1999-06-033913REPS593501999-06-03Mr SPEAKER(Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Bills5935r8175935Bill presented by Mr Slipper, and read a first time.593509:31:005935Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.In December 1997, the government announced in the `Investment for Growth' industry statement that it proposed to introduce schemes designed to make Australia more attractive as a site for regional manufacturing and warehousing.One such initiative announced in 1998 was a scheme to encourage manufacturing activities in bond called MIB warehouses.However, up until now, operators of MIB warehouses were subject to import processing charges and fees that were introduced in 1997 to recover the costs incurred in processing what are known as `customs entries'.Currently, a charge applies to entries lodged to allow imported goods to be moved into, and, if goods go into Australian commerce, out of warehouses.Industry has claimed that these charges and fees make the operation of MIB warehouses uneconomic, and serve as obstacles to attracting international manufacturing and investment to Australia.The government has responded to representations by industry and is addressing the problems through the amendments to the Customs Act proposed in this bill.If goods are imported into MIB warehouses, and manufactured goods are exported, no customs duty, fees or charges would be paid on goods entering or leaving the MIB warehouse. The changes contained in the bill are to commence from 29 April 1999, the date the government announced this initiative.I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill.Debate (on motion by Mr Melham) adjourned.Bills5935r8235935Bill presented by Mr Slipper, and read a first time.593509:34:005935Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill is the second in the package ensuring that goods that enter into what is known as an MIB warehouse and are subsequently exported do not pay fees and charges otherwise payable to Customs for processing entries.The bill imposes a charge for processing entries made for goods that move from an MIB warehouse into Australian commerce.This means these goods have to pay the same fees and charges as goods imported into Australia through a general warehouse have to, as well as, of course, the relevant customs duty and sales tax ordinarily payable on imported goods.However, goods exported from an MIB warehouse do not have to pay these charges.Whilst keeping the maximum amount payable for processing various types of entries in the act itself, the amendments proposed in this bill will also allow the regulations to make changes to Customs fees and costs structure so it can provide flexibility in meeting emerging industry requirements.This flexibility will remove the rigidity in the current structure and enable cost recovery charges to be adapted more easily in the future to meet government initiatives and other changed circumstances.The changes contained in the bill are to commence from 29 April 1999, the date the government announced this initiative.I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill.Debate (on motion by Mr Melham) adjourned.Bills5936r8295936Bill presented by Mr Truss, and read a first time.593609:37:005936Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.Since forming government in 1996, this government has sought to implement its commitment to a simpler and more coherent social security system that more effectively meets its objectives of adequacy, equity, incentives for self-provision, customer service, and administrative and financial sustainability. That commitment can be met in part by seeking to ensure that social security legislation is routinely reviewed to improve its readability and to ensure that it is easier to amend so as not to impede the implementation of new policies.The aims of enhanced readability and adaptability to implement change are not new to social security legislation. Indeed, the government recognises the efforts of the former government in rewriting the social security law in 1991, culminating in the Social Security Act 1991. But just as the 1991 exercise recognised the need to make social security legislation more comprehendible and adaptable, subsequent experience with the Social Security Act indicates that these aims could be better achieved by consolidating the technical rules provisions of that act.A technical rules simplification project has been conducted in my department, in conjunction with Centrelink, with the aim of simplifying the technical rules provisions. The objectives of the project have been to implement simpler policies for the Social Security Act through legislation that:. is consistent across payment types;. facilitates movements between payment types;. is easy to administer;. reflects current and desired best practice in administration and customer service;. is easy to amend;. facilitates the introduction of emerging technologies;. is in clear English and has a logical structure and flow; and. is as short as possible because it avoids unnecessary repetition.This bill is the result of that project, simplifying the technical rules by standardising them and locating them and other administrative provisions separately from the other provisions of the Social Security Act. The bill deals with technical rules relating to:. claims;. start days (this concept replaces the somewhat misleading concept of `provisional commencement day');. payment into bank accounts;. payment by instalments;. protection of social security payments;. information gathering;. comparable foreign payments;. provision of tax file numbers;. rate increase, reduction, cancellation or suspension determinations;. changes to payments by computers;. date of effect determinations;. review of decisions;. offences; and. use of emerging technologies.The bill covers social security payments and concession cards. However, the bill does not contain any provisions relating to qualification, payability, rates, overpayments, debt recovery, portability or international social security agreements.Like the 1991 exercise, this bill does not involve any major policy initiatives and it does not have any significant financial impact. The policy initiatives implemented by the bill relate to:. streamlining the claims process and providing enhanced flexibility in how claims may be made;. making it easier for a person to be transferred between income support payments;. making it easier for a person to be placed onto the correct payment where the person has applied for the incorrect social security payment;. introducing generic provisions applicable to all payment types wherever possible—for example, commencement provisions being events based rather than being payment type based (and so varying from payment type to payment type); and. reducing the number of instalment rounding provisions.The bill also gives effect to some recommendations of the Guilfoyle report, including:. giving the Social Security Appeals Tribunal the ability to consider matters without having to convene an oral hearing if it considers that a review may be conducted adequately without an oral hearing; and. establishing a 12-month time limit in which a customer may lodge an application to a Centrelink authorised review officer to appeal a reviewable decision (although there will be scope to extend the time limit in special circumstances).A significant outcome of the bill will be that there will be much less social security legislation—about 500 pages less—and it will be more consistent. This should be of benefit to Centrelink in administering the social security law.This bill is not, nor is it intended to be, a singing and dancing exercise. Just as the government's commitment to a simpler and more coherent social security system is ongoing, so is the need to constantly review the legislative basis underlying that social security system. The government trusts that this bill will receive the same bipartisan support afforded to the 1991 rewrite of the social security legislation. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum, which covers not only this bill but the next two pieces of legislation which I will bring before the House.Debate (on motion by Mr Melham) adjourned.Bills5937r8305937Bill presented by Mr Truss, and read a first time.593709:44:005937Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill accompanies the Social Security (Administration) Bill 1999 and the Social Security (International Agreements) Bill 1999 . Together, they form part of the measures being undertaken by the government to give effect to the government's commitment to implement a simpler and more coherent social security system that more effectively meets it objectives of adequacy, equity, incentives for self-provision, customer service, and administrative and financial sustainability. The bill:. amends and repeals provisions of the Social Security Act 1991 consequential upon the enactment of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 and the Social Security (International Agreements) Act 1999; and. provides for the repeal of Part 9 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (when enacted) as a consequence of the commencement of provision of that act which contains a single rounding provision that applies to all social security payments.Mr Speaker, I commend the bill to the House.Debate (on motion by Mr Melham) adjourned. Bills5938r8285938Bill presented by Mr Truss, and read a first time.593809:45:005938Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill accompanies the Social Security (Administration) Bill 1999 and the Social Security (Administration and International Agreements) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1999 .The bill:. provides for the consolidation of existing social security international agreements into a separate act;. provides for new social security international agreements to be added to the Social Security (International Agreements) Act (once enacted) by way of regulation; and. provides for existing social security international agreements to be varied by way of regulation.Mr Speaker, I commend the bill to the House.Debate (on motion by Mr Melham) adjourned.Bills5938r8315938Bill presented by Mr McGauran, and read a first time.593809:47:005938McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPArts and the Centenary of Federation10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.Australia's heritage comprises more than our built or natural environment, our traditions and languages. It is also the objects we create, we value and we collect, known as our movable cultural heritage. This might include anything from artworks to fossils, historic manuscripts to steam engines, Aboriginal sacred/secret material to Sir Donald Bradman's cricket bat.The most significant of these items are defined as `Australian protected objects' and their export is regulated by the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Act 1986. Without limiting general international trade in cultural commodities, the objective of the act is to ensure that our most precious heritage items are not lost to the nation and future generations.Therefore, the act provides for the establishment of a National Cultural Heritage Fund to facilitate the acquisition of Australian protected objects. It was envisaged that the responsible minister could provide grants from the fund to assist a public cultural institution such as a museum or archive to purchase a cultural item which cannot be exported because its export would be of great cultural loss to Australia.We have to balance the rights of the property owner against the public interest. The person may have acquired or inherited a valuable and nationally treasured cultural object in all innocence or good faith, and is entitled in one circumstance or another to realise its full value but may be unable to do so because we will not allow that item to be lost to the nation. So in this act we are balancing the rights of the individual against the interests of the wider community. That is why we established this fund. The fund can help collecting institutions to purchase an item which we have required to remain in Australia, without necessarily a financial detriment to the owner.We want the fund to provide public access to these significant cultural items and, as part of permanent collections, to keep them available for the enjoyment, delight and education of all Australians, now and in the future.Furthermore, people who own an item for which an export permit has been refused will have more opportunity to sell the item to a public museum or comparable institution for a fair market price. The act could then operate more equitably for all involved.The previous government, however, never provided an appropriation to allow the fund to come into operation. More than 10 years after the commencement of the act, there was no fund established to help collecting institutions to purchase these prohibited for export items.We are starting off with a $0.5 million fund. We made an election commitment. We are honouring it. As the Prime Minister has said in this House on more than one occasion of late, every single Howard-Fischer promise at the last election has been honoured in full. This is yet another example of the government living up to its growing reputation for economic management and, of course, fulfilment of election promises.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—Ha, ha! That's as good as it gets!XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURAN—I should not allow myself to be distracted, should I, Mr Deputy Speaker, by the interjections of the member for Banks. It is all too easy to do, though. They are so provocative.After more than 10 years from the commencement of the act, the fund finally comes into operation. We are going to allocate $0.5 million to establish the National Cultural Heritage Account from the 1999-2000 budget appropriation for the administrative expenses for the outcome `a cultural environment that enriches the lives of all Australians'. It is expected that the account will be maintained at that level over time, as need requires.In order to operate this account, however, it is necessary to replace outdated references to the Audit Act 1901 and to bring the financial arrangements into line with the regime established by the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997.The bill before the House at this very moment, therefore, repeals section 25 of the act relating to the National Cultural Heritage Fund and replaces it with three new provisions relating to the National Cultural Heritage Account, which will be a special account for the purposes of the Financial Management and Accountability Act. The bill makes a number of other minor consequential amendments necessitated by this change.I do commend the bill to the House and look forward to the generosity of the opposition in acknowledging this breakthrough initiated by the government for movable cultural items. I present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Melham) adjourned.Bills5939r6705939Debate resumed from 3 December 1998, on motion by Mr Hockey:That the bill be now read a second time.09:53:005939Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—The opposition will not be opposing the Corporate Law Economic Reform Program Bill 1998. However, we are seeking the support of the House for some substantial amendments to the bill which are designed to make it fairer for smaller investors whose rights and interests have been ignored by the government. The amendments are designed to ensure that the essential features of the Corporations Law relating to fairness and equality of access remain intact while allowing businesses the opportunity to benefit from streamlined and simplified business regulation. In addition, I will be moving a second reading amendment which draws attention to the government's attempts to water down the protection contained in the Corporations Law for small investors for the benefit of larger institutional investors.Labor recognises that the ongoing reform of the Corporations Law is appropriate to ensure that regulations allow Australian companies to meet the changing demands of an increasingly competitive global