the board.The Minister for Justice and Customs is one of the outstanding ministers that we have had in this area. I have racked my brains and it is very difficult to remember any leading reforms that were carried out by the previous speaker, the member for Denison, in this area. It is amazing that we have a small technical bill on which the speaker spent about two minutes flat and then spent the rest of the time having this broad ranging debate on all matters nefarious. It is a small technical bill; it is about improving efficiency.A collection of documents—letters, legal documents, small mail-order consignments—come into the country and the process at the moment makes it difficult to follow them. The Customs Act 1901 requires that everything needs to be consigned and provided to the customs officials. This bill allows for greater efficiency in this new age of technology. We could have had a word of commendation from the member for Denison to the minister and the officers of the department to say, `Well done!' because they have recognised that the world has changed. A new technology is in place. We no longer have the comprehensive program providing all the information in the world for people to go through. The information is simply put on the computer for the customs agents to look at, and this simplifies the whole process. What could be more straightforward than that?The member for Denison could have sat down after two minutes. He could have commended the administrators who brought this forward and left it at that. But, of course, he would have had to commend the government and the minister for what they have done.There are different arrangements for the organisations in how they handle it. This bill provides different arrangements because of the disparity that currently exists between couriers and freight forwarders. There are efficiencies for couriers where they get a particular advantage in this process. It will do two things: it will improve the administration through the ability of downloading information when required and it will provide the ability to simplify the costing. This cognate bill proposes to reduce the amount of screening charge from $2.40 per line in each cargo port to $45 for an electronic cargo report.So what do we have? For the government it is going to be cost neutral, and that is important. So there is no basic change for the government. This is about providing assistance to those who use the service—the airlines, the freight forwarders, the couriers who come through. Also for the government it provides the ability to download the information from the computers so that they can check it out pretty quickly and, if required, do a check for illicit drugs coming into the country. We have heard the member for Denison talk about the problems of drugs coming into the country. Here is an example where we are making it easier for officers to simply check what is on the consignment and download the information, if required. It also provides for the officers to gain access to the specific facilities where this material is stored and be able to see if there are any illicit drugs or whether it conforms with the description as provided in the computer.There are various aspects to the bill in relation to registration. In order to report high volume, low value cargo in this scheme, the person must apply for registration as a special reporter. Once they are given that recognition and that registration, they are able to report electronically on the customs information that is required and provide a less detailed cargo report. Upon registration, the special reporter must comply with the conditions that are established. If at any time there is a breach of these conditions, they may lose their licence and they will not have that special ability. They have that licence for a period of two years, and obviously that can be taken away from the chief executive officer of the Customs Service.There is a monitoring warrant that can be issued, as set out in the bill, so that these officers can go to the facilities to check out and make sure that the requirements are met. Currently, we have different arrangements that parties are involved in, and everything needs to be reported in a fairly longwinded approach to the whole exercise. But this will provide a more targeted approach for cargo consignment for a particular mail-order house, for cargo comprising reportable documents, for cargo comprising other goods of a kind prescribed by the regulations.This is good change; it is good administration. I commend the officers for it. It will be cost neutral. It will mean less compliance cost for those people who are forwarding their documents overseas, which is going to be a continual trend as we have more and more documents—legal documents, company documents—sent offshore as the Australian economy diversifies and expands and as we have more investment, not only from overseas sources into Australia but vice versa. To have the longer requirements of the current legislation is unnecessary with modern technology, and this is an appropriate way to go.The member for Denison's attacks on the government are without substance. It is an administration that has performed well. It is performing efficiently. It is reducing costs. It is undertaking these types of changes, which is what efficient administration is about: to look at the current arrangements; to ask if there are changes that need to occur with modern technology. There is a simpler way of doing it. Let us get on with it, let us reduce the cost for those freight forwarders and exporters that are involved in day-to-day trade.This bill shows the initiative of both the minister and the public servants who are involved in the administration of this act. I commend them for it. I believe that the changes that we have seen will assist people involved in bringing documents into the country. It should have been done a long time ago. The member for Denison, who claims what great things he did, had 13 years to implement such changes. Technology is not a new thing in this country, nor are computers. We should have done it a long time ago but, thank goodness, we have brought it forward today. I commend the minister and the officers who have been working on this bill and amendments.10:39:005280Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—I was going to commend the honourable member for Denison, prior to hearing his contribution on what I thought he was going to say in support of the legislation currently before the chamber. I would like to congratulate the honourable member for Cook on his erudite words and I commend them to the honourable members opposite.It is, however, very sad when the honourable member for Denison rises in the chamber on a bill which is non-controversial, a bill which he himself admitted the opposition is supporting, and wastes close to half an hour seeking to criticise Minister Vanstone, who is doing an absolutely outstanding job as Minister for Justice and Customs.The Customs Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 proposes to amend the Customs Act 1901 by introducing a new reporting scheme for high volume, low value cargo arriving in Australia. As well, a screening charge in relation to cargo reported under the high volume, low value reporting scheme outlined in that bill will be introduced by the Import Processing Charges Amendment Bill 1999 , which amends the Import Processing Charges Act 1997.Running through the speech by the honourable member for Denison was criticism of the government's approach to customs. He suggested that we were not diligent but were in some way being dilatory as far as our obligations to the people of Australia are concerned. He claimed also that morale in the area of customs was declining and certainly not in a very good state. I want to place on record the simple fact that this government has been more supportive of Customs than previous governments, and customs officials themselves are ready to admit this.I will point out some of the major initiatives under our government with respect to Customs. Over the period 1995-96 to additional estimates 1998-99, Customs annual appropriations have increased by $82.1 million, or 22.1 per cent. This year staffing within the border subprogram is currently at a record level, estimated as 165, or eight per cent, higher than in 1995-96.The following major initiatives over the life of the current government have been approved for Customs: a technology upgrade program, at $27 million over three years; an upgrade of the Customs marine fleet, with eight new vessels, at $58 million; the National Illicit Drugs Strategy, at $34.5 million over four years, for improving Australia's coastal surveillance and detection capacity in the Torres Strait; the upgrading of cargo examination facilities and the development of a new cargo profiling system, at $4.3 million; and an improved intelligence analysis. Also, the government's Tough on Drugs policy statement, announced during the 1998 election, has foreshadowed the allocation to Customs of an additional $31.65 million over four years for the purchase of sophisticated cargo examination technology, the creation of specialist search teams and the deployment of an additional marine crew in the Torres Strait.One might listen to the huffing and puffing by the honourable member for Denison. He obviously relishes his very limited time in the sun—he had half an hour here and he was determined to ram down our throats half an hour of complete claptrap and irrelevance, with false criticisms of the minister and her performance. If you listened to him, you would think in this matter that the Labor Party had been an absolutely paragon of virtue.9V5PYNEMr Pyne—It is unlikely.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—That government was hopeless. I thank the honourable member for Sturt for his intervention.Let us just look at what the Labor Party did during its time in office. It made a number of reviews of the situation relating to Australia's coastline. In 1983, the now Leader of the Opposition, the then Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, conducted a review of Australia's peacetime coastal surveillance and protection arrangements. He considered the creation of a separate coastguard but discounted it on the basis of cost.In 1986 there was a report by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure, entitled Footprints in the sand. Two years later, in 1988, there was a government commissioned review of civil coastal surveillance arrangements, called Northern approaches. In 1990 there was a report entitled Risky Business: the 37000 kilometre challenge by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration, which reviewed Customs and, in turn, Coastwatch. The report of a 1993 committee of review of the Australian Customs Service was entitled The turning point. That also looked at Coastwatch.Former Minister Schacht, who was Minister for Small Business, Customs and Construction from March 1994 until March 1996, was quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald as saying:It is clearly impossible to resource such a task to provide 100 per cent guarantee of no undetected incursions.The opposition wants to criticise this government when we have done more than any other government with respect to Customs and seeking to detect these incursions—whereas their own minister, when they were in office, said that it was impossible to guarantee such an event would not happen.Also, you will recall, Madam Deputy Speaker, that under the Labor Party in office there were a large number of undetected arrivals. For instance, on 9 September 1994 there was one at Cape Leveque at Kimberley; on 12 December 1994, another at Cable Beach at Broome; 22 November 1994, at Nightcliff, Darwin; 31 December 1991, at Montague Sound, Western Australia; 1 September 1989, at Cockatoo Island; 25 April 1989, at Koolan Island; and 16 November 1988, at Badu Island—I could go on.So these people are absolute hypocrites. They come into the chamber and they criticise the government when we are the government which is absolutely and resolutely determined to make sure that the Australian community receives the protection that, indeed, we believe ought to happen. This minister, Minister Vanstone, has done an outstanding job. On behalf of the government I am very pleased and honoured to reject the false accusations and criticisms made of Minister Vanstone and the government.There was also a suggestion by the member for Denison that we were somehow soft on crime. Everyone was riveted to the television sets throughout the nation yesterday as the Treasurer delivered what was an outstanding budget document. One only has to look at the headlines in all of the newspapers to see that this government is right on track. We are delivering good, sound, responsible economic management as we move towards the next millennium.When one comes back to the Attorney-General and the justice portfolio of which Minister Vanstone is minister, it should be noted that an extra $245 million over four years was set aside in the budget last night. In particular, the budget provides $35.4 million to the Australian Customs Service for increased search capacity, the purchase of X-ray technology to enhance the capacity for drug detection at the nation's borders, the creation of specialist search teams, and the additional marine crew to improve surveillance in the Torres Strait. This is in addition to other new budget initiatives such as an additional $6.5 million to the Australian Customs Service for the Sydney Olympic Games to ensure that the extraordinary volume of people and goods entering and departing Australia for the Olympics are efficiently facilitated whilst simultaneously maintaining appropriate border controls. There is also $41.6 million over four years under the government's tough on drugs initiative to expand our capacity to intercept drugs before they reach Australia's shores and to attack distribution networks in Australia.So this government is doing more than any other government. This government rejects absolutely the false accusations made by the member for Denison, who is suggesting that in some way we are participating in a cover-up, that we are not carrying out our responsibility to the Australian community. Minister Vanstone responded to accusations by the member for Denison in a media release dated 7 May. She said—and I quote, and it is very hard to improve on the minister's own words:Duncan Kerr is either a victim of an elaborate hoax or he has completely lost his marbles.Madam Deputy Speaker, I will let you decide which of those two the member for Denison finds himself in. Either way, he ought not to be standing up and making false and misleading criticisms of the minister.We all know about the departmental task force which has been set up to look at coastal surveillance with Mr Max Moore-Wilton as chair. Answers to questions about undetected vessels will clearly be given in this particular context.The minister rejected absolutely what the member for Denison has said and pointed out that it is a pity he has not bothered to get his facts right. That really dismisses the absolute nonsense uttered by the member for Denison during 30 long and tedious minutes here in this particular chamber.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—Talk about the pot calling the kettle black there.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—You guys ought to apologise for your inactivity during 13 years of rule. I know the member for Batman was not there, and he obviously feels embarrassed that he is part of a party that has such an absolutely disgraceful record over such a long time.I would also like to point out that the member for Denison is confusing the Sturgess report with the Prime Minister's task force reviewing coastal surveillance. These are quite separate matters. I mentioned before that the Prime Minister's task force is chaired by Mr Max Moore-Wilton and has representatives of Defence, Customs, AFP, Immigration and PM&C. This task force will report by 30 June.The report by Air Commodore Heggin into the arrival at Holloways Beach was received by the minister on 30 April, which was only a few days ago. This was raised at Senate estimates, and some of the facts which were revealed there indicate that no prior information was received by Coastwatch on the vessel and the report has also been passed to the task force for consideration with the Scotts Head beach arrival.Returning to the two items of legislation before the chamber, it ought to be noted that all cargo arriving in Australia is required to be reported under the Customs Act. It is basic to Customs' ability to fulfil its border protection responsibilities that people transporting cargo to Australia report to Customs the details of the cargo intended to be discharged here. I suspect that no reasonable people, not even some of the unreasonable people opposite, would disagree with that proposition. Customs is then able to screen the cargo report to protect the Australian community from the importation of illicit drugs and prohibited goods. These bills deal with a particular type of cargo, which is the high volume, low value cargo.The screening charge was introduced in 1997 as a cost recovery measure and is charged on each air cargo consignment valued at less than $250. Such a consignment must be reported to Customs, although it does not require a customs entry.These bills propose to introduce a reduced screening charge for people who are eligible to join the high volume, low value reporting scheme. At present, people reporting high volume, low value consignments pay $2.40 for each consignment. However, under the scheme, such people will pay an amount of $45 for each bulk consignment which has been put together by the people transporting the consignments to Australia.To be affected by these bills, the reporting of the cargo should ensure that each consignment does not exceed $250 in value and that the customs duty and sales tax payable does not exceed $50. Because of these restrictions, such consignments will pose a low revenue risk to Customs. These bills will enable high volume, low value cargo to be properly reported to Customs.This sector of the transport community has grown dramatically, with some 120,000 consignments arriving each week at Sydney airport alone. The high volume, low value reporting scheme proposed by these bills will enable high volume, low value consignments to be properly reported. The scheme will utilise electronic technology to enable the people reporting such consignments to provide Customs with access to their internal electronic databases, so that Customs may electronically screen the details of each consignment.To perform this screening task, Customs is currently developing the advanced cargo profiling system. The system is being developed at a cost of $2.8 million under the government's National Illicit Drug Strategy.These bills propose to make the scheme available to all people reporting such consignments, whether they arrive by air or sea. These bills will enable Customs to perform its screening responsibilities more effectively and at the same time provide arrangements for industry to more efficiently and properly report high volume, low value cargo. You might not have thought it from the speech made by the member for Denison, but these are actually bills which do enjoy bipartisan support. On that basis, I am happy to commend them both to the chamber.Question resolved in the affirmativeBill read a second time.