marketplace and to take advantage of innovations in capital raising. Our successful record on corporation law reform reflects that recognition, going right back to the establishment of the national Corporations Law regime with the passage of the Corporations Act 1989 and the commencement of the Corporations Law in January 1991.In October 1993, the Commonwealth Attorney-General established the Corporations Law Simplification Program with the aim of rewriting the Corporations Law to make it easier to understand and to remove unnecessary business regulation. The first stage of the program was concluded in December 1995 with the commencement of the First Corporate Law Simplification Act 1995. The exposure draft of the Second Corporate Law Simplification Bill was released for public comment by the Labor government in June 1995, and in response to comments and submissions to that exposure draft the second exposure draft was issued by the Corporations Law Simplification Task Force in July 1996. A change of government occurred in between those times, of course. However, it was pleasing that the Liberal government decided to continue the process that had been initiated by Labor.However, Labor did not rest on its laurels once in opposition and fully participated in reform of the Corporations Law through the appropriate parliamentary and other processes. For instance, the exposure draft which I referred to was referred to the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Corporations and Securities for examination and the committee made 11 specific recommendations in its report. The result was that the Second Corporate Law Simplification Bill was amended slightly and reintroduced into the previous parliament in December 1997 and renamed the Company Law Review Bill 1997. The Company Law Review Bill was passed on 29 June 1998 with the support of the opposition in the Senate and after substantial amendment relating to issues such as disclosure of directors' remuneration and other issues which the government has, in its wisdom, seen fit to revisit. The Company Law Review Bill commenced operation on 1 July last year.Around the same time, Labor also fully participated in the debate on the Managed Investments Bill which was passed with the support of the opposition, again with amendments put forward by the opposition and accepted by the government. The Managed Investments Act implemented substantial reform to the Corporations Law first raised by Labor in the early 1990s after the high profile collapse of several managed investment schemes. The opposition was pleased that the government sought to continue the reform process set in train by Labor. The Managed Investments Act began operation from 1 July last year, and we are monitoring its operation to ensure that the benefits the government claimed would arise from it are actually being delivered. So Labor has a very strong track record when it comes to sensible and appropriate corporate law reform, and we wish to continue and improve on that record by fully participating in the debate and also moving appropriate amendments to the bill which is currently before the House.I now turn to the legislation in some detail. In March 1997, the government instituted the Corporate Law Economic Reform Program—or CLERP, as it is widely known—to continue the previous work of the Corporate Law Simplification Task Force. Six discussion papers were issued by CLERP on accounting standards, fundraising, directors' duties, corporate governance, takeovers, electronic commerce, financial markets and investment products. On 9 July last year the Treasurer issued draft legislation in the areas of takeovers, fundraising, accounting standards, directors' duties and corporate governance. The bill was referred to the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Corporations and Securities for examination. The bill currently before us was introduced into the last parliament but lapsed when the Prime Minister called an early election in October last year. It has, of course, since been reintroduced. Labor supports appropriate reform of the Corporations Law to ensure the efficient operation of financial markets through improved flexibility for businesses, through a reduction of red tape and through strengthening of prudential regulation and consumer protection.Several bills are scheduled to be reviewed in the House today relating to financial sector reform which the opposition supported in the Senate with amendments accepted by the government. However, along with improved market flexibility and increased market efficiency must come an appropriate level of investor and shareholder confidence and protection that maintains international confi dence in the integrity of our capital markets. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer have seen fit to remind us that Australia has weathered the Asian financial crisis due to the `transparent and robust nature of our financial services sector'. Why, then, we ask, is the government proposing to water down this transparency and robustness by introducing certain features of this bill?While we welcome many of the provisions in this 500-page reform bill, we cannot support all of the bill as it shifts the balance too far away from appropriate protection of a range of interests who participate in the financial services markets, particularly smaller investors. This bill gives legislative effect to the proposals on takeovers, fundraising, accounting standards, directors' duties and corporate governance. The government says that the process will improve corporate efficiency and enhance management discipline, minimise the costs of fundraising, protect the authority of directors and establish new arrangements in setting accounting standards. However, the CLERP Bill has not got the balance right and will require amendments.I will now address some of the specific and important proposals in the bill. Firstly there is the mandatory bid rule. Under the current takeover rule, a party seeking to launch a takeover must do so when their holdings in the target company are less than 20 per cent. There are essentially three ways in which a bidder can make a bid to take over a company, and all involve openly informing the market of the move. The government is seeking to allow takeover bidders the option of crossing the 20 per cent threshold in control and ownership of securities in a company before making a formal takeover announcement. Once the bidder crosses the 20 per cent threshold, they must make a mandatory unconditional takeover offer that must be for an amount at least equivalent to the highest price paid by the bidder in cash or non-cash transactions in the previous four months.What this proposal could do is effectively give the bidder control of the company before the market has been advised of a takeover bid, and could encourage bidders to try to lock up key blocks of shares before launching the takeover bid. The result of this change could grant the bidder effective control of a target company before revealing its intentions to the market. This clearly breaches three of the so-called Eggleston principles regarding takeover law. The Eggleston principles relate to the simple propositions first laid down in the Eggleston report of the late 1960s on takeover law. Another Eggleston principle relates to equal opportunity for all shareholders, which is also breached by this bill and which I will address a little later in dealing with the question of compulsory acquisition of securities.The prime motivation by a bidder in using the takeover tactic advocated in this bill is, of course, to discourage competitors from merging in the takeover process. Under such an arrangement, competitive bidders and directors of target companies would not have time to appropriately respond to takeover bids. Discovery of fair prices would be restricted, and directors would have little opportunity to explore and undertake defensive proceedings or seek alternative bidders. This would seriously disadvantage shareholders in target companies, who would be locked out of an auction process for the securities.The proposal