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Kelly)—If no member wishes to consider the bill in detail, I will put the report question forthwith. The question is that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills5284r7735284Consideration resumed from 25 March, on motion by Mr Williams:That the bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.UNKNOWNMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Kelly)Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Kelly)—If no member wishes to consider the bill in detail, I will put the report question forthwith. The question is that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills5284r7765284Debate resumed from 31 March, on motion by Mr Reith:That the bill be now read a second time.10:57:005284Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—The Tradesmen's Rights Regulations Act 1946 has had a long and illustrious history of 50 years of assisting the trades skills needs of Australia, but, provided we work out appropriate transitional arrangements, like much other legislation of that time, it may have had its day. In passing, I refer to the fact that the Tradesmen's Rights Regulations Act 1946 was developed under the emergency provisions of World War II. It was an initiative of the Chifley Labor government. In fact, I think the records will show that this bill is potentially the last act of the postwar reconstruction period on the books of the parliament.The act was initially aimed at assisting troops returning from the war to re-enter the civilian work force and, in doing so, participate in the postwar reconstruction of the nation's economy and major development programs on the government's agenda. At that time, that was exceptionally important. One has to think about the nature of the young men and women who went to war in the period from 1939 to 1945. They were, in essence, children of the Depression. Many were forced to leave school at an early age because of economic necessity. Because of their war service, or alternatively the employment opportunities offered under civilian rehabilitation programs in the immediate period postwar, many got for the first time ever the opportunity of trade or skills training.In that context, I think we must acknowledge the importance of this bill, whilst at the same time in a non-political way we work across the parliament to try and develop transitional arrangements that continue the thrust of what the bill sought to achieve in days gone by. On that basis, I refer to the fact that the act assisted in the development of skills, particularly in a number of industries—namely, the metals, electrical and shoe trades—and also provided recognition for those who developed their trade skills in industry during the war. But whilst that was the initial intent of the bill, its importance grew in the years soon after it was initially introduced.I refer to the fact that in 1952 the act was amended to also provide for the formal recognition of the trades skills of migrants. There are many migrants now in retirement in Australia who came to Australia as part of a major work force to help Australia rebuild in the postwar period. Those like our own children of the Depression who got trade training during their period of war service, or in the period immediately after the war, very much identify with what this bill enabled them to achieve, from both a personal and a family point of view.Therefore, in addition to assuring the quality of work of the overseas trained workers and those at home—namely, the informally trained Australian workers—in the 49 prescribed metal and electrical trades, the act has been used to encourage skilled workers in times of skill shortages. One value of the act was that, until recent times, it was the only body that provided a nationally accepted qualification, as there was no uniformity in trade training and recognition systems across the states. It was therefore exceptionally important, nationally, to ensure that between the states we were able to create a sense of uniformity with respect to the quality of the tradesperson that was produced as a result of a variety of training programs around Australia.For over 50 years, the act has played an important role in our industrial relations system and in the operation of the skilled labour market. It has also, since the early 1950s, played an important role in the administration of Australia's migrant program and the settlement of skilled migrants into the work force and the community. Generations of migrants to this country have benefited from the act as it has allowed recognition of earlier skills and training and has provided the necessary skills upgrades to enable those skills to be utilised for the benefit of the whole Australian economy.However, times change, and times have changed from the original intent of this act. The time has now come to move on as a large proportion of the provisions in the act have become obsolete and the question arises about the continued relevance of the committees established under the act.Since the implementation of the act over 50 years ago, as a community, we have seen significant changes to our education and training policies, programs and even philosophy. Fewer Australian residents are developing their skills informally, and those who do have increasing access to alternative means of having their skills recognised on a national basis and therefore understand the importance of the changes before the House today.Migrants who have not had their skills assessed as part of the migration program also have access to these alternative mechanisms for domestic recognition. Training in the Australian Defence Force is now also linked to civilian training qualifications, which is exceptionally important. This has meant a continuous decline in the number of applications for domestic recognition under the act over the 1990s. The committee of review found:This decline will continue and the future outlook for demand for recognition under the act is such that it will not be possible to maintain an efficient and economically viable domestic skills recognition service under the current arrangements.The committee then went on to make its recommendation. It said:The act should be repealed and domestic recognition should be provided under the arrangements for skill assessment and the issuing of national qualifications, including the infrastructure of registered training organisations, being put in place under the Australian recognition framework.The review committee also identified, and it is interesting to note, a range of implementation and transition issues which they felt needed to be resolved before a firm timetable for the cessation of activities under the act could be decided. In that context, at the conclusion of my remarks today, I will seek to move an amendment which goes to the importance of trying to resolve across industry, from the point of view of an employer, trainer, union and worker, the nature of what transition arrangements might be appropriate to make the bill workable.It is the areas of implementation and transition that are of concern to those of us on this side of the House as we have seen too often grandiose schemes in the areas of education and training promulgated by the government without the skills and resources provided to make them viable. On the issue of the transition arrangements I might also say that, following discussions with the department, who have in turn consulted the government, there is an understanding that we have to develop appropriate transition arrangements. Because of the importance of that, we want to avoid what has previously occurred. We do not want another farce like the literacy and numeracy program which aimed at increasing the skills of the unemployed to enable them to become more competitive, but failed to provide the trained teachers, back-up resources and, most importantly, funds to achieve the desired results.While current assessment procedures are not uniform across the states, overseas skill recognition is primarily paper based, but a practical assessment is undertaken if deemed necessary. Under the proposed legislation—and this in many ways represents the nature of the times and the change in the nature of training in Australia today—only paper based assessment would be undertaken. This assessment process would be tendered to registered training organisations. We must ensure that those registered training organisations are capable of doing the job.The concerns we have with this bill relate to the competency systems, whether or not paper based assessments are adequate, and the implementation of a satisfactory transition mechanism. The committee of review report notes that both unions and industry—yes, industry employer organisations across a range of industries—have expressed the concern that registered training organisations are not yet equipped to perform the tasks allocated to them, and that no satisfactory transition mechanism is in place.I am pleased to note that, following a proposition brought forward by the Australian Labor Party in the Senate, these issues will be taken up by the Senate Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education Legislation Committee, which is to report back in August of this year. I believe it is important that we ensure that the necessary replacement mechanisms are in place before the legislation is enacted, to guarantee that the standards of the act are maintained. The review also addresses these issues and recommends that:Detailed consideration should be given to the implementation arrangements and the lead time for winding up activities under the Tradesmen's Rights Regulation Act.The fact that that has been recognised in the review, and the consultations with the department, who also recognised the need for the transition arrangements, are the very reasons we bring forward the amendment that in due course I will move today. It is clearly in line with the thinking of the department and in line with the review's recommendations, which have in turn been discussed with the minister, who has indicated his willingness, following consultation, to develop appropriate transition arrangements and, in doing so, to agree on a reasonable timetable to make sure that we get this transition right.The review then went on to identify a range of implementation and transition issues which need to be resolved before a firm timetable for the cessation of activities under the act can be identified. In submissions to the review, and in consultation with the review committee, some employer and employee organisations expressed concerns about, for example, the implementation and quality aspects of the Australian Recognition Framework.Industry also expressed concerns—and I can understand why—about the registration and auditing of registered training organisations which appeared to reflect the view held by industry that it should have a role in these activities. The view of industry was that it would be appropriate for the arrangements and infrastructure developed under the Australian recognition framework to ultimately directly provide the means for skills assessment for migration purposes. They believed that this would entail prospective migrants overseas seeking skills assessment for migration purposes through a government managing agent, which would be the relevant Australian authority under the migration regulations and which would engage selected registered training organisations on a competitive tendering basis to undertake the assessments.The review said that it would also be appropriate to establish a broad based consultative committee, comprising the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and industry and community representatives, which the government managing agent would consult on the criteria for selecting registered training organisations and in monitoring their performance. The review concluded that the government managing agent should operate until the Australian recognition framework infrastructure has developed further and been tested against its quality assurance benchmarks and until a core of registered training organisations develop significant experience in overseas skill assessments. It may be appropriate for that reason for skill assessments for migration purposes to be directly undertaken by the appropriate registered training organisations without the participation of the managing agent.It is in that context that we on this side of the House, firstly, recognise the historic importance of this bill. It has been part of the skilling and the rebuilding of Australia in the postwar reconstruction period. It has also been part and parcel of enabling many people from overseas to come to Australia and, in doing so, to have their skills properly recognised—the end result being that they have been able to pursue a reasonable standard of living in Australia. Secondly, the nature of training in Australia has changed and, therefore, we have the proposition before the House to repeal the Tradesmen's Rights Regulation Act.It is understood on this side of the House that time does move on with respect to this issue from both a domestic and an international perspective. It is on that basis that I will move the second reading amendment. Whilst I understand the government will not support the second reading amendment today, and despite the ignorance of some members on the other side of the House about discussions that have occurred between the opposition and the government about the importance of this bill and the need to involve industry, union, worker and training representatives in the development of a decent transition mechanism, I am pleased to say that that work will be undertaken by a Senate committee. There will be a report back to the Senate and, following consultation between the department and representatives of the various parties interested in this bill, I am hopeful that, side by side with the repeal of the bill, we will have an agreed transition mechanism. I move:That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:"the Bill not be proceeded with until details of transitional mechanisms are provided which guarantee a smooth transfer from the existing arrangements to the new system."I commend the amendment to the House.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Kelly)—Order! Is the amendment seconded?83VEMERSONMr Emerson—I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.11:14:005288Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH2K6LongmanLP10—It has taken the member for Batman, representing the opposition's position on this matter this morning, some 16 minutes to simply tell us that they agree with the legislation but that they would like some transitional arrangements. The government is very proud of the fact that there are now some 200,000 apprenticeships in Australia—an all-time record. Three years ago apprenticeships were at a three-decade low—an appallingly low level—because of the neglect by those opposite when they were in government. Today, of those 200,000 apprenticeships, approximately 1,200 applicants come under the Tradesmen's Rights Regulation Act.I want to go straight to the core of the amendment that has just been moved, because there are already provisions in place and the opposition, along with all other parties, will be involved in ensuring that these transitional arrangements are satisfactory. In repealing the Tradesmen's Rights Regulation Act, hopefully by 30 June this year, the Australian Recognition Framework will have been in place for 18 months and will be bedded down—18 months in which we could have seen its operation and been able to learn from it.Repealing this act will enable a full year's cost saving in the 1999-2000 budget but, of course, this is not a savings measure. It is simply that the legislation, as rightly pointed out by the member for Batman, which actually served a very valid purpose and served it very well for 50 years, is no longer relevant. Part of any forward thinking government is to in fact repeal legislation which is on the books and which is no longer relevant to today's society.Does anybody agree with what we are doing here? The bottom line is that all of the states have already been consulted on this issue and they are all in agreeance that this should occur and that the federal government should move away from the obligations it has held in the past in the determination of people's trade qualifications. The trade qualifications that we are referring to here are predominantly for electrical and mechanical engineering.Although the bill does repeal the act, there is a need, as has been pointed out, for transitional arrangements to protect and save the rights—for example, by following the finalisation of applications for recognition on hand at the date of repeal. The bill does provide for Henry VIII type regulations to be made for this purpose. The transitionary matters are to be dealt with by regulation, not through legislation. The minor parties have already indicated that they have a problem with this, but the minister has indicated that he will be preparing an exposure draft of the regulations for discussions with the minor parties, the opposition and any other interested parties.The repealing of this act is supported by all state and territory governments and by the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. The Australian Industry Group supports the repeal in principle and would obviously also like to see these transitional provisions in place.In 1991 there was a review of this act undertaken by the previous government. That review recommended that the act should continue `until national standards and processes have been developed and unless and until it can be demonstrated that a more effective mechanism [than the act] can be put in place'. These conditions have now been met—as we have pointed out—and the training packages and the Australian Recognition Framework are now working and have been working for some 18 months. The aims of the national training framework are to provide a more flexible and simpler regulatory environment. All the industrial relations legislation that we have put before this parliament has been about ensuring that we do in fact have a system which is modern, flexible and adaptable to a changing work force.The national training framework comprises two elements: training packages and the Australian Recognition Framework. I encourage the opposition to be involved and to make comments on the exposure draft of the regulations—and I am sure they will. I also strongly encourage them to support the bill as put forward. The act which has served the country well for 50 years will be replaced by more updated legislation, putting the responsibility for determining the qualifications of these qualified electrical and metal tradespeople in the hands of those who are best qualified to do that. I commend the bill to the House.11:18:005289Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—The position we are adopting in relation to the Tradesmen's Rights Regulation Repeal Bill 1999 , as outlined by my colleague the member for Batman, is that we will support the bill, but with an amendment, the terms of which have been outlined. The purpose of the bill is to repeal the Tradesmen's Rights Regulation Act 1946, which has provided for an alternative trade skill recognition procedure to the traditional apprenticeships system for certain trades since 1946.The legislation that came into force in 1946 was one component of Australia's postwar reconstruction effort. I think it is fair to say that it is a component of that effort that has, as the member for Longman has said, served Australia very well. The act was amended in 1952 to provide for the recognition of the trade skills of migrants after their arrival. In effect, the purpose and ambit of the act were expanded. The functions of the act have been further expanded by having the organisation which administers the act—Trades Recognition Australia—make assessments of overseas individuals wanting to have a skills assessment in order to qualify under the immigration points system. Thus, the TRA is noted as the relevant authority under migration regulations—that is, pursuant to the Migration Act 1958—for the skills assessment of prospective migrants in most trades.The TRA has assessed and recognised trade skills of those who have not completed a traditional apprenticeship as a young person but who have nevertheless acquired the relevant skills for that trade. We agree that, while this act served Australia very well right through the postwar reconstruction period, its time has gone and it is now time for a replacement to it.As my colleague the member of Batman has outlined, however, we have concerns with the transitional provisions and that is why we have moved our amendment. Indeed, under the proposed legislation, only a paper based assessment would be undertaken. This assessment process would be tendered out to registered training organisations. We have some concerns with the fact that only a paper based assessment would be made, and quite a few of the key stakeholders are concerned that inadequate transitional arrangements for that have been made. I hope the government will fulfil its commitment to ensuring that there is proper consultation on these transitional arrangements.I would like to make a comment on recognising the training and improving the skills base of the Australian community. Since this government began three years ago to slash Labor's job programs under the Working Nation program, the number of long-term unemployed people has actually increased to 212,000. That is a stubbornly high number of long-term unemployed people in Australia. Disappointingly, last night when the budget came down, there was precious little for the long-term unemployed or, more fundamentally in a sense, for lifting the skills base of the Australian economy and community.Our concern is that, with the abolition, the effective removal of the Working Nation program—a very large and successful program—nothing really effective has been provided in its place. There have been announcements of apprenticeships but we find in the budget forecast that the unemployment rate is predicted to be stuck at 7½ per cent. That bodes badly for Australia's future as we seek to take our place in the international community, when we lack the skills to compete effectively in the information age. We are very concerned that the government is not demonstrating a commitment to lifting the skills base of the Australian community. That is a disappointment. We are concerned about the transitional arrangements being proposed here.We support the bill. It is legislation whose time has come, in our view. But we implore the government to lift its gaze beyond measures such as this to the wider task of enhancing the skills base of the Australian economy. If we do not do that, we are in for a very difficult time in the information age of the new millennium.11:24:005290Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—I welcome the support this morning from the member for Rankin for the Tradesmen's Rights Regulation Repeal Bill 1999 . However, I challenge what he has had to say in relation to the skills base in this country. I am not certain where the member has been in the last couple of years but I suggest he looks at the number of apprentices who now have been engaged. It is a record number. The government has placed great emphasis on these areas because we recognise that the apprenticeship system is so important to this country. Certainly, in the vocation that I come from, it got to the stage where you could not get skilled people to work for you. It is very difficult indeed, and we need to continue to enhance the skills base in this country.In relation to unemployment, yes, the budget papers have indicated that by and large in the next 12 months unemployment will remain about where it is at the moment. I think you should look in the longer term, at what might happen after the next 12 months. I would put to you that there will be a continuing downturn in the number of unemployed in this country and that will be welcomed by both your side of the House and ours.In relation to this bill, the government has embarked on a review of redundant acts and there are probably 90 to 100 of those. There has to be some housekeeping from time to time. I think that in housekeeping we find some things that quite raise our eyebrows. This particular act is 53 years old and perhaps it is time now—the government believes it is time—that it should be retired and taken off the statute books. That is the reason for the bill before the Main Committee this morning. Certainly, the government recognises that the particular act served its purpose well after World War II. It certainly aided the transitional arrangements after the war. It aided servicemen who had gained experience during the war in having their skills recognised and it certainly helped in the resettlement of those servicemen. It is my understanding that by about 1951 the object of the original act was achieved. It did continue. Its value has been that it has enabled nationally accepted trade qualifications to be issued underneath it.We are currently running a parallel system. We have got this particular old act operating and we have got a new national framework called the Australian Recognition Framework. The new framework is in line with the reform processes that the government has been putting in place over the last four years, and they have worked very successfully indeed. You have to recognise that you do not stay living in the past, that you move forward, that you look for new and better ways of doing things, and, certainly across many facets of workplace relations, the government has put in some marvellous reforms. The Job Network in my area has done wonderfully well, much better than the old CES system did, and it is a tribute to the kinds of things that you can achieve if you look at meaningful reform processes. I am confident that the Australian Recognition Framework will, in fact, be a suitable vehicle to replace the current act that we are considering repealing today. Certainly, the services that can be provided under the Australian Recognition Framework can now be delivered on a nationally consistent and competitive basis.I note that the old act applied predominantly to the metal and electrical trades—and, of course, I have some experience in those. It was always very difficult when you had someone come to you to be employed in electronics, which is the field that I was in, to make sure that their qualifications were consistent and their abilities were well understood.In relation to the amendment that has been moved by the member for Batman, I would say that it is simply not necessary to slow down this bill now. I fear that what we are seeing in the Senate—the frustration, the roadblock and the logjam—might be coming to the House of Representatives side of the parliament because the transitional arrangements will be looked at by a Senate committee. That will be looked at in a timely manner. It will take some time for this bill to ultimately get to the Senate. We on this side of the House think that there is plenty of time to make sure that those transitional arrangements are settled. We would suggest to the other side of the House that it is not necessary to amend this particular bill today and we will be opposing that amendment because we do not want to see this bill further delayed. I therefore commend the bill to the Main Committee.11:30:005291Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—I rise to support the amendment as detailed by the member for Batman. I must say that I disagree somewhat with the member for Herbert. The issue is not slowing down the Tradesmen's Rights Regulation Repeal Bill 1999 ; rather it is making sure that when the bill is enacted, when it does become law, it will work and the proper transitional arrangements are in place. It is not about leaving things to chance; it is about making sure that the replacement procedures really work.The Tradesmen's Rights Regulation Act has played a very important role in Australia and has contributed enormously to the reconstruction of Australia post World War II and to the employment opportunities and wellbeing of many Australian workers. There are many Australian workers who have returned from war and Australians who have immigrated to Australia and become Australian citizens. It applies to the metal, electrical and shoe trades, as has already been mentioned by other speakers. The act came into effect in 1946 as one of the components of Australia's postwar reconstruction. As the member for Batman noted, it was an initiative of the Chifley Labor government. It assisted soldiers who had made an enormous contribution to Australia's war effort to return to their prewar trades—trades that had changed somewhat and trades that they had been absent from for some time. It also recognised the new skills that these troops had developed while they had been in the Australian armed forces.The act was further extended in 1952 to cover migrants and to recognise overseas qualifications. I believe this is a very important role because there is a great variation in the qualifications workers receive in overseas countries. On paper they do not translate uniformly. Also, what can appear to be a very high, detailed qualification overseas, when it is actually compared to the Australian qualifications, does not match and is not of the same standard.When we are looking at industry and workers, we want to make sure that people who are employed in Australia have proper skills. We do not want to see the skill base of our work force in any way debased. Also, we want to make sure that those workers who are working in trades such as the metal trades and electrical trades do not cause any danger to other workers. There is also an occupational health and safety issue when you are looking at the skills that workers take to the work force. We must make sure that people working in electrical and metal trades are not going to endanger their fellow workers and are not going to endanger themselves. I just touch on that briefly; I will deal with that a little more later.The Tradesmen's Rights Regulation Act was reviewed in 1995. As a result of that review it was recommended that it be replaced by adequate training and assessment processes and that they should be in place before the act is repealed. I believe that the transitional arrangements are absolutely imperative. If they are not in place and if we do not have adequate assessments in place it can put the whole process in jeopardy. As I mentioned at the start, it is not a matter of slowing it down; it is a matter of making sure that it will work and that those people who are currently involved in the process are not going to be disadvantaged.The other concern I have is in relation to the registered training organisations. I believe that we have to be very careful that these organisations have the necessary expertise. We have all seen with the tendering process that took place in Job Network how organisations that did not have the necessary expertise were granted tenders. It was the unemployed workers in Australia who were gravely disadvantaged.I have recently been talking to a constituent in my electorate who completed a training course by one of these `fly-by-night' job placement organisations that received a tender in the first round of the Job Network process. This person received a qualification and was employed, then lost the job. That person was out of pocket to the tune of $1,000. We must make sure that those sorts of incidents do not happen here. We must make sure that those people assessing the qualifications of people seeking to have their qualifications recognised meet the Australian standards.The other thing that I am also a little concerned about is the assessment process. Pen and paper assessments are fine and they need to be completed. But in an area like electrical and metal trades, it is also extremely important that a person has the practical expertise. It is no good recognising the skills of somebody in the electrical trade who does not have the practical expertise or the ability to perform those tasks. Quite often, the only way that you can assess that is through doing a practical assessment and not through the pen and paper examination.I am concerned that, by not giving due concern to the issues that have been raised by the member for Batman and by not making sure that the transitional arrangements are in place, it will affect workers within those industries and will erode the skill base of Australia's work force. I feel that it is time to change. It is necessary that the Tradesmen's Rights Regulation Act 1946 be repealed. It has served its time. It has really contributed to Australia's development and reconstruction, but now we need something that is in line with our current training and apprenticeship schemes. The only way this will happen is if the process goes through the proper procedures. This will happen only if the transitional arrangements are in place.With those words of caution, I conclude my comments. In doing so, I urge members to support the amendment.11:39:005293Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—The legislation which this bill intends to repeal—the Tradesmen's Rights Regulation Act 1946—is now 53 years old. With the progressive evolution of skills training over those years, that 1946 act has outlived its relevance and its usefulness. As previous speakers have enunciated, it had a very real role to play postwar in assisting returned servicemen going back to resume their civilian lives, and for others such as migrants and so on.The repeal of the act was a result of a major review of its current relevance. That inquiry concluded that a large proportion of the provisions of the act had become obsolete and no longer had any useful purpose. It also concluded that domestic training reforms, particularly the development and the implementation of arrangements for skill assessment and the issuing of national qualifications under the Australian Recognition Framework, were removing the underlying rationale for the act.The thing that tells the story is the use and the number of applicants. In 1997-98, there were only 1,218 applicants compared to 1991-92 with 5,249 and 1982-83 with 10,142. Clearly, the rationale for the act has been eroded to the point where its existence is no longer warranted. Nonetheless, the rights of small—in fact, diminishing—numbers of people should never be overlooked or ignored. The government has quite rightly given an undertaking that transitional arrangements will be put in place to allow the finalisation of any applications outstanding at the time the act is repealed. That undertaking is very welcome.It is also important to note that all state and territory governments—including state Labor governments—support the ARF. Of course, the states and territories have the major role in its implementation and they appreciate that continuation of the current act would be counter to the direction of vocational education and training policy agreed to by all governments. I note that the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry also support the repeal of this legislation.I spoke earlier of the need for a sensitive transition to the new arrangements after the abolition of the 1946 act. The review committee did identify a range of implementation and transition issues which will need to be resolved before a firm time frame for the cessation of activities under the TRR act can be identified. These issues were outside the scope of the review and will need to be taken up in the implementation of any government decisions flowing from it.It surely is cumbersome, confusing and inefficient to have different systems to recognise all of the various trades. Under existing arrangements, Trades Recognition Australia, which administers the 1946 act, provides the trades assessment and recognition service for a long list of skills in the metal and electrical trades from armature winder to welder first class, in the areas of blacksmithing, sheet metal, engineering and boiler making. However, formal recognition of other trades is the responsibility of state and territory government trades recognition authorities. It begs the question: why should there be a dual system? Naturally, the government has moved to ensure that there is a single and efficient system. I agree wholeheartedly with the minister that the Commonwealth has no place ultimately in the migration skills assessment field and that assessments should be undertaken on a free competition basis directly by registered training organisations established under the act.The government has laid down stringent criteria, which would allow RTOs to be eligible for this task, and I believe the criteria will be acceptable to employers, unions and the community generally. I am sure we are all aware of the critical importance of ensuring that all tradespeople, irrespective of the origin of their training, meet the same uniformly high standards. One of the key criteria is the establishment of a broad based consultative committee, including industry and community representatives, whom the government would consult on the criteria for selecting RTOs and in monitoring their performance. The active involvement of industry and community representatives in this important work will not only ensure that the very highest standards are established and maintained but, equally importantly, allay any fears that substandard qualifications are being accepted.The trades training system that has developed in Australia over the past 50 years has provided us with an extremely capable and well-skilled work force. We can all rightly regard our tradespeople generally as being professional and well suited for their task. I do not believe there is a sound reason for the amendment that the opposition have proposed. The