is modelled on a practice allowed in the UK, where it is the exception rather than the rule. However, it is facile to expect that simply transplanting such a rule would have the same outcomes or extent of use in Australia. The dynamics of the Australian stock market and takeovers are very different from those in the United Kingdom. Here, every bidder will try to lock out its opponents at the first opportunity, to the detriment of existing shareholders. The government claims there is a benefit in helping a bidder to make takeovers without the fear of competition from its rivals. This is nonsense. The benefit to the bidder is that it imposes a lower price for a takeover target than it would have had the proper auction taken place.Arguments put forward that Australian takeover activity is significantly less than that in the US and the UK tend to dismiss the various influences and cyclical nature in volved with takeovers. Takeovers are currently at an all-time high in Australia. Ernst and Young's mergers and acquisitions index reached a high of 223 in 1998—the highest ever recorded. The total value of transactions was also a record $14.6 billion.While there may be a theoretical case that takeovers improve cost efficiencies, in reality most takeovers are less successful than initially envisaged by the parties. There are potential negative competition and employment consequences as well. The opposition will be opposing the mandatory bid proposal, which seems designed simply to increase the level of uncontested takeovers in Australia and to lock out an effective bidding process to the detriment of shareholders.With regard to the compulsory acquisitions proposals, the government intends to extend the current compulsory acquisition laws by allowing a person already holding 90 per cent control of a company to acquire, at any time, the remaining securities—not just shares—in that company. All that would be required is a notice of acquisition accompanied by an expert report quantifying the value of the remaining securities. There are a number of reasons why a bidder would wish to acquire minority interests and move to 100 per cent ownership, including administrative cost savings through delisting—such as getting rid of listing fees and ASX continuous disclosure requirements—tax reasons, such as grouping of tax losses, and freedom of management and control.This proposal is in part a response to so-called greenmailing, where minority shareholders strategically acquire shareholdings in companies that could become takeover targets, and then demand excessive prices on the remaining securities. However, there seems to be little basis for this concern, and the abolition of shareholder rights in this proposal is something that should be of major concern to this House. The government's proposal effectively means that majority shareholders gain a mechanism to squeeze out minority shareholders at an unfair price and at any time. The interests of minority shareholders will effectively be sidelined. This is a concern as an increasing number of so-called mum and dad investors are participating in Australia's stock market.The Prime Minister is fond of saying he wants to make Australia the largest shareholding democracy in the world. How democratic is this bill, the Prime Minister's bill, which allows a majority shareholder to compulsorily acquire the shares of small shareholders at any time and at a price to be determined by a so-called expert appointed by the bidder for the shares? The government constantly runs the false mantra that it is a government which provides choice for Australians. The Minister for Financial Services and Regulation claims in almost every bill he speaks on that he is on about choice. Well, let's hear what he has to say about the choices this bill offers small shareholders who may not want to sell their shares.The proposal effectively establishes a mechanism to squeeze out minority shareholders at an unfair price. The government members of the joint committee have accepted to a degree the harshness of the proposal by recommending that compulsory acquisition be limited to six months after the initial takeover, rather than having the mechanism available `at any time'. However, that is little consolation for minority shareholders who will be forced to sell their shares within that six months.With regard to the takeover panel proposal, the bill seeks to revamp the little-used and largely ineffective Corporations and Securities Panel into a more relevant intermediary to sort out takeover disputes. The bill will allow any party directly affected by a takeover dispute to lodge applications to the panel and will allow the panel to declare circumstances as unacceptable—whether or not they constitute a contravention of the Corporations Law.Revamping the panel to sort out takeover disputes is generally welcomed. But, in one respect, the proposal does not go far enough as it does not allow any individual to undertake court proceedings on takeover disputes that have been considered by the panel. The opposition is concerned with the provision that allows only ASIC to take court proceedings. ASIC may not have the desire to pursue court action, due to resource or priority constraints. Individuals should be allowed to pursue action in the courts for takeover disputes considered by the panel, and we will be moving an amendment to allow that to happen.The next category I wish to refer to is fundraising. Proposals under this heading are particularly intended to reduce the costs involved with capital raising by start-ups and small and medium sized enterprises. First, issuers will be permitted to raise up to $2 million each year from up to 20 persons without issuing a prospectus. Second, the definition of `sophisticated' investors—persons from whom an issuer can raise capital without having to issue a prospectus or other disclosure document—will be extended. The current prospectus exemption applies to individuals that subscribe to a minimum of $500,000 worth of securities. The proposed extension will permit individuals judged by a licensed securities dealer, on reasonable grounds, to have previous experience in investing in securities to invest less than $500,000. Third, investors will be able to invest less than $500,000 if a qualified accountant certifies that they have a gross income over the previous two financial years of at least $250,000 or have net assets of $2.5 million.The bill also proposes to allow for the preparation of an offer information statement instead of a prospectus when raising capital of not more than $5 million. The OIS must contain prominent statements that it is not a prospectus, that it has a lower disclosure requirement than a prospectus and that investors should obtain professional advice before accepting the offer.The bill would make uniform the due diligence defences for all parties involved in the preparation of prospectuses. The proposed rules would also clarify responsibilities regarding forecasts and remove the overlap between the Corporations Law and the state and territory fair trading acts as they apply to dealings in securities. The overlap with the Trade Practices Act has been removed already by amendments to the ASIC Act.While the fundraising provisions will help entrepreneurs and small businesses raise capital, the cost benefits from the provisions are expected to be marginal, and it remains to be seen whether this is a major improvement to capital raising for small and medium enterprises. The opposition is supportive of this initiative. However, allowing licensed securities dealers to determine who is a sophisticated investor based on the dealer's judgment of a person's experience is a concern. This has the potential to be abused by securities dealers—who could be financial advisers—in order to maintain commissions from sales.In addition, a new licensing regime, which has been outlined in CLERP discussion paper No. 6, could create new licensing rules. It is premature to make laws affecting the licensing of financial advisers and securities dealers and others in isolation of the CLERP 6 proposal. We will not be