minister has taken into account the sensitive needs of a transitional phase, and I am very pleased to give my support to this bill.11:44:005294Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—The Tradesmen's Rights Regulation Act 1946 was first introduced to recognise the skills of workers not formally trained as tradespeople to fill trade skill shortages which arose from the rapid expansion of defence industries as part of the war effort and from the enlistment of qualified tradespeople into the defence forces. The Tradesmen's Rights Regulation Act is administered by Trades Recognition Australia, which provides a trade skills assessment and recognition service in prescribed trades for permanent Australian residents. Trades Recognition Australia is part of the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. It is operated nationally, with offices in each state and territory.The postwar migration boom raised the need for a means of assessing and recognising the trade skills of migrants so that they could be fully utilised. The Tradesmen's Rights Regulation Act was amended in 1952 to meet this need. The amendments changed the prime focus of the act from the recognition of domestic trades skills to those of migrants.The Tradesmen's Rights Regulation Act 1946 is the national mechanism for the recognition of metal and electrical trade skills developed through informal training on the job, training in the Australian defence forces, and formal training or experience on the job overseas. In recent times these sources of skills acquisition accounted for 10 per cent, 15 per cent and 75 per cent of TRA applicants respectively. Almost half of Australia's tradespeople are in occupations covered by the act.Central trades committees at the national level determine criteria for recognition and broad matters of policy. They consider applications for pre-migration assessment of trade skills from prospective migrants, and they undertake internal reviews of decisions by local trades committees and skills advisers. These trades-qualified departmental officers—the skills advisers—who are also accredited workplace assessors under the National Training Board standards, assist the committees by undertaking initial assessment of applications and preparing documentation for their consideration. Australian recognised trades certificates are accepted by employers and unions as the equivalent of the completion of an Australian apprenticeship and are accepted by the TAFE system for entry in post-trade courses.The Tradesmen's Rights Regulation Act serves three important functions. It facilitates harmonious industrial relations in the metal and electrical areas by providing an agreed means for recognising trade skills and avoiding disputes over access to types of work and wage levels. It facilitates labour mobility and the efficient operation of the labour market by assuring employers about the skills of their workers, and contributes to the development of the skill base of the work force by facilitating access to further training and by increasing the number of qualified tradespeople legally able to train apprentices. It ensures appropriate points for skill are allocated to prospective migrants as part of the migration process, and facilitates post-arrival settlement.To be eligible for recognition, applicants must provide evidence that they are capable of performing the full range of trade duties normally undertaken by, and to the same level of skill as, a tradesperson in Australia. The assessment process examines the qualifications held and the scope and nature of the work undertaken by applicants, through a combination of documentation, interviews in Australia and overseas, on the job inspection and trade tests. Formal training criteria for the trades, identifying training equivalent to formal training, has been developed for at least 44 countries.For non-criteria countries, the criterion is that the applicant is able to demonstrate that they have a minimum period of experience performing the full range of work, and to the level of skill ordinarily done by an Australian tradesperson, and that they are capable of performing that work in Australia. The minimum periods are six years for the metal trades and seven years for the electrical trades.A major streamlining of the TRA process occurred in 1989 through a greater reliance on documentary evidence and by computerising the initial assessment. The process to adopt competency based assessment began in 1994. The crucial factor in this was the support for change from the tripartite central trades committees and the TRA skills advisers. Today the majority of applicants are assessed solely on the basis of documents. This looks at formal qualifications, the length of relevant experience, and the scope and nature of that experience.TRA clients pay a fee to have their skills assessed. The application fee is currently $390. If the service is to remain accessible to people, the fee must be kept as low as possible. As the current fee only covers about 40 per cent of TRA's running costs, with the rest coming from government funding, it does represent a significant subsidy to applicants paid for by Australian taxpayers. It is also important that the cost to budget be kept as low as possible. According to the most recent available statistics, from October 1997, the full year overseas application level was about 3,000.In December 1998 a report of the legislation review of the Tradesmen's Rights Regulation Act 1946 was presented to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. The committee found that, while the TRR Act has played an important part in the operation of the skilled labour market and the settlement of skilled migrants into the work force, a large proportion of the provisions in the act have become obsolete and domestic training changes are removing the underlying rationale for the act.The committee concluded that TRA's reassessment methodology and procedures for domestic recognition and migration assessment have generally been valid, reliable, accurate, fair and efficient in the context of the TRR Act and the general domestic training and industrial environment in which it has operated. During the 1990s there have been significant fee increases, but clients are still not paying full cost recovery. The TRR Act has not imposed direct costs on employers, but has provided benefits to them through reduced recruitment and operational costs. The TRR Act has also provided benefits to individual clients in the community, and the committee reported that there is a high level of satisfaction on the part of individual clients, individual employers and industry in general.In relation to the migration skills assessment function of the TRA, the committee's conclusions were essentially the same as for the domestic program. That is, the TRA has provided benefits to employers through reduced costs in recruitment and operational costs. It has provided benefits to the community by ensuring successful migrants have the appropriate skills. It has provided benefits to individual clients by assisting them in their post-arrival settlement, by providing them with a high level of confidence about the recognition and acceptance of their skills in Australia. There is a high level of satisfaction with the TRA on the part of individual clients, individual employers, industry, the migrant community and, indeed, the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs.Those things notwithstanding, the committee recommended repeal of the act. It said that one of the reasons it did so was that the net trend for migration skills assessment has been downwards over the course of the 1990s as a result of changes to the size, composition and administration of the migration program.I join the previous opposition speaker, the member for Shortland, in expressing some words of caution. I wonder whether the report has adequately taken into account whether there is likely to be increasing pressure on the federal government from all states and territories for additional skilled migration in the immediate future. Moreover, it seems to me that there is likely to be a need for us to rely less on documentation as the sole means of verification if it is possible that forged documents will emerge from non-criteria countries.The committee concluded that assessment should be undertaken by skills assessors who meet the requirements of the relevant training programs engaged on a fee-for-service basis. Currently, clients pay $390 when they tender their application. If fee for service is introduced and there is a free-for-all in this area, you could have applicants facing charges of up to or even in excess of $3,000, which would be well beyond the capacity of most Australian residents, let alone prospective migrants.I turn now to the circumstances surrounding the review. It is my understanding that most of the bodies which were asked during that process of evaluation said that they were happy with the system. I note that migrant organisations may be concerned by the changes because they could lead to migrants being inconvenienced by the new arrangements and even having to pay exorbitant costs.During the review, Trades Recognition Australia had offices in every state, but they are being dismantled before this legislation is passed. I understand that there were 12 officers in Canberra handling overseas cases but that has now been reduced to two or three, that where there were seven officers in Victoria there are now two, and that there have been similar reductions in other states. So three or four in New South Wales I think now are going to one; three or four in Queensland, now two; and the one person in South Australia, the one in Western Australia and the one in the Northern Territory have all left on packages.Further to this effective dismantling of Trades Recognition Australia, it has been alleged to me that the director, Mr Glen Newton, was eroding the TRA services essentially from the time he took up his appointment in 1991, that he was involved in helping to select the committee members for the review and that, whilst the review was under way, he formed a company and registered a training organisation of his own. He was the head of the secretariat supporting the committee, according to appendix C of the report, but whilst the review was under way he trained people with public funds to later recruit them for his own company. According to my information, while the review was being carried out, as head of the secretariat conducting the review—or at least in a private capacity—he sent letters to some staff seeking expressions of interest to work for his company.During the course of the review the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs was told that their department had the capacity to carry out the premigration assessments. They were told that the overseas classifications unit would take over the role despite the fact that the unit would prefer the current arrangements to remain. According to information given to me, the registered training organisation established by Mr Newton has tendered to do the TRA job and it is also my understanding that Mr Newton has taken a package from the department with the intention of reappearing, doing the same work as a successful tenderer to the government as the head of an outsourcing company.The question that arises here is: will the taxpayer be better off by this kind of arrangement? I have to say that I do not think that it is appropriate that the director responsible for tradesmen recognition in Australia could be seeking expressions of interest from his staff with a view to offering them work for his company while he is still a director. I think that if this has happened then it has damaged the credibility of the department and the review process.It has also been alleged that Mr Newton, as a director, damaged the integrity of practices within the TRA that had been built up over a period of many years. For example, it had been the custom and practice to inform applicants if their proposed application had little or no chance of success, thereby saving them the fee of $390. So in the past, applicants were told not to waste their money if they had little chance of success. Under instructions from Mr Newton, officers in the department were told not to give the applicants any information. They were specifically told not to give free assessments.You have the situation where the department is seeking to effectively maximise its income at the expense of clients. Similarly, in the past, unemployed people did not have to pay if they wished to make an application. This practice was also changed and we had a move to full cost recovery with a new fee structure being introduced by the minister for workplace relations. This included an assessment costing $390 and a trade test, if required, costing $270. If an application is unsuccessful because the requirements have not been met, then the charge is the average of the trade test fees. I am concerned to ensure that these fees do not increase dramatically to an excess of $3,000 per person—well beyond the reach of most applicants.I further note that it has been alleged that Mr Newton issued a direction that assessors be able to reject applications rather than send them to the tripartite committees. Originally we had a process where the assessors provided advice to the committee with a recommendation. The skills assessors were then given the authority to refuse applications, which obviously meant that the applications did not go on to the tripartite committee. A consequence of all of these changes has been that the application rate has dried up because no information has been provided at the counter.Migrant organisations may well be concerned by these changes, and the legislation should not pass until the community and industry have had an opportunity to respond to the report. I think that these concerns need to be put before a proper review process and properly aired so that those who want to have their skills recognised and would have done so under this system are not disadvantaged, and that is why I strongly support the opposition's amendment.11:59:005298Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—in reply—I thank all the members who have contributed to this debate on the Tradesmen's Rights Regulation Repeal Bill 1999 . I thank them for their interest and the comments they have made. I appreciate the fact that many people have been associated with this system for many years. We appreciate the work and commitment that they have undertaken over a long period of time.The government, in reviewing these matters, has received certain advice from the committee which was established to review the act. It is very clear that the introduction of the Australian Recognition Framework from 1 January 1998 has removed the underlying rationale for the Tradesmen's Rights Regulation Act 1946. That is the basis upon which we are proceeding. It is a reflection not on the work that has been done, but simply that the passage of time and the establishment of this new framework have rendered the act no longer relevant. Therefore, we are proposing to the parliament the repeal of the underlying legislation.In respect of the proposal of those opposite that the introduction of the repeal be delayed, I understand their concerns about transition arrangements. I think their concerns are validly made and I think we do need to look at transition arrangements carefully.You need to understand, too, that time has moved on a bit. When the review was undertaken, the ARF was about to start, but it now has started and we have had the passage of time since. I think the concerns about transition have been rather overcome by the sequence of events and the passage of time which has since elapsed.The bill does, however, provide for regulations to make transitional and savings provisions. The member for Batman, for example, will be consulted on the draft regulations—as will employer and employee organisations and other interested parties. We think a better way to manage this is to involve the interested parties in the consultations on the regulations, rather than delaying the passage of the legislation.The regulations will allow for resolution of applications lodged before repeal. As I say, the framework is now already in place and I think we have before us every reason to be confident that there can be a smooth transfer.I understand the issue about the cost raised by the member for Wills, but of course this reflects the fact that the numbers have been decreasing so, in a system where there is some reimbursement by applicants, the fact is that there are upward pressures on cost. In fact you would be facing higher costs if we were not to make the changes that we are proposing.Mr Deputy Speaker, in our view, continuation of the act would be inconsistent with the national recognition of vocational education and training policies and initiatives, which have been agreed between the Commonwealth, states and territories. That is a very important point to make. The establishment of the ARF is a joint effort. It is giving Australia a modern system, and the Commonwealth, in its participation in that, I think has certain underlying or consequent obligations. The approach that we have taken to the tradesmen's rights legislation is the right one, given what is happening nationally and what has been agreed, as I say, between the Commonwealth, the states and the territories.Opposition members are concerned about premigration assessment for migration purposes, which is not affected by this bill. I should note that existing arrangements for assessment by Trades Recognition Australia of migrants overseas already do not require on-the-job assessment, so this is not something which will change. Their concerns, therefore, I do not believe are well founded.Opposition members are concerned about integrity issues where assessors receive fees for services and whether recognised training organisations are capable of on-the-job assessment. These are issues to be considered by the Senate committee. We have initiated or certainly welcomed the establishment of that Senate committee and I am sure they will look at some of these issues.It should be noted that the Australian Recognition Framework does include quality assurance and audit arrangements in which the states and territories have key roles.I should also say, in respect of the claims made by the member for Wills in respect of Mr Newton, to my knowledge he is a respected officer in the Australian Public Service. I think there are implications in the comments from the member for Wills which are entirely unjustified for somebody who has worked hard for the Commonwealth as a public servant for a long time. He is well respected. What you mentioned in fact raised no allegations of impropriety. Obviously I will have a look at what you have had to say but there is absolutely no basis for what you have said, and I think it is pretty inappropriate that you should get stuck into a respected public servant who has worked very hard in this area for a long time.I do appreciate the interest that members have in this, but we have followed through in a very open process. The committee did a good job in reviewing the legislation. I believe that we are following the right course. We are happy to talk to the opposition and other interested parties about the transitional arrangements. There is a process to make sure that is done professionally and in a competent way. On that basis, I commend the bill to the House.Amendment negatived.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—If no member wishes to consider the bill in detail, I will put the report question forthwith. The question is that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.Question resolved in the affirmative.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—We have an interesting situation where for the very first time we have the Leader of the House present to move that the Main Committee do now adjourn.Motion (by Mr Reith agreed to):That the Main Committee do now adjourn.Main Committee adjourned at 12.08 p.m.Answers to Questions in Writing5300The following answers to questions were circulated:5300(Question No. 29)295300Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 11 November 1998:(1) What measures has the Minister's Department undertaken which are categorised as positive discrimination programs, that is, providing preference to certain citizens on the basis of their gender, sexuality, age, race, place of birth or some other personal characteristic.(2) What are the details and funding commitments involved in each case.5300Fahey, John, MPMr FaheyHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Department of Finance and Administration has no specific positive discrimination programs. However, the Department values diversity in its workforce and actively promoted the importance of developing a flexible and diverse workplace.(2) Not applicable.5300(Question No. 146)1465300McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 24 November 1998:(1) Further to the answer to question No. 2452 (Hansard , 2 March 1998, page 150), what were the dates of the correspondence which Airservices Australia received from the professional organisation representing air traffic controllers at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport between April 1996 and May 1997.(2) Has he, his predecessor, his Department or Airservices Australia received further correspondence from the professional organisation since May 1997 regarding the operation of the Long Term Operating Plan at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport; if so, (a) what were the dates of the correspondence, (b) what was its subject matter and (c) what was the response.5300Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) and (2) I consider that people and organisations that write to me should generally be entitled to expect that their correspondence will remain confidential. I can assure the Honourable Member that I consider it important to respect the confidentiality of his correspondence as well.5300(Question No. 147)1475300McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 24 November 1998:(1) Further to the answer to question No. 2453 (Hansard, 2 March 1998, page 150), will he advise of the dates on which he, his predecessor, his Department or Airservices Australia received complaints from the Australian International Pilots Association regarding the use of the East-West runway at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport in cross wind conditions in excess of 15 knots.(2) What was the nature of the complaints referred to in part (1) and what was the response in each case.5300Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) and (2) See answer to Question Number 146.The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) recently reviewed the practice of operating with up to 25 knots of crosswind at Sydney Airport. As a result of this review, I am advised that CASA considers that the practice of routinely operating runways with up to 25 knots of crosswind before initiating a change of nominated runway does not pose an unacceptable safety hazard.5300(Question No. 255)2555300Edwards, Graham, MPMr Edwards83RCowanALP00 asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 2 December 1998:(1) What funds are available to veterans through grants administered by his Department.(2) With respect to each type of grant referred to in part (1), (a) what is its purpose, (b) who is responsible for allocating funds, (c) does he have discretion in the allocation of funds, (d) on how many occasions has he exercised his discretion to overturn recommendations concerning the allocation of funds and (e) will he provide details in respect of each occasion; if not, why not.(3) What sum was allocated under each type of grant to (a) Queensland, (b) New South Wales, (c) Victoria, (d) South Australia, (e) Western Australia, (f) the Australian Capital Territory, (g) the Northern Territory and (h) Tasmania in each financial year since 1995-96.5301Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Funds under the following grants programs available for the1998-99 financial year are:Joint Venture Scheme$1.06mCommunity Care Seeding Grants Program$1.2mResidential Care Development Scheme$5.79mHealthy Lifestyle Encouragement Grants$53,000Never Too Late! Grants$100,000Health Promotion Grants$260,000Grants-in-Aid$140,000Their Service—Our Heritage commemorative program$845,000Claims Assistance Grants Scheme (CAGS)$510,000Note:The last phase of funding under CAGS took place in June 1998; this effectively exhausted all available funds. CAGS expires at the end of 1998-99 Financial Year.(2) (a) Joint Venture Scheme (JVS)The aim of the JVS is to maintain and improve the independence and quality of life of the veteran community. The JVS encourages and assists ex-service organisations (ESOs) to provide social and personal support services to local veteran communities, in particular those ESOs which do not have the capacity to fund projects themselves. The Veterans Local Support Group (VLSG) grants are a component of the JVS. The purpose of VLSG grants is to assist with the development of veteran support groups which aim to maintain and improve the independence and quality of life of group members, particularly younger veterans.Community Care Seeding Grants Program (CCSGP)The aim of the CCSGP is to maintain and improve the independence and quality of life of veterans and war widow(er)s living in the community by increasing access to community care services and residential and community-based respite care.Residential Care Development Scheme (RCDS)The aim of the RCDS is to improve the access of entitled veterans and their widow(er)s to high quality residential aged care services and Community Aged Care Packages and assist ex-service organisations to continue their role in providing residential aged care and innovative aged care services by addressing gaps in service delivery and complementing available services in areas of high entitled veteran need. Healthy Lifestyle Encouragement GrantsThe aim of the Healthy Lifestyle Encouragement Grants is to provide opportunities for the veteran community to participate in new and existing health enhancing activities, to improve and maintain a healthy lifestyle and promote physical and mental well-being. Projects of up to $2,000 to ex-service or community groups can be considered for funding under the Healthy Lifestyle Encouragement Grants program.Never Too Late! GrantsThe Never Too Late! program is a joint initiative between my Department and the Australian Sports Commission. The aim of the Never Too Late! grants is to make available funding for sporting and other groups to provide specific activities that have been adapted to meet the needs and interests of the veteran community, and to increase the participation of the veteran community in new and existing sport and recreation activities.Major Health Promotion GrantsThe aim of the Major Health Promotion Grants is to provide opportunities for the veteran community to participate in new and existing health enhancing activities, adapted to meet their specific needs. Projects seeking grants over $2,000 can be considered for funding under the Major Health Promotion Grants Program. Funding is available to ex-service, community and relevant private organisations to support the development of specific preventive health programs which meet any of six themes which reflect the major health concerns of the veteran community.Grants-in-AidThe purpose of this program is to assist national ex-service organisations with their administrative costs in recognition of the services that they provide to the ex-service community.Their Service—Our Heritage commemorative programRegional War Memorials Project—to provide assistance to communities to repair or restore existing memorials, or to update memorials to include the service of Australians in subsequent wars and conflicts. Where communities do not have a memorial, funding may be provided to assist with the cost of constructing a war memorial. The RWMP funding limit is $3,000.Local Commemorative Activities Fund—to provide assistance for local commemorative projects which contribute to the general community's knowledge and understanding of veterans' war experiences and their contribution to the development of the Australian identity. Proposals which have been assisted under LCAF include education initiatives, public awareness activities, the commemoration of special military anniversaries, and the preservation and display of wartime memorabilia. The LCAF funding limit is $2,000.Commemorative Activities Program (CAP)—to provide assistance beyond the normal funding levels for commemorative proposals of national significance or where the proposal extends beyond a local community or region.Claims Assistance Grants SchemeThis scheme was a 1996-97 budget initiative in which $1.7m was allocated over three years. The purpose of the scheme was to resource ex-service organisations to employ additional staff and buy equipment to deal more expeditiously with pension matters awaiting review within my Department and appeals to the Veterans' Review Board.(b) I approve funding for the Joint Venture Scheme, the Community Care Seeding Grants Program, the Residential Care Development Scheme, Major Health Promotion and Healthy Lifestyle Encouragement Grants, Health Promotion Grants, Grants-in-Aid, and the Claims Assistance Grants Scheme.The Joint Steering Committee allocates funding for Never Too Late! with endorsement from the Australian Sports Commission Board and myself.I approve grants from within the Their Service—Our Heritage commemorative program following the receipt of a recommendation by the Commemorative Grants Committee, which includes representatives from my Department, the Returned & Services League of Australia, the Australian War Memorial, the Office of Australian War Graves and the Australian Local Government Association.(c) YesThe Their Service—Our Heritage funding guidelines provide general guidance to applicants on the extent and availability of funds for eligible proposals, and the Commemorative Grants Committee provides a funding recommendation to me on each application. However, I may exercise discretion in determining funding outcomes, including the approval of grants in excess of the usual limits, where the circumstances of the applicant warrant additional funding assistance.(d) and (e) Responsibility for approving grants under this programme is vested in the Minister. Individual grant decisions are made by the Minister in accordance with programme guidelines. It is not appropriate nor is it standard practice to release details of advice provided to Ministers in relation to individual decisions.(3) Indicative, but flexible, allocations are given for each State for the JVS and CCSGP and Healthy Lifestyle Encouragement Grants. The other grant schemes have national allocations. Amounts actually approved for each State and Territory were:Joint Venture SchemeFinancial YearQld ($)NSW ($)Vic ($)SA ($)WA ($)ACT ($)NT ($)Tas ($)1995-96-194,302 79,11970,13631,31712,14010,00025,8591996-97196,858248,559173,13384,84790,2421,00012,00047,1071997-98184,716302,330184,11693,51278,7097,7001,500136,0711998-99 (to date)100,24245,51824,57914,15013,445-5,00034,414Community Care Seeding Grants ProgramFinancial YearQld ($)NSW ($)Vic ($)SA ($)WA ($)ACT ($)NT ($)Tas ($)1995-9678,253192,774109,63121,000---107,8231996-97186,426267,208237,31091,53554,682--134,9381997-98361,160339,655119,541108,115129,254--111,3401998-99(to date)66,300156,96063,00014,00015,600--39,063Residential Care development SchemeFinancial YearQld ($)NSW ($)Vic ($)SA ($)WA ($)ACT ($)NT ($)Tas ($)1995-96204,59853,1903,971,250237,20031,317--463,7501996-97322,9981,178,6051,412,090459,000664,59040,45022,000195,0001997-98590,5702,488,9451,030,8791,900,000671,68415,000-40,6601998-99(to date)790,500536,700316,086193,800---10,000Health Lifestyle Encouragement GrantFinancial YearQld ($)NSW ($)Vic ($)SA ($)WA ($)ACT ($)NT ($)Tas ($)1995-9610,00013,00010,0007,0007,000--6,0001996-9710,00013,00010,0007,0007,000--6,0001997-9810,00013,00010,0007,0007,000--6,0001998-99(to date)2,33112,6972,4805,3255,105--2,414Health Promotion Grants and Never Too Late! GrantsFinancial YearQld ($)NSW ($)Vic ($)SA ($)WA ($)ACT ($)NT ($)Tas ($)1995-965,00039,411-16,062----1996-9729,470133,05578,226--6,450-24,2901997-9869,526208,520154,56438,770---22,8241998-9920,88332,91568,775126,45019,98012,300-21,228Grants-in-Aid programFinancial YearQld ($)NSW ($)Vic ($)SA ($)WA ($)ACT ($)NT ($)Tas ($)1995-967,50040,500---71,830--1996-977,50047,500---71,500--1997-987,50049,0004,000--77,500--1998-997,50036,85016,000--46,500--Regional War Memorials ProjectFinancial YearQld ($)NSW ($)Vic ($)SA ($)WA ($)ACT ($)NT ($)Tas ($)1995-96--------1996-975,3009,0003,2103,0005,025--2,0001997-9851,605171,37199,23528,73545,647-11,14624,7301998-99*48,35566,27148,42721,2509,325--9,000Combined total of all RWMP grants is $662,632.Local Commemorative Activities FundFinancial YearQld ($)NSW ($)Vic ($)SA ($)WA ($)ACT ($)NT ($)Tas ($)1995-96--------1996-9758,40579,85544,69536,25021,9004,950-13,7001997-9850,39087,81065,68731,93121,5154,4001,50019,1801998-99*31,85053,07022,57512,5007,3344,90130017,500Combined total of all LCAF grants is $692,198.Commemorative Activities ProgramFinancial YearQld ($)NSW ($)Vic ($)SA ($)WA ($)ACT ($)NT ($)Tas ($)1995-96--------1996-9725,50050,0002,0002,300----1997-9831,00016,50062,00021,5002,00015,000--1998-99*5,00043,5006,000-5,0008,154--Combined total of all CAP grants is $295,454.The total grants expenditure under Their Service—Our Heritage is $1,650,284.* Expenditure during the 1998-99 financial year is from 1 July 1998 to 6 November 1998 (the date of the last funding round).Claims Assistance Grants SchemeFinancial YearQld ($)NSW ($)Vic ($)SA ($)WA ($)ACT ($)NT ($)Tas ($)1995-96N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A1996-97212,836185,287224,61585,496105,09030,000-40,8561997-9884,710114,35011,00035,40036,60015,0004,500-1998-99141,892161,89083,50046,00056,32022,8555,5003,1005305(Question No. 350)3505305Bevis, Arch, MPMr BevisET4BrisbaneALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Aged Care, 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.5305Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Department of Health and Aged Care currently employs 3187 staff. Of those:(a) none have their principal employment conditions set by an award;(b) none have their principal employment conditions set by an industrial agreement;(c) 2862 individuals have their principal conditions of employment set by a certified agreement; and(d) 325 individuals have their principal conditions of employment set by an Australian Workplace Agreement.(2) Details of the classifications of those officers employed under an Australian workplace agreement are provided in the table below.ClassificationNumber of officersSenior Executive Band 32Chief Medical Officer1Senior Executive Band 212Medical Officer Class 62Senior Executive Band 137Medical Officer Class 510Executive Level 2238Medical Officer Class 48Medical Officer Class 31Medical Officer Class 212Medical Officer Class 11APS Level 61TOTAL3255305(Question No. 354)3545305Bevis, Arch, MPMr BevisET4BrisbaneALP00 asked the Attorney-General, 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.5305Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1)Australian Government Solicitor (AGS)Other elements (AGD)Total(a)00(b)00(c)4231,6372,060(d)19710207(2)Classification No of AGS Employees on AWAs No of AGD Employees on AWAs TotalSES Band 132537SES Band 217118Legal 1 3232Legal 24545ASO Class 2 1919ASO Class 3 1717ASO Class 41111ASO Class 566ASO Class 6 44Executive Level 111IATO4 (Insolvency and Trustee Officer)33ITO Grade 2 (Information Technology Officer)11Senior Officer Grade A44Senior Officer Grade B11Senior Officer Grade C66Senior Professional Officer Grade C225306(Question No. 357)3575306Bevis, Arch, MPMr BevisET4BrisbaneALP00 asked the Minister for Veterans' 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.5306Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (a) 2496, (b) nil, (c) 2466, (d) 45 Note that those under (d) also have some conditions of employment covered by certified agreements.(2) SES Band 2, SES Band 1 and Executive Level 2.5306(Question No. 366)3665306Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin ThomsonUK6WillsALP00 asked the Minister for Employment Services, upon notice, on 8 February 1999:How many voluntary participants in the work-for-the-dole scheme reside in postcode areas (a) 3039, (b) 3041, (c) 3055, (d) 3056, (e) 3057, (f) 3058, (g) 3059, (h) 3040, (i) 3044 and (j) 3046.5306Abbott, Tony MPMr AbbottEZ5WarringahLPEmployment Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:From 1 July 1998, enhanced Mutual Obligation arrangements were introduced. Under these arrangements unemployed young people may be required to undertake an activity additional to job search in return for their unemployment payments. In many cases they are able to select an activity of their choice from a menu of Mutual Obligation activities. As Work for the Dole is one of the activities that can be selected it is no longer relevant to distinguish between voluntary and compulsory participation.As at 17 March 1999, there have been 148 participants who reside in the postcode areas.5307(Question No. 377)3775307McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 8 February 1999:(1) Has thee Government decided upon an administrative model for a federal magistracy; if so, what will be the administrative structure.(2) Has the funding required to establish a federal magistracy been analysed; if so, with what results.(3) has the Government considered alternatives to the establishment of a federal magistracy such as dual appointments of existing State magistrates or judges.5307Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes. Like the other federal courts, the federal magistracy will be responsible for managing its own affairs, supported by a Chief Executive Officer and other staff.(2) Yes. The funding has been analysed and is currently being considered in the budget process.