supporting the particular provision allowing licensed securities dealers to determine who is a sophisticated investor. We will not be opposing the other changes in this area.I turn now to directors' duties and corporate governance. The government considers that current regulation has created significant uncertainty about the liabilities of directors and that this has constrained them from responsible risk taking. The government has therefore proposed a range of changes in this area. This part of the bill the opposition finds the most difficult to support. There appears to be very little justification for the proposed changes, many of which are an attempt to codify existing law, which raises the question as to why there is a need to change the law at all. This section of the existing Corporations Law best represents the robustness and strength of the Australian financial services sector. The government's attempt to water down these provisions is not consistent with its claims that the Australian system is one of the best in the world.The business judgment rule offers directors a safe harbour from personal liability in relation to honest, informed and rational judgments. The government claims directors will enjoy the benefit of a presumption that they have acted in good faith and in the honest belief that they have taken action in the best interest of the company. The operation of the business judgment rule will be confined to cases involving decision making about the ordinary business operations of a company. It does not apply in the context of insolvent trading or in relation to misstatements in a prospectus. These are discrete areas that will each be regulated by a separate regime.The business judgment rule is effectively the government's conservative interpretation of the courts' decisions on directors duty of care and diligence. The implementation of this proposal is intended to minimise the supposed uncertainty brought about by the decisions of the courts. The business judgment rule or safe harbour provisions are limited to business operations only and do not extend to prospectus statements or insolvent trading.However, there is currently little evidence to suggest that the current regime has inappropriately constrained directors and managers from making the necessary decisions to improve the performance of their businesses. The real risk of personal liability for breaches of duty of care in Australia is small. Since poor company performance is usually reflected in stock prices, directors are encouraged to lift their game and override any sense of conservatism that may be caused by fears of liability.In the early 1990s, the Labor government carefully considered the introduction of the business judgment rule in response to a number of submissions from business groups. However, in the light of a very clear judicial exposition of directors' duties from Justice Rogers—Chief Judge in Commercial Cases in the New South Wales Supreme Court—in the AWA case, the government did not see the need to complicate matters with legislation. The then Attorney-General, Michael Duffy, stated that Australia already had an entrenched business judgment rule in existing statutes and in court decisions. The proposed changes may end up simply encouraging directors and managers to act adventurously, to the detriment of their shareholders. Shareholders' interests are not appropriately reflected in the proposed business judgment rule, and we will not be supporting it.I turn now to the duty of care and diligence. This bill rewrites the duty of care and diligence of directors and managers, taking into account issues such as the corporation's circumstances and the position and responsibility of the officer. The rewrite does not seem to be very different in substance from the current description in the Corporations Law. It continues to use the objective test. However, it adds subjective considerations on the appropriate skill of a director and complexity of company structure. The proposed description suggests that the law would not require high standards of care and diligence from all who were appointed to the boards.It also proposes that a breach of the duty of care and diligence should only result in civil sanctions and should no longer provide a basis for an offence under the law. Criminal liability will continue to apply to breaches of the duty to act honestly. The rewrite endeavours to distinguish between different kinds of directors, thereby allowing a non-specified class of directors to have lower standards and avoid any sense of responsibility. It also fails to reflect the monitoring role that directors should undertake.In addition, it is unclear what the purpose is of providing for a breach of the duty of care and diligence that only results in civil sanction and no longer provides a basis for an offence under the law. In practice, criminal proceedings have been very few and far between. Criminal liability should continue to apply to breaches of the duty to act honestly.Directors' fiduciary duties have been qualified with the introduction of a provision which assumes directors' duties and actions to be in good faith. That is, directors are presumed to be acting in the best interests of the corporation. The provisions would allow directors to use the term `acted in good faith' as a defence for negligence liability, which results in a further watering down of directors' responsibilities and duties.Regarding reliance on advice and information from others, the bill proposes that directors be given an appropriate defence for action taken based on advice from third parties. The provision would allow for the presumption that advice was sought in good faith and with proper consideration of relevant circumstances at the time, unless proven otherwise. It is unclear why the government feels that, simply because a director has relied on the advice of a third party, they have acted in good faith and therefore have a legal defence. This provision again simply provides directors with an opportunity to abrogate responsibility for decisions they take on the basis that it was made on the advice of another. Taking this to its logical conclusion, one wonders why there is any need for directors at all. Why not simply let third parties make a decision on behalf of a company and carry the liability—and dispense with directors?The next issue is the question of statutory derivative action. The provision on statutory derivative action would allow shareholders to take court proceedings on behalf of a company. The current regime allows such action already, but the process to do so is not clear. There is a widely held view that, without clear statutory procedures, pursuing a derivative action will continue to be a confusing exercise. The statutory derivative action rule is likely to be too onerous for individual investors to pursue. It is doubtful whether many shareholders will be able to meet the onerous requirement of applying for leave from the court to take action.The ineligibility of ASIC from being able to apply for leave from the court is difficult to understand. As the government created consumer protector, ASIC should surely have the power to act under these provisions. It would be appropriate that the right of statutory derivative action should be extended to ASIC, because small shareholders may not have the resources to take such action. The opposition is moving an amendment to ensure this occurs. I understand that the government has indicated an intention to accept a recommendation of the joint parliamentary committee report to allow this to occur. I therefore look forward to its support for the amendment.Finally I move to the provisions relating to accounting standards. The bill will establish the Financial Reporting Council as the ministerial advisory body with responsibility for the broad oversight of the Australian accounting standard process. The FRC will have the powers to appoint members of the standard setter, the Australian Accounting Standards Board, and approve and monitor the AASB's priorities, business plan and budget. In addition, AASB will be reconstituted