(3) Yes. The Government has considered a number of alternatives. Dual appointments of existing State magistrates or judges would be a more expensive option than establishing a federal magistracy, with complex agreements needed with each State and Territory and additional costs involved with training State magistrates or judges who would not necessarily have been appointed on the basis of their experience with federal law.5307(Question No. 388)3885307Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 9 February 1999:(1) Are businesses and services which are not ex-service organisations or non-profit community based organisations eligible to receive funding under the Veterans' Affairs Community Care Seeding Grants Program.(2) Are projects funded under the program required to be (a) specifically targeted at veterans and war widows and (b) generally available to all veterans and war widows living in a locality.(3) Is capital funding available under the program for recreational facilities that are located on private residential land; if so, do special restrictions or conditions apply.5307Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes(2) (a) and (b) Yes(3) The guidelines do not specifically address this issue. I am not aware of any such grant being provided, but it is conceivable that minor items (such as tools) which are purchased with grant funds could be stored in a private home.5307(Question No. 389)3895307Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 9 February 1999:(1) Did his office write to a veteran, Mr A.J. Smith on 8 April 1998 stating that a report to the Government on the treatment of disability pensions as income for social security pension purposes had been prepared by the Department of Social Security in consultation with his Department and was being considered by the Minister for Social Security.(2) Did the then Member for McPherson, Mr Bradford, tell the House on 3 June 1998 that the report had been completed and had been put in the too-hard basket; if so, did he deny Mr Bradford's claims and tell the House that the interdepartmental review was being done, had not been completed and was not finished; if so, on what basis did he make the denial.(3) According to records held by his department, on what dates were formal meetings of the interdepartmental review held and when was its report first received by his office.(4) What were the findings and recommendations of the review.5307Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes.(2) The Member for McPherson advised the House on 3 June 1998 that a report had been completed. This was the report that Senator Newman was considering when she responded to a letter from the Member for McPherson in February 1998. However the report, although drafted, was not finalised at that time and both my Department and the (then) Department of Social Security were subsequently asked to do further work on it.(3) Following the direction to undertake further work, many meetings and discussions were held in the period March 1998 to June 1998 between officers of my Department and of the Department of Social Security as the redraft was undertaken collaboratively. Details of those meetings and discussions were not recorded in any formal sense. The final report was provided in late 1998.(4) The review was an internal one and the report was prepared essentially for Senator Newman and myself. As significant costs would be involved in any change to the current arrangements, the matter would need to be considered in the light of the Government's overall budgetary priorities and commitments to the veteran community.5308(Question No. 421)4215308Albanese, Anthony, MPMr AlbaneseR36GrayndlerALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 15 February 1999:(1) Will specific purpose payments such as those made under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreements (CSHAs) cease with the introduction of a goods and services tax.(2) Is the Government negotiating a CSHA for 1999-2003; if so, has the Minister obtained advice on whether the agreement will have effect after the introduction of a goods and services tax in July 2000.(3) If the CSHA is to have effect, are the cost implications of a goods and services tax for community, social and public housing organisations being taken into account during negotiations.(4) Will Commonwealth funding under the next CSHA be increased to alleviate the (a) increased cost effects of a goods and services tax and (b) decline in funding since the 1996-97 Budget.(5) Since the 1997-98 Budget, has the Government justified cuts to the CSHA by arguing that State housing authorities can absorb the cuts by pursuing more cost effective public housing management practices; if so, what are the cost effective management practices.(6) Has the Government forecast that State housing authorities will save up to $50 million per year until 2000-01; if so, how will the savings be achieved.(7) Has the Minister sought confirmation from the Department of the Treasury that social rental housing activities will be deemed commercial under a goods and services tax and therefore input taxed; if so, what was Treasury's response.(8) Considering the impact a goods and services tax will have on increased costs for maintaining and running public housing, has the Minister obtained Treasury estimates of the net impact in dollar terms for maintenance spent in housing programs in all States and Territories.(9) Does the new tax reform legislation propose to treat trusts in the same manner as companies for tax purposes; if so, has the Minister considered the impact on trusts such as the NSW Home Purchase Assistance Fund, which is predicted to lose $12.6 million of investment income because of the new tax laws.(10) Has the Minister prepared estimates of the reduction in the number of home purchasers who will be unable to receive purchase assistance as a result of the new tax laws; if so, what are the estimates.(11) Has the Minister obtained Treasury estimates of the cost per annum for public, social and community housing agencies to comply with the administrative requirements of a goods and services tax in all States and Territories; if so, what are the estimates.(12) Has the Minister obtained confirmation that a goods and services tax will apply to headleasing services provided to housing administrators by landlords; if so, (a) will the tax on these services be costed at the weekly rent value and (b) what are Treasury's predictions of the impact on the costs of headleasing for housing authorities in all States and Territories.(13) Will the Minister provide details of modelling or projections of the likely reduction in private sector engagement in the provision of public sector housing following the introduction of a goods and services tax.(14) Will the Minister provide estimates of the number of households likely to be forced out of their current accommodation because of increased rents following the introduction of a goods and services tax.(15) Will the Minister provide information on the number of persons who live in (a) boarding houses; (b) hostels; and (c) caravan parks in each State and Territory; if so, what is the breakdown by (a) age, (b) ethnicity, (c) gender and (d) household income.(16) Is it a fact that long-term residents of boarding houses, caravan parks and hostels will pay tax on their rents under a goods and services tax but house and apartment rents will be exempt; if so, what mechanisms has the Minister considered to address the different treatment.(17) Has the Minister prepared estimates of the number of households likely to be forced out of caravan park, boarding house and hostel accommodation because of increased rents following the introduction of a goods and services tax.(18) Will the Minister provide total numbers of Rent Assistance recipients, broken down by (a) country of birth, (b) languages other than English spoken at home and (c) principal language spoken at home.(19) How many Rent Assistance recipients had payments cut as a result of the reduction in Rent Assistance payable to single persons in shared accommodation.5309Truss, 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) No.(2) The Government is currently negotiating a new Commonwealth State Housing Agreement (CSHA) with State and Territory Governments which will have effect as from 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2003.(3) State Governments have been offered $269m, spread evenly over three years, to be included in the new CSHA starting 2000-01 in respect of the net increase in public and community housing costs as a result of taxation reform.(4) The current Commonwealth offer of $3.8bn, for a 4 year CSHA, is a generous contribution to State and Territory Governments for the provision of housing assistance. In addition, compensation for the increased cost effects of taxation reform has been offered (see (3) above).(5) The expectation is a 1% increase per annum in efficiency. It is up to States how they achieve this and what cost effective management practices they introduce.(6) No.(7) Division 40 of the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Bill 1998, introduced into Parliament on 2 December 1998, provides that residential rental accommodation, including public and/or social housing be input taxed after 1 July 2000. However, Subdivision 38-F, provides that a charitable organisation can obtain GST-free status (where they will be able to claim input-tax credits) where housing is supplied "for a consideration that is less than 50% of the GST inclusive market value of the supply" or where "the supply is for consideration that is less than 50% of the consideration the supplier provided, or was liable to provide for acquiring the thing supplied".(8) The compensation offer of $269m over three years (see (3) above) includes compensation for the increased costs for maintaining and running public housing. (9) In "A New Tax System" the Government set out a strategy for reforming the taxation of investments and business entities that included taxing trusts like companies under redesigned company tax arrangements. On 14 August 1998, the Treasurer announced the appointment of Mr John Ralph, AO to chair a Review of Business Taxation. The Review's recommendations will be directed to the strategy for reform spelt out in A New Tax System. The Review is engaging in widespread public consultations, and is to report by 30 June 1999.(10) No reduction is anticipated.(11) Treasury estimates that recurrent gross compliance costs of the GST are on average, $1195 per firm. However, recurrent net compliance costs are much lower at $130 per firm.(12) Where a public or community housing body leases housing from a landlord in order to on-lease the housing to public or community housing tenants, the lease by the public or community housing body will generally be input taxed in the same way as a direct lease between a landlord and a tenant. That is, the lease will not be subject to GST, but the lessor will not be allowed to claim input tax credits. An exception is where the lease is a long term lease (50 years or more) and the housing is new residential premises. This would be treated in the same way as a new home purchase where the purchase or lease cost is subject to the GST and any subsequent sub-leasing is input taxed.(13) No such modelling or projections have been undertaken within the Department of Family and Community Services, but there is no reason to expect any reduction in private sector engagement in the provision of public housing.(14) It is not envisaged that any households are likely to be forced out of their current accommodation because of increased rents following the introduction of a GST. Indeed, a range of personal income tax cuts, family benefits, increased pensions, benefits, rent assistance and lump sum payments for retirees will more than compensate for any projected rent increases once the GST is introduced.(15) The Department of Family and Community Services currently only holds data in relation to (c). It is taken from ABS C-data 1996 which indicates that the number of persons living in caravan parks in each State and Territory is as follows:New South Wales45930Victoria14103Queensland60405South Australia6695Western Australia22602Tasmania1467Northern Territory9805Australian Capital Territory398Other Territories15The Department does not have this data broken down by (a)age, (b)ethnicity, (c)gender or (d)household income.(16) The effect of the GST for long-term residents of boarding houses, caravan parks and hostels will be very similar to the effect for private renters. Operators of commercial residential premises (that is, hotels, motels, hostels, boarding houses, caravan parks and camping grounds and other similar premises) will have the option of either:- not charging GST for long-term accommodation supplied, but not being entitled to input tax credits (ie, the normal input taxation rules that apply to other rental accommodation); or- charging long-term residents GST on 50% of the accommodation price, claiming input tax credits while passing on any reductions in costs as a result of tax reform to residents.(17) It is not envisaged that anyone will be forced out of caravan park, boarding house or hostel accommodation because of increased rents following the introduction of a goods and services tax.(18) (a) According to Centrelink administrative data, as of 11 September 1998, there were 1 001 755 individual Rent Assistance (RA) recipients recorded as being born overseas. Excluding those born in Australia, a break down of the top 150 countries of birth is as follows:UNITED KINGDOM63,724ARGENTINA814SIERRA LEONE98NEW ZEALAND29,884SINGAPORE811NICARAGUA86VIETNAM20,821OTHER EUROPE791ECUADOR83CHINA11,078BURMA790SLOVENIA80YUGOSLAVIA8,263PAKISTAN782NIGERIA76LEBANON8,245CZECHOSLOVAKIA770VENEZUELA70PHILIPPINES7,059NOT SPECIFIED714ARMENIA68ITALY5,861CYPRUS682EAST GERMANY68GREECE5,104SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC681UGANDA68NETHERLANDS4,576OTHER ASIA642NEW CALEDONIA67GERMANY5,860SWITZERLAND640ESTONIA66INDIA4,503BANGLADESH636MEXICO66IRAQ4,374ETHIOPIA623BOLIVIA65SRI LANKA3,643SOMALIA582TANZANIA63POLAND3,320COOK ISLANDS565SOLOMONISLANDS60TURKEY3,310DENMARK557MACAU56FIJI3,021FYR MACEDONIA554SLOVAKIA56SOUTH AFRICA2,855FINLAND539LIBYA50BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA2,770SUDAN526VANUATU48IRELAND2,515OTHER OCEANIA488NEPAL46CAMBODIA2,503PERU478TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO46IRAN2,367ISRAEL472BELARUS44 EGYPT2,254JAPAN425CUBA44UNITED STATES2,136EAST TIMOR415COCOS (KEELING) IS.42SAMOA2,097ZIMBABWE359JAMAICA40MALAYSIA2,007SWEDEN356TOKELAU40CHILE1,994OTHER AFRICA349NIUE38USSR1,900JORDAN334COSTA RICA37HUNGARY1,711BELGIUM331MOLDOVA36PAPUA NEW GUINEA1,649OTHER AMERICA330TUNISIA36MALTA1,588LATIVIA236ICELAND32INDONESIA1,292BRAZIL225MYANMAR31AFGHANISTAN1,273UK/EIRE223NIGER30HONG KONG1,258CZECH REPUBLIC211SURINAME29KOREA1,535COLOMBIA209SENEGAL28MAURITIUS1,176KENYA208ANGOLA27EL SALVADOR1,161KUWAIT205CHRISTMAS ISLAND27CANADA1,157BULGARIA193MOZAMBIQUE27CROATIA1,140SEYCHELLES190UZBEKISTAN27ROMANIA1,065TAIWAN171ZAIRE27THAILAND1,061NORWAY161GIBRALTAR26FRANCE1,051ALBANIA158UNITED ARAB EMIRATES25AUSTRIA999OTHER153VIRGIN ISLANDS25TONGA971ALGERIA143BRUNEI BARUSSALAM24RUSSIAN FEDERATION940GHANA138BARBADOS23URUGUAY898LITHUANIA121GUYANA23SPAIN887ZAMBIA116BERMUDA22LAO PEOPLE'S DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC878MOROCCO114GEORGIA22PORTUGAL836ERITREA105PARAGUAY22UKRAINE819SAUDI ARABIA104WESTERN SAHARA20(18) (b) Based on 1998 RA survey data, there are a total of 126 738 RA recipients who report speaking a language other than English at home, broken down as follows:Arabic16,288Spanish9,565Greek7,949Vietnamese5,745Mandarin5,245German4,860Italian4,692Tagalog(Filipino)3,434Cantonese2,697Macedonian1,056Other65,207(18) (c) Reliable data on the principal language spoken at home for rent assistance recipients is not available. (19) During 1997-98, 95 010 Rent Assistance recipients, on average, had a reduction in Rent Assistance payments as a result of the 1996 Budget measure to reduce Rent Assistance payable to single persons in shared accommodation.From 1 January 1999 people lodging in "boarding house style" accommodation such as private hotels, boarding houses and hostels have been exempted from the sharers rate of Rent Assistance (RA). The implementation of this measure was brought forward from 1 July 1999 to fast-track additional assistance for disadvantaged people who were adversely affected by the 1997 sharers measure.5312(Question No. 444)4445312Lawrence, Carmen, MPDr LawrenceXS4FremantleALP00 asked the Minister for Employment Services, upon notice, on 17 February 1999:Further to the answer to question No. 204 (Hansard , 8 February 1999, page 2121), how many of the 11 649 young unemployed persons referred to in part (2) of the answer as having commenced Mutual Obligation activities at 27 November 1998 had commenced training in (a) literacy and numeracy, (b) career counselling and (c) job placement and employment training.5312Abbott, Tony MPMr AbbottEZ5WarringahLPEmployment Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The matter raised in the question falls within the responsibility of the Hon Dr David Kemp MP, Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, who has advised me that, as at 27 November 1998, Centrelink data showed 11 649 had commenced a mutual obligation activity. Of these participants, 17 had commenced literacy and numeracy training, 39 had commenced career counselling and 32 had been placed in Job Placement, Employment and Training. The other participants were in other mutual obligation activities such as education and training, part time work, voluntary work, job search training, intensive assistance and work for the dole.5312(Question No. 445)4455312Ellis, Annette, MPMs Ellis5K6NamadgiALP00 asked the Minister for Employment Services, upon notice, on 17 February 1999:(1) How many work-for-the-dole projects are operating in the electoral division of Canberra.(2) Which organisations are involved in running work-for-the-dole projects in the electoral division of Canberra.(3) Where are the projects located. (4) How many (a) voluntary and (b) compulsory participants are there in each project.(5) What is the duration of each project.(6) How many voluntary participants in the work-for-the-dole scheme reside in postcode areas (a) 2600, (b) 2603, (c) 2605, (d) 2606, (e) 2607, (f) 2611, (g) 2900, (h) 2901, (i) 2902, (j) 2903, (k) 2904, (l) 2905 and (m) 2906.5312Abbott, Tony MPMr AbbottEZ5WarringahLPEmployment Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) One(2) The Southside Community Services Inc.(3) Narrabundah.(4) A total of eight participants.From 1 July 1998, enhanced Mutual Obligation arrangements were introduced. Under these arrangements unemployed young people may be required to undertake an activity additional to job search in return for their unemployment payments. In many cases they are able to select an activity of their choice from a menu of Mutual Obligation activities. As Work for the Dole is one of the activities that can be selected it is no longer relevant to distinguish between voluntary and compulsory participation.(5) Six months.(6) Seven out of the eight participants reside in the postcode areas.5312(Question No. 449)4495312McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 18 February 1999:(1) Further to the answer to question No. 189 (Hansard , 11 February 1999, page 2455), was the figure of 10 minutes obtained from research undertaken at the Hurstville Medicare Office.(2) Will he request the Health Insurance Commission to undertake research on the quality of service in specific Medicare Offices, particularly the waiting time of customers at the Hurstville Medicare Office.5312Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Health Insurance Commission's Charter of Care sets 10 minutes as its target maximum waiting time.(2) The quality of service in all Medicare Offices is always being monitored and procedures adjusted where necessary to guide the Health Insurance Commission towards it goal of greater customer focus. 5313(Question No. 451)4515313Andren, Peter, MPMr AndrenKL6CalareIND00 asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 18 February 1999:(1) Has his Department conducted a trial to provide Internet access to certain Members' and Senators' electorate offices; if so (a) which Members' and Senators' offices were involved and (b) has the trial been evaluated; if so, was it successful.(2) Will his Department extend Internet access to all Members' and Senators' electorate offices.(3) Is it a fact that many Government departments and agencies refer persons seeking information to their World Wide Web sites; if so, is it also a fact that it is difficult for Members, Senators and their staff to conduct inquiries effectively on behalf of constituents if their electorate offices do not have access to the Internet.5313Fahey, John, MPMr FaheyHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) Yes, the Department conducted a trial of Internet access in fifty electorate offices from July 1998 to January 1999.(a) The offices that participated in the trial are listed in Attachment A.(b) The trial showed that there was a strong level of usage of Internet services in electorate offices and allowed the Department of Finance and Administration to assess the financial and security implications of providing Internet browser access to electorate offices.(2) The provision of Internet browsing services to all electorate offices is currently under consideration by the Government.(3) I understand that many government departments and agencies refer people to their World Wide Web sites. I am not in a position to speculate about the effectiveness of the current methods available to electorate offices in the servicing of their constituents.List of Senators and Members who participated in the Internet trial in electorate offices1. Senator Eric Abetz2. Mr Kevin Andrews MP3. The Hon Larry Anthony MP4. Mr Bob Baldwin MP*5. Senator Vicki Bourne 6. Senator Andrew Bartlett7. Mr Mal Brough MP8. The Hon. Simon Crean MP9. Senator Kim Carr10. Senator the Hon Rosemary Crowley11. Mr Eoin Cameron MP*12. Senator the Hon Peter Cook13. The Hon Gareth Evans MP (Melbourne)13a. The Hon Gareth Evans MP (Dandenong)14.Mr Martyn Evans MP15. Mr Joel Fitzgibbon MP16. Mr John Forrest MP17. Mr Martin Ferguson MP18. Senator Jeannie Ferris19. Mr Paul Filing MP*20. Mr Michael Hatton MP21. Senator Brian Harradine22. Senator the Hon John Herron23. Senator John Hogg24. The Hon Jackie Kelly MP25. Senator Susan Knowles26. The Hon Michael Lee MP 27. Mr Peter Lindsay MP28. Senator Kate Lundy 29. The Hon Leo McLeay MP30. The Hon. Chris Miles MP*31. Senator David MacGibbon32. Mr Paul Marek MP*33. Senator the Hon Nick Minchin34. Mr Garry Nehl MP35. Mr Gary Nairn MP36. Senator Kerry O'Brien37. Senator William O'Chee38. The Hon Roger Price MP39. Senator Marise Payne40. The Hon Geoff Prosser MP41. Mr Christopher Pyne MP42. The Hon Michael Ronaldson MP43. The Hon Sharman Stone MP44. The Hon Warwick Smith MP *45. The Hon Bruce Scott MP (Dalby)45a. The Hon Bruce Scott MP (Emerald)46. Mr Rodney Sawford MP47. Senator John Tierney48. Senator the Hon. Judith Troeth49. Senator Sue West50. The Hon Trish Worth MP* Denotes a Member who lost his or her seat in the October 3 Federal election. As a result, the Member did not complete the trial.5314(Question No. 462)4625314Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MacklinPG6JagajagaALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 8 March 1999:(1) What is the breakdown for each drug affected by Therapeutic good premiums of exemptions (a) applied for and (b) authorised since 1 February 1998.(2) What price are consumers paying for each medication delisted from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme between 11 March 1996 and 21 October 1998.(3) What is the average increase in the price paid by consumers for each medication delisted from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme between 11 March 1996 and 21 October 1998.5314Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Over the period of 1 February 1998 to 28 February 1999 inclusive, statistics for exemption requests for drugs with Therapeutic Group Premiums processed by the Health Insurance Commission are as follows:(1) Each drug(a) Applied for(b) AuthorisedRejectedCilazapril Monohydrate51510Enalapril34 93834 698240Fosinopril Sodium7 3557 30649Perindopril Erbumine5 9735 93439Lisinopril11 84611 76284Amlodipine49 37548 985390 Cimetidine1531521Ranitidine Hydrochloride45544510Famotidine13 18713 018169(2) and (3) The bulk of the products delisted as a result of decisions in the 1996/97 Budget had a dispensed price less than the copayment for general patients ($20 at the time). In addition, the bulk of the items delisted due to those Budget decisions were also available as over-the-counter (OTC) items and could already be purchased at a cheaper retail price by general patients through this avenue.Once a product is delisted from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS), the Government does not collect data on subsequent sales of these products which are sold as either private prescription items through pharmacies only, or as OTC items through pharmacies and supermarkets.5315(Question No. 467)4675315Bevis, Arch, MPMr BevisET4BrisbaneALP00 asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 8 March 1999:Did the Department of Defence enter a contract in July 1998 with Drake International allowing them to employ approximately 140 workers at the South Queensland Logistic group at Enoggera, Qld; if so, (a) what was the term of the contract, (b) what level of funding did the Department provide to enable the workers to be employed, (c) were 32 of the workers made redundant from 18 March 1999; if so, why and (d) has the Department reduced its funding under the contract; if so, (i) why and (ii) what is the level of the reduction.5315Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The Commonwealth has a contract with Drake Industrial to provide personnel services for the servicing, repair, modification, and overhaul of Army vehicles and technical equipment `in-situ' at Army premises in Brisbane. The sites in Brisbane are 7th Task Force (7TF) Enoggera and South Queensland Logistic Group (SQLG) Bulimba, Meeandah and Banyo. SQLG is the Contract Manager. The number of personnel employed by the Contractor varies in accordance with the rate of military training involving 7TF and SQLG.(a) The initial contract period was from 1 July 1995 to 30 June 1998. The contract period was subsequently extended to 30 June 2000. (b) The contract with Drake Industrial employees is for personnel services for the servicing, repair, modification and overhaul of Army vehicles and technical equipment. It does not specify a level of personnel Drake must employ, which is a matter for Drake International.(c) This is a matter for Drake International. Defence's contract was for provision of services and did not specify employee numbers. The level of services provided under the contract has been satisfactory. I note that the level of services is meant to vary in accordance with the rates of military training activities involving 7TF and SQLG.(d) No.5315(Question No. 474)4745315Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio7T4ProspectALP00 asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 9 March 1999:(1) Was a 22-seat dining table purchased and delivered to Kirribilli House in 1998; if so, (a) what was the cost of purchasing the table, (b) from what materials was the table constructed, (c) from which company was the table purchased, (d) what processes were followed in selecting and purchasing the new table, (e) who was in charge of the selection and purchasing process in regards to the table, (f) was the table imported into Australia, (g) were the materials used in the construction of the table imported into Australia and (h) did the new dining table replace another table; if so, (i) what happened to the table it replaced and (ii) why was it necessary to replace the previous dining table.(2) Has an internal staircase been relocated in Kirribilli House; if so, (a) will he provide a complete list of the costs associated with the relocation, including (i) all labouring and construction costs, (ii) the cost of materials and (iii) consultation fees associated with the project, (b) was Mr Clive Lucas the architect who oversaw the relocation of the staircase, (c) why was the staircase relocated, (d) is the relocated staircase in keeping with the heritage status of Kirribilli House, (e) was the disturbance of heritage status the subject of consultations; if so, who was consulted; if not, why not, (f) will it be financially and logistically possible to return the internal staircase to its original position, (g) will he outline the process of selecting the (i) construction and (ii) architectural firms that were hired for the project and (h) which other companies were given the opportunity to tender.(3) Has an upstairs bathroom in Kirribilli House been enclosed to make it into a personal en suite for an attached bedroom; if so, (a) will he provide a complete list of the costs associated with the enclosure, including (i) all labouring and construction costs, (ii) the cost of materials and (iii) consultation fees associated with the project, (b) why was the bathroom enclosed, (c) is the enclosed bathroom in keeping with the heritage status of Kirribilli House, (d) was the disturbance of heritage status the subject of consultations; if so, who was consulted; if not, why not, (e) will it be financially and logistically possible to return the enclosed bathroom to its original state, (f) will he outline the process of selecting the (i) construction and (ii) other firms that were eventually hired for the project and (g) which other companies were given the opportunity to tender.(4) Do the personal staff attached to Kirribilli House include (a) a manager, (b) two housekeepers, (c) a personal chef and (d) two gardeners; if so, (i) has there been a turnover of 10 staff among the positions since 1996; if so, why has there been this level of staff turnover and (ii) have two of the staff currently attached to Kirribilli House refused to sign a workplace agreement.(5) How many days has he resided at (a) Kirribilli House and (b) The Lodge since 2 March 1996.5316Howard, John, MPMr HowardZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Australiana Fund, a private company established to acquire examples of significant pieces of Australian furniture and decorative arts for the Official Establishments, purchased a 20-seat dining table in 1998 for use in Kirribilli House.(a)-(g) Consistent with past practice, the Australiana Fund has not informed me of the cost of the table or the details of the supplier and the Fund's selection process. However I am aware that the Fund's purchases are made in accordance with its acquisition policy. I am also aware that the table is Australian, dating from around 1830, and is constructed of Australian cedar.(h) Yes. The previous table, which has a seating capacity of eight, is now being used as a meeting table at 70 Phillip Street, Sydney. The table was replaced to increase the formal dining capacity of the residence.(2) Yes.(a) The work is incomplete, therefore final detailed costs are not available. The estimated cost of the work is $67,434.(b) Yes. (c) The staircase is being rebuilt in its 1880s position in accordance with the recommendations of the Official Establishments Trust in its 1996-97 and 1997-98 Annual Reports, tabled in Parliament on 1 October 1997 and 11 November 1998, respectively. This work is also recommended in the current Kirribilli House Conservation Plan, prepared in 1990. The Australian Heritage Commission fully supports the relocation.(d) Yes.(e) The heritage status of the residence has not been affected. See (2)(c) above.(f) The staircase is being rebuilt in its 1880s position.(g) The architectural firm Clive Lucas, Stapleton & Partners Pty Ltd was selected to manage the project on the basis of their expertise in heritage architecture and their detailed knowledge of the residence. The construction firm was selected following a select tender process.(h) The names of the other companies invited to tender cannot be provided as the information is commercial-in-confidence, however the successful tenderer compared favourably in terms of price, expertise and availability.I have recently also agreed to the recommendation of the Official Establishments Trust that the remnants of the previous staircase be used to provide more convenient and suitable access to the first floor from the western wing and an alternate egress in the case of emergency such as fire. This arrangement will better cater for the current and future requirements of the residence. The estimated cost of this work is $22,100. The Australian Heritage Commission supports the recommendation.(3)An upstairs two-way bathroom in Kirribilli House is being renovated and modernised.(a) and (b) The need to renovate the bathroom was identified by the Official Establishments Trust in 1996 and recommendations to undertake the work were included in the Trust's 1996-97 and 1997-98 Annual Reports, tabled in Parliament on 1 October 1997 and 11 November 1998, respectively. The bathroom did not have a shower recess. The second door to the bathroom needed to be closed off to provide sufficient space to install one. The work has involved significant plumbing alterations and is incomplete. Therefore, final detailed costs are not available, however the estimated cost is $41,421.(c) Yes.(d) The heritage status of the residence has not been affected. The Official Establishments Trust was consulted and the Australian Heritage Commission was advised of the work and provided with a copy of the plans. (e) Yes, however it should be noted that the bathroom was not in its original state prior to this renovation.(f) The architectural firm Clive Lucas, Stapleton & Partners Pty Ltd was selected to manage the project on the basis of their expertise in heritage architecture and their detailed knowledge of the residence. The construction firm was selected following a select tender process.(g) The names of the other companies invited to tender cannot be provided as the information is commercial-in-confidence, however the successful tenderer compared favourably in terms of price, expertise and availability.Expenditure on renovations, restorations and repairs on the buildings, grounds, furniture and fittings at Kirribilli House and The Lodge during the first three years of the Government's term of office totalled $555,709.92*. By comparison, during the last three financial years of former Prime Minister Keating's term of office, the equivalent expenditure totalled $793,900.90.* This figure does not include the total estimated expenditure referred to in the answers to questions (2) and (3) as this amount ($130,955) will not be expended until later in this financial year.(4) (a)-(d) Yes.(i) Yes. Of the current staff members at Kirribilli House, two have been employed since before 1996 and two have been employed since mid 1996. Eight staff resigned during the term of their employment contracts for a variety of personal reasons. Two staff were not reappointed on the expiry of their contracts; one of these was for one (1) month only. The staff turnover has not been unusual and is broadly consistent with past experience.After coming to office in March 1996, I reduced the total number of staff employed at both residences from thirteen (13) to nine (9), which resulted in annual savings of approximately $100,000(ii) No. Discussions are continuing with two staff members about their Australian Workplace Agreements.(5) (a) From 2 March 1996 to and including 25 April 1999 I spent 526 nights at Kirribilli House.(b) From 2 March 1996 to and including 25 April 1999 I spent 378 nights at The Lodge.5317(Question No. 482)4825317Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin ThomsonUK6WillsALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 10 March 1999:(1) Have changes been made to flight paths for aircraft departing from Essendon Airport since 12 July 1998; if so, (a) what are the details and (b) why were the changes made.(2) Has the number of aircraft departing from or arriving at Essendon Airport increased since 12 July 1998; if so, (a) what are the details and (b) what is the reason for the increase.5317Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Airservices Australia advises that there has been no change to flight paths since 12 July 1998.(2) Airservices Australia advises that total aircraft movements at Essendon Airport have increased marginally by a total of 364 movements compared to the previous corresponding period.(a) Details of comparisons of aircraft movements follow:JulyAugSeptOctNovDecJanFeb1997/9853715263580458036423590360947095TOTAL477561998/9959726246564056086230615659606288TOTAL48100(b) The increase is 0.7 per cent over the previous corresponding period. It is not possible to identify any generalised reason for this small increase.5318(Question No. 486)4865318Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 10 March 1999:Further to the answer to question No. 112 concerning the appointment of the Hon. Anthony John Messner as Administrator of Norfolk Island, is the remuneration set by the Remuneration Tribunal of $71,670 with a $5,750 office holder's supplement and a district allowance of $2,690 paid in lieu of Commonwealth parliamentary superannuation entitlements.5318Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Any remuneration as the Administrator of Norfolk Island is not paid in lieu of a Commonwealth parliamentary superannuation entitlement.However, where a former Senator or Member who is entitled to a pension (or a spouse who is in receipt of a pension) holds an office of profit under the Crown, the pension may be reduced depending on the amount of the remuneration received for the holding of such office(s).The position of Administrator of Norfolk Island is such an office of profit.5318(Question No. 509)5095318Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 23 March 1999:Did the organisers of the 1998 Sydney to Hobart yacht race consult an agency or authority for which he has portfolio responsibility before the race started; if so, (a) what information was provided and (b) did the agency or authority suggest then or subsequently that the timing of the race was dangerous or inappropriate in the circumstances.5318Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(a) Yes. The Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) provided a briefing to participants on 24 December 1998. The briefing incorporated information on the type of emergency supplies that could be delivered to people in distress and procedures to follow to cooperate with search and rescue aircraft.