as a body corporate to allow it to employ staff and acquire property. The provisions are intended to boost the authority of the Australian Accounting Standards Board and to expedite harmonisation at an international level.It would seem, however, that the government has already indicated which accounting standards should be adopted. The government has implied that Australia should adopt the IASC standards as opposed to the US GAAP. Harmonising Australian accounting standards with that of the world is, in the main, about easing Australian capital raising in the global market, particularly in the US. However, the US has yet to recognise the IASC. Thus Australian companies seeking to raise capital in the US would still have to prepare a separate disclosure document based on the US GAAP, even if they have been reporting their financials on the basis of the IASC. There is a danger with Australia prematurely committing to adopting the international accounting standards, especially when the US—the key financial centre in the world—has given little indication of doing so.As appropriate, the bill must encourage the AASB to consider the interests of Australian firms raising capital in the US market, which would have to meet the US GAAP requirements. When adopting an international accounting standard the AASB must also take into account the level of transparency and rigour of disclosure involved in that accounting standard. We will also be moving an amendment designed to ensure the independence of the AASB from the FRC by limiting the FRC's power to direct the AASB, particularly in relation to accounting standards.This bill is almost 500 pages long. In the main, the opposition supports the provisions in this bill and is interested in expediting passage through the House and on to the Senate for further consideration. Some aspects are of major concern and we will be moving amendments to address these concerns. I will also move a second reading amendment which draws attention to the government's attempts to water down the protection contained in the legislation for small investors. The balance of the bill is wrong. I will move that second reading amendment at the end of my comments.In conclusion, I would like to make some observations about corporate law in general. In an area of deregulation it is important to remember why we regulate. The need for regulation may change from time to time and the substance of what is being regulated may change from time to time, but the need to intervene, to regulate, remains. As an example, the infamous restructuring of the Patrick group of companies last year indicated that it is important to ensure that a variety of other parties are protected from the dodgy behaviour of people in control of companies. We need to ensure that workers, consumers and investors all have the capacity to ensure that their rights are protected. Other examples include the circumstances of the Cobar miners, who found that their entitlements had simply been eliminated by the bankruptcy of the company employing them. It is notable that the Treasurer agreed at the time to take a serious look at reforming the law to protect people in that situation, but we have as yet seen no sign of any progress from him or the government on that issue.We hear a lot about the concept of shareholder value and how important it is that directors and people running companies deliver value to shareholders. But it is important to remember that nobody in this country is just a shareholder. Shareholders are also consumers, employees, parents, customers and members of the community and, although they have interests as shareholders, they also have interests in those other guises as well. Just as they look to their company directors to protect their interests as shareholders, they look to their governments to protect their interests in those other forms—as workers, consumers and members of the community. That is why we regulate corporations. That is why we have Corporations Law. That is why we ensure that we have regulations to protect the environment, regulations to ensure that small investors cannot be misled or defrauded, regulations to ensure that consumers are not misled or defrauded and regulations to ensure that workers can get their just entitlements, be treated fairly and have an opportunity to bargain, with some degree of equity, with companies employing them.Those companies and business leaders who complain about the supposed special status of trade unions—the corporate legal personality they acquire by registration under the Workplace Relations Act and the specific regulatory structure within which they operate—should never forget that companies have an equivalent. It is called limited liability—corporate legal personality. The state—the community—also intervenes in the market to provide a special status for companies. Limited liability ensures that companies can operate in a whole range of ways and take a far greater level of risk than would otherwise be the case if limited liability was not available to them. So those who stand up and portray themselves as the great promoters of the ideals of the free market should never forget that people in business operate, on a daily basis, with the benefit of an extensive array of interventions in that market to ensure that that market operates more effectively and more fairly.Other instances are protections of copyright, trademarks, patents and the like—all designed to make business more effective and to ensure that people can get on with making money and creating wealth and ensuring that people are treated reasonably. Before you complain about special status for trade unions, remember companies enjoy special status as well and without that special status it would be a very different world.Finally, with respect to a government that claims to be helping the corporate sector with regulatory reforms such as in this bill, taxation reform, spending and a whole range of issues, it is ironic that the government is denying the corporate sector the right to vital information through the budget estimates—an issue which I have raised in the recent past. Both the historical data that has usually been provided on a function and subfunction basis in the budget and forward estimates on a detailed function and subfunction basis are no longer provided. They were removed from this current budget, under the guise of the introduction of accrual accounting. This is of some significance to the issues of corporate regulation and to people managing companies, because people actually depend on this information for making decisions about how they operate their companies, particularly companies that are suppliers of goods and services to this government.It was interesting to note that, in the Senate estimates hearing a couple of days ago, the data on the historical function and subfunction basis was actually tabled. This is the data that should have been in the budget. I seek leave to table that data in the House today—where it should have been previously been tabled as part of the budget.XH4McGAURANMr McGauran—I should ask the shadow minister to show me the document he is seeking leave to table, seeing as he has ignored the usual procedure.YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNER—I am happy to show you. It has been tabled by the government in Senate estimates. It is the function and subfunction data, estimates of expenses by function for 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003. It should have been in the budget but has not been given to this House.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Is leave granted?XH4McGAURANMr McGauran—No. The honourable member needs to learn a lesson from this episode.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Leave has been denied. I believe the shadow minister also has an amendment.YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNER—It is information that they want to continue to conceal from the Australian people and from the parliament, Mr Speaker. They will not even put it to this House. Finally, I move:That all words after `that' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:`without declining to give the bill a second reading, the House condemns the Government for ignoring the rights of small investors, including so called mum and dad investors, by (a) creating a takeover process and compulsory acquisition rules which breach the Eggleston principles; and (b) unnecessarily watering down directors' duties and responsibilities'.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Is the amendment seconded?4T4MELHAMMr Melham—I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.10:23:005947Prosser, Geoff, MPMr PROSSERRI4ForrestLP10—The Corporate Law Economic Reform Program Bill 1998 implements key elements of the government's Corporate Law Economic Reform Program in the areas of fundraising, directors' duties and corporate governance, accounting standards and takeovers. The takeover reforms contained in this bill are extremely important because they are designed to improve the efficiency of the market for corporate control while encouraging better management and enhancing investor protection. Takeovers, or the prospect of takeovers, do not just provide benefits for shareholders; they provide benefits for the corporate sector and the economy as a whole because they provide incentives for improved efficiency, leading ultimately to greater wealth creation.These reforms are aimed at ensuring that the market system of incentives operates efficiently. Specifically, the regulatory arrangements contained in this bill are aimed at promoting a more competitive market for corporate control by modifying the compulsory acquisition rules to allow all types of securities, not just shares, to be compulsorily acquired; to allow compulsory acquisitions to take place at any time, not just following a takeover bid; to facilitate the acquisition of the outstanding securities in a class by any person who already holds 90 per cent of the class; and to make it easier for majority shareholders to obtain the benefits of 100 per cent ownership by providing for the acquisition of all securities in all classes of a target where overwhelming ownership of the target by the majority shareholder can be demonstrated.The law regulates the market for corporate control through prescriptive procedures to be followed in the launch and acceptance of a takeover bid. The law imposes obligations on bidders and target companies to ensure that acquisitions of substantial parcels of shares are conducted in a transparent and equitable manner. However, the problem with the current regulatory regime is that it overly constrains takeover conduct. Part of the aim of this bill is to strike the right balance between regulation and liberalisation. Too often litigation is used to as a defensive tactic and bidders are inhibited by having to enter into an auction for corporate control.The Corporate Law Economic Reform Program proposals assess whether the code should be replaced or liberalised to facilitate changes in control. They also consider whether responsibility for adjudicating on takeover disputes should be removed from the courts and given to a panel, which could reduce costs, expedite the resolution of disputes and bring greater market expertise to the adjudicative process. The Corporate Law Economic Reform Program review concluded that takeovers are an essential element of a competitive business environment because they allocate capital to the most productive uses by providing incentives for management to optimise performance.On reading this bill, I was struck by those words, `allocating capital to its most productive uses'. This is interesting because when Paul Keating, the so-called `world's greatest Treasurer' introduced Australia's capital gains tax in September 1985, he used similar words, and I quote:In a capital scarce country one must ration the capital carefully. Therefore, the capital must go to the most productive areas of the economy rather than into overinvestment in real estate or any other non-productive area of the economy, as has been the case over the years.Some 14 years later, it is fairly obvious that the same bloke who ran up Commonwealth debt from $16 billion to $96 billion got it wrong on capital gains tax—a tax that has caused the very problem that he claimed it was designed to avoid. Capital has not gone to the most productive areas of the economy. Instead, it has been locked up in less productive areas such as underutilised real estate and underperforming shares. It has created a road block for venture capital coming into Australia. This has occurred because capital gains tax is a discretionary tax—you only pay it when you sell appreciated assets.This tax on economic activity discourages the efficient allocation of capital. It is something which this bill aims to rectify because inefficient allocation of capital reduces the competitiveness of Australian companies both at home and overseas and constrains economic growth and job creation.The need for capital gains tax reform was highlighted in the findings of the Joint Committee on Corporations and Securities, which made a number of recommendations in relation to the compulsory acquisition provisions contained in this bill. While many of the joint committee's recommendations have been adopted by this bill, others, such as the extension of CGT rollover relief to scrip-for-scrip shares compulsorily acquired in a takeover, await the report of the review of business taxation due later this month.While the measures contained in this bill will better facilitate the takeover process, further reforms to the CGT regime are needed to address the problems encountered with mergers. Under Australia's current system, when a scrip offer is made during a merger process, a capital gain may result for shareholders in the target company. For shareholders, this creates a powerful disincentive to approve mergers because the CGT liability has to be funded, even though the transaction is unlikely to involve cash with which the tax could be paid.This leads to a reduction in merger activity, which is detrimental to the economy because mergers allow better economies of scale, resulting in cost savings, increased profitability and a greater ability for Australian companies to compete at home and overseas. The same pressure that reduces market responsiveness to fluctuations in share prices reduces the likelihood of pre-CGT shareholders approving takeovers. Investors holding pre-CGT shares will weigh loss of their benefit against the potential yield from the enlarged entity. This interferes with the normal workings of the takeover process—a process that occurs when one company looks at another company and decides that they could run it better, make greater profits, find new markets, achieve better economies of scale or whatever.Australia's CGT rate is so high that it creates a bias towards investing in companies that pay out high dividends rather than those that keep retained earnings. Of course it tends to be growing companies that retain their earnings rather than pay out dividends, so these companies are affected most by CGT. More importantly, it is these companies that generate new jobs. The thrust of this bill is to modernise the regulation of business and our financial markets. This is part of a program of reforms implemented by the government to make Australia a leading financial centre in the Asia-Pacific area. Australia is close to realising that goal but several important areas of reform still need to be addressed.In the area of banking, in which Australia's prudential regulation is a world leader, the four-pillars policy really needs to be abolished. Given that one of the functions of this bill is to remove the impediments for takeovers and mergers, surely we should be working towards removing the impediments to banking mergers as well. If we allow merges between the Big Four, we could provide the means for creating a world-size bank capable of competing in the international marketplace. This would enable Australia to be recognised as an international banking player. I see this as a central feature of being a leading financial centre in the Asia-Pacific region.The other area of reform that is not adequately addressed in this bill is the urgent need for capital gains tax reform, not just in the area of takeovers and mergers that I have outlined but also in areas of the economy such as the property and venture capital markets. Again, consistent with the goal of becoming a leading financial centre in the Asia-Pacific, we need to become globally competitive in our taxation regime in order to attract investment. By almost every measure—the CGT rate, the level of rollover relief, the deductibility for capital losses—Australia tops the list for zealous taxation where capital gains are concerned.Not only is Australia's CGT rate high—36 per cent for companies and the marginal rate for individuals—but certain features of our CGT regime stand out. Australia does not allow capital loses to be offset against other income as many other countries do. The rate at which Australia's capital gains are taxed does not diminish over the time the asset is held, as is the case in the United States, Canada and the UK. Australia's rollover provisions are meagre compared with most other countries. Australia's harsh capital gains tax regime has eroded our international competitiveness because we are forced to compete in a global market against countries with more favourable CGT regimes.The Corporate Law Economic Reform Program Bill is a comprehensive initiative to improve Australia's business and company regulation as part of the coalition's drive to promote business, economic development and employment. The new policy framework will enhance the economy's efficiency and maintain investor protection and market integrity. These are important steps in the current momentum for financial reform, a momentum that needs to be maintained to continue the pace of economic reform set by this government.10:35:005949Sercombe, Bob,MPMr SERCOMBEQK6MaribyrnongALP00—The Corporate Law Economic Reform Program Bill 1998 is part of an ongoing process of corporate regulatory reform that substantially commenced in 1993 under the Labor government under the title Corporate Law Simplification Program and has been rebadged by this government as the Corporate Law Economic Reform Program. There is general agreement I am sure in the parliament about the need for ongoing regulatory reform in order to position Australia and its companies to take maximum advantage of the competitive global economic environment and of innovations in capital raising and the like so as to maximise the benefit for Australians. What is critical, however, in considering these measures is the need for appropriate balances, between competing considerations, to be achieved.The government seems to operate on the principle that less regulation is always better and certainly the government does not achieve appropriate balances with other policy con siderations. We need to underline the importance of, for example, ensuring that any changes that occur maximise the integrity of Australia's capital markets. We have only to look at our own region of the world over recent years to see the dramatic implications for a lack of confidence in the integrity of markets on economies. We also need to ensure that any changes that are introduced provide the highest possible levels of protection for investors and shareholders. The Australian Stock Exchange recently produced a report indicating that some 4.4 million Australians now are direct shareholders. Probably the majority of those people are relatively inexperienced investors or first-time investors. So that highlights the importance in any changes to corporate regulation needing to balance a range of considerations.The opposition has some substantial concerns over the provisions on takeovers in this legislation. There is no doubt that the threat of takeovers or the possibility of takeovers tends to provide a spur to management performance in relation to company management. But experience shows that bigger is not necessarily always better and that often the motivations for takeovers are not necessarily balanced with other policy considerations and that takeovers often do not achieve the results that were anticipated. There are regularly, if one judges from the financial press, clashes when a takeover has occurred, when synergies that are anticipated to arise from takeovers do not occur and when takeovers occur for the wrong reasons. Certainly the experience has been that often takeovers do not produce the levels of new investment that are anticipated—sometimes quite the reverse—and regularly result in significant job losses.If in fact Australia were experiencing a low level of corporate takeovers, some of the force of what the government says might be added to. But the realities are that Ernst and Young produced a report recently that showed in 1998 Australia had its highest ever level of takeovers, mergers and acquisitions and that in 1999 that process is going to continue. So, from our point of view, I think it is reasonable to say we are not convinced that there are fundamental impediments at the present time to takeovers in Australia as a spur to economic efficiency and management performance.The government makes substantially three proposals in respect of takeovers. It is proposing a mandatory bid rule. Under the current takeover rule, a party seeking to launch a takeover must do so when their holdings in the target company are less than 20 per cent. The government is seeking to allow takeover bidders the option of crossing the 20 per cent threshold in control and ownership before making a formal takeover announcement. Once the bidder crosses the threshold, it must make a mandatory unconditional takeover offer for an amount at least equivalent to the highest price paid in the previous four months. This proposal effectively gives the bidder control of the company before the market has been advised of a takeover bid and could encourage bidders to try to lock up key blocks of shares before launching their takeover bid. The result of this change could grant the bidder effective control before it reveals its intentions to the market.The prime motivation by a bidder using this tactic is to discourage competitors from emerging. How can that be a good policy outcome? Under such an arrangement competitive bidders and directors would not have time to appropriately respond to takeover bids. Discovery of fair prices would be restricted and directors would have little opportunity to explore and undertake defensive proceedings or seek alternative bidders. This proposal would seriously disadvantage shareholders in target companies, which would be locked out of an auction process for their securities.The government is also making proposals with respect to compulsory acquisition. It proposed to extend the current compulsory acquisition law by allowing the person already holding 90 per cent control of a company to acquire at any time—and I will get on to that in a moment—the remaining securities in that company. The government has recognised, somewhat belatedly, the essential unfairness of that proposition with respect to compulsory acquisition by foreshadowing amendments which will limit that period. Nonetheless, there remain substantial problems with what the government is proposing with respect to compulsory acquisition. Mr Rofe, the Chairman of the Australian Shareholders Association, in a submission to the Joint Committee on Corporations and Securities, said:Compulsory acquisition involves the expropriation of the property of the shareholders whose shares are to be acquired. Minority shareholders in a partly-owned group of companies are in a particularly vulnerable position. It is therefore essential that any compulsory acquisition of their shares can be seen to be fair to both the majority and minority shareholders. As the courts have pointed out on a number of occasions, fairness in this context involves both fair dealing and a fair price. The proposed new compulsory acquisition power in its present form tips the scales too much in favour of the majority shareholder.The proposal of the government is sometimes seen as a response to what is known as