(b) No. 5318(Question No. 510)5105318Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 23 March 1999:(1) Was the Australian Maritime Safety Authority involved in assisting rescue operations during the 1998 Sydney to Hobart yacht race; if so, (a) at what cost and (b) who paid.(2) Has the Australian Maritime Safety Authority been involved in investigating the causes of the loss of life in the 1998 Sydney to Hobart yacht race; if so, (a) at what cost and (b) who paid.5318Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (a) Yes. To 30 March 1999, the cost of employing civil search and rescue resources in the Sydney to Hobart yacht race has been $652,269, with an outstanding commitment of a further $35,000.(1) (b) Payments made by AMSA in respect of search and rescue incidents are reimbursed by the Department of Transport and Regional Services, from an appropriation provided for the purpose of meeting search and rescue costs.(2) (a) The Coroner is investigating the causes of the loss of life in the race and AMSA continues to cooperate fully with the Coroner's Office. To 30 March 1999, no additional costs have been incurred in assisting the Coroner's investigation.(2) (b) N/A.5318(Question No. 522)5225318Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TannerYU5MelbourneALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Justice and Customs, upon notice, on 23 March 1999:(1) Was the question of possible action for perjury against Mr Christopher Corrigan arising from evidence given by him in proceedings in the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC) in February 1998 referred to the Australian Federal Police (AFP) or the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) on or before 22 March 1999; if so, (a) by whom and (b) what action has the AFP or DPP taken.(2) Was the question of possible action for perjury against a witness other than Mr Corrigan arising from evidence given by him or her in proceedings in the AIRC or the Federal Court of Australia in 1 998 regarding the waterfront dispute referred to the AFP or the DPP on or before 22 March 1 999; if so, (a) by whom and (b) what action has the AFP or DPP taken.5319Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The Minister for Justice and Customs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:The Director of Public Prosecutions has provided me with the following information(1) The then Registrar of the Australian Industrial Registry wrote to the Director of Public Prosecutions Melbourne Office by letter dated 5 October 1998 and enclosed some material concerning perjury allegations in relation to evidence given by Mr Corrigan to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission on 9 February 1998. The Director's office advised the Registrar on 2 November 1998 that on the material provided the Director was unable to determine whether an offence had been committed.(2) NoThe Australian Federal Police has provided me with the following information:(1) No.(2) No.5319(Question No. 524)5245319Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 24 March 1999:Has (a) the Minister, (b) his or her predecessors or (c) the Department or an agency for which the Minister holds, or his or her predecessors held, portfolio responsibility, engaged Australasian Research Strategies, related companies or organisations or Mr Mark Textor to undertake research since 2 March 1996; if so, in each case, (i) what was the nature of the research, (ii) what was its purpose, (iii) what was its cost, (iv) was the outcome of the research supplied to a non-government organisation, individual or political party and (v) will the Minister release the outcome of the research.5319Howard, John, MPMr HowardZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:I am advised that my portfolio has not engaged Australasian Research Strategies, related companies or organisations or Mr Mark Textor to undertake research since 2 March 1996. 5319(Question No. 533)5335319Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 24 March 1999:Has (a) the Minister, (b) his or her predecessors or (c) the Department or an agency for which the Minister holds, or his or her predecessors held, portfolio responsibility, engaged Australasian Research Strategies, related companies or organisations or Mr Mark Textor to undertake research since 2 March 1996; if so, in each case, (i) what was the nature of the research, (ii) what was its purpose, (iii) what was its cost, (iv) was the outcome of the research supplied to a non-government organisation, individual or political party and (v) will the Minister release the outcome of the research.5319Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPDefence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:No.5319(Question No. 537)5375319Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, upon notice, on 24 March 1999:Has (a) the Minister, (b) his or her predecessors or (c) the Department or an agency for which the Minister holds, or his or her predecessors held, portfolio responsibility, engaged Australasian Research Strategies, related companies or organisations or Mr Mark Textor to undertake research since 2 March 1996; if so, in each case, (i) what was the nature of the research, (ii) what was its purpose, (iii) what was its cost, (iv) was the outcome of the research supplied to a non-government organisation, individual or political party and (v) will the Minister release the outcome of the research.5319Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPDefence10—The Minister for Industry, Science and Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(a) No(b) My Department has advised that, to the best of its knowledge, none of my predecessors engaged Australasian Research Strategies, related companies or organisations or Mr Mark Textor, to undertake research since 2 March 1996 (c) My Department has advised that neither it nor, as far as it is aware, any agency in the portfolio, has engaged Australasian Research Strategies, related companies or organisations or Mr Mark Textor, to undertake research since 2 March 1996(i)—(v) Not applicable.5320(Question No. 541)5415320Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 24 March 1999:Has (a) the Minister, (b) his or her predecessors or (c) the Department or an agency for which the Minister holds, or his or her predecessors held, portfolio responsibility, engaged Australasian Research Strategies, related companies or organisations or Mr Mark Textor to undertake research since 2 March 1996; if so, in each case, (i) what was the nature of the research, (ii) what was its purpose, (iii) what was its cost, (iv) was the outcome of the research supplied to a non-government organisation, individual or political party and (v) will the Minister release the outcome of the research.5320Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Neither I, my Department, nor any agency within my portfolio responsibility had any engagement with Australasian Research Strategies, related companies, or organisation or Mr Mark Textor since 2 March 1996.5320(Question No. 551)5515320Price, Roger, MPMr PriceQI4ChifleyALP00 asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 25 March 1999:(1) Further to his answer to a question without notice about Holsworthy Correctional Centre (Hansard , 23 March 1999, page 3426), how many defence personnel were involved in inappropriate disciplinary action.(2) Under what authority or law were the tours referred to in the answer conducted.(3) In the light of the tours having been alleged to have been conducted for 7 years did his investigation reveal who was responsible.(4) Have charges been laid; if so, (a) in respect of how many persons and (b) what was the rank of each person charged.(5) If charges have not been laid, was the matter dealt with administratively; if so, (a) how many persons were dealt with and (b) what was the rank of each person dealt with.5320Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) 85 individuals were identified as having undergone the practice known as `Attitude Adjustment Training' or `Discipline Tours' at the Defence Force Corrective Establishment, Holsworthy.(2) Attitude Adjustment Training and Discipline Tours were provided for in Defence Force Corrective Establishment Standing Orders.(3) No individual person or authority has been identified as being responsible for the transition from familiarisation tours to Attitude Adjustment Training or Discipline Tours.(4) No charges under the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 have been laid.(5) No person has been dealt with administratively.5320(Question No. 555)5555320Price, Roger, MPMr PriceQI4ChifleyALP00 asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 29 March 1999:Has the Government hired consultants to review an Australian Defence Force college or the Australian Defence Force Academy; if so, in each case, (a) what was the name of the consultant, (b) what was the (i) cost, (ii) duration and (iii) purpose of the review and (c) will he make the outcome of the review public.5320Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Yes.(a) PricewaterhouseCoopers.(b) (i) $73,250.00(ii) 20 October 1998 to 11 December 1998.(iii) To review the role of the Australian Defence Force Academy in providing undergraduate and military education and training.(c) The review was commissioned to allow Defence staff to explore options in relation to higher education in Defence. It is only one source of data on the question, and there is no intention to make it public.(a) Paul Dibb and Associates.(b) (i) $12,821.85(ii) 6 March 1998 to 16 June 1998.(iii) To review the curricula of the Joint Services Staff College and Australian College of Defence and Strategic Studies and to construct an outline of the curricula for the new Defence Staff Course.(c) The review was commissioned to allow Defence staff to explore options in relation to higher education in Defence. It is only one source of data on the question, and there is no intention to make it public.(a) Coopers and Lybrand.(b) (i) $59,400.00(ii) 6 March 1998 to 30 June 1998.(iii) To review the Australian College of Defence and Strategic Studies.(c) The review was commissioned to allow Defence staff to explore options in relation to higher education in Defence. It is only one source of data on the question, and there is no intention to make it public.(a) Coopers and Lybrand.(b) (i) $43,900.00(ii) 3 November 1997 to 24 December 1997.(iii) To review the Joint Services Staff College.(c) The review was commissioned to allow Defence staff to explore options in relation to higher education in Defence. It is only one source of data on the question, and there is no intention to make it public.5321(Question No. 556)5565321Price, Roger, MPMr PriceQI4ChifleyALP00 asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 29 March 1999:(1) Further to question No. 551, has he made the report into the Holsworthy Correctional Centre public; if not, why not.(2) Who were the departmental or Australian Defence officers who investigated the matter.(3) Was the Office of the Defence Force Ombudsman advised of the investigation; if so, did the Ombudsman concur; if not, why not.(4) What specific charges were investigated.(5) What was the outcome in respect of each charge.5321Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Investigating Officers' Reports into the Defence Force Corrective Establishment have not been made public and it is not usual practice to release reports such as these routinely. Notwithstanding, if an interested party were to request a copy of the Reports, release of the documents would be considered on a case by case basis, suitably amended to protect the personal privacy of individuals who otherwise might be affected by the release.(2) Two investigations into the Defence Corrective Establishment and the practice of `Attitude Adjustment Training' or `Discipline Tours' were undertaken by Captain R.G. Long, Royal Australian Navy Reserve. A separate investigation into allegations of unlawful activities in connection with Attitude Adjustment Training at the Defence Corrective Establishment was undertaken by Group Captain C.M. Stunden, Royal Australian Air Force. Brigadier M.W. Meecham undertook a Review of the Defence Force Corrective Establishment.(3) The Defence Force Ombudsman may investigate administrative actions of Commonwealth departments and authorities related to the service of a member of the Defence Force, or arising as a result of a person serving in the Defence Force. The Defence Force Ombudsman may not investigate action taken in connection with proceedings against a member of the Defence Force for an offence arising under Defence Force Discipline Act 1982. He has not been informed of, or involved in, these investigations as there was no requirement to so inform the Ombudsman.(4) The Stunden investigation indicated that possible offences had occurred and that consideration could be given to charging one individual under Section 29 of the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 and another individual under Section 61.(5) Charges under the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 were not laid, as they were judged not likely to succeed at hearing.5321(Question No. 557)5575321Price, Roger, MPMr PriceQI4ChifleyALP00 asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 29 March 1999:(1) Further to his answer to a question without notice about Holsworthy Correctional Centre (Hansard , 23 March 1999, page 3426), how many other claims of inappropriate disciplinary action (a) have been made and (b) are being investigated.(2) Are the military police investigating charges in respect of the matters referred to in part (1); if so, in each case, what is the specific charge.(3) Has the Defence Force Ombudsman been advised of each investigation and agreed to the process; if not, why not.(4) Will charges be laid; if so, when; if not, why not.5321Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (a) and (b) There are no known incidences of inappropriate disciplinary action within the Detention Centres of the Royal Australian Navy or the Royal Australian Air Force. The only other claims of inappropriate disciplinary action involve another Army unit at Holsworthy. The Military Police have been investigating these claims since September 1998.(2) Yes. Decisions relating to charges to be laid will be made when the military investigation is completed.(3) The Defence Force Ombudsman (DFO) may investigate administrative actions of Commonwealth departments and authorities related to the service of a member of the Defence Force, or arising as a result of a person serving in the Defence Force. The DFO may not investigate action taken in connection with proceedings against a member of the Defence Force for an offence arising under Defence Force Discipline Act 1982. He has not been informed of, or involved in, this investigation.(4) As indicated in the answer to question 2, charges may be laid when the investigation is completed. A military police report relating to the majority of the allegations is due to be completed this month.5322(Question No. 558)5585322Price, Roger, MPMr PriceQI4ChifleyALP00 asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 29 March 1999:(1) How many Australian Defence Force correctional facilities exist.(2) What is the name and location of each correctional facility.(3) Have correctional facilities other than the Holsworthy Correctional Centre been reviewed; if so, to what effect.(4) Is he satisfied that there have been no instances of illegal inappropriate disciplinary action in addition to the occurrences at the Holsworthy Correctional Centre.5322Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Defence Force Corrective Establishment at Holsworthy is the only correctional facility. In addition, there are detention centres located at 31 different military units throughout Australia.(2) The names and location of each military detention centre are:LocationName of CentreQLD:AmberleyRAAF AmberleyEnoggeraDCSC EnoggeraEnoggera6 RARTownsville1 RARTownsville2 RARTownsville4 Fd RegtNSW:BalmoralHMAS PenguinBandianaDCSC BandianaCasulaSchool of Military EngineeringHolsworthyDefence Force Corrective EstablishmentHolsworthy3 RARHolsworthy5/7 RARKapooka1 RTBRichmondRAAF RichmondSingletonSchool of InfantryWagga WaggaRAAF Wagga WaggaWilliamtownRAAF Williamtown VIC:Point CookRAAF WilliamsPuckapunyalALTC PuckapunyalWatsonia3 MP CoyWestern PorHMAS CerberusSA:EdinburghRAAF EdinburghWoodside16 AD RegtWA:Garden IslandHMAS StirlingPerthRAAF PearceSwanbourne1 SASRKarrakatta55 MP PlNT:DarwinHMAS CoonawarraTindalAAF TindalPalmerston2 Cav RegtPalmerston5/7 RARACT:DuntroonRMC(3) No. However, as a result of the Reports into the Defence Force Corrective Establishment, the Australian Defence Force is developing tri-service policy on detention centre committal procedures, a formal inspection and licensing system for all detention facilities and a code of conduct for staff. Rationalisation of the number of unit detention centres is also to be considered.(4) There are no known incidences of inappropriate disciplinary action other than those alleged at the Defence Force Corrective Establishment and at another Army unit at Holsworthy.5323(Question No. 561)5615323Burke, Anna, MPMs Burke83SChisholmALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 30 March 1999:Has maintenance work on public housing administered by the Commonwealth been outsourced; if so, (a) what monitoring of outsourced maintenance work occurs, (b) what cost savings have been achieved and (c) has there been an increase in the rate of complaints about the quality of maintenance work.5323Truss, 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:The Commonwealth does not administer maintenance work on public housing.The Commonwealth contributes to housing assistance by providing grants to the States and Territories under the Commonwealth State Housing Agreement (CSHA). Responsibility for public housing stock and associated maintenance work is a matter for State and Territory governments.5323(Question No. 562)5625323Burke, Anna, MPMs Burke83SChisholmALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 30 March 1999:On most recent data, what are the waiting lists for public housing administered by the Commonwealth in the post code areas of (a) 3128, (b) 3129, (c) 3125, (d) 3147, (e) 3148, (f) 3166 and (g) 3168. 5324Truss, 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:The Commonwealth does not administer waiting lists for public housing.The Commonwealth contributes to housing assistance by providing grants to the States and Territories under the Commonwealth State Housing Agreement (CSHA). Responsibility for public housing and waiting list management is a matter for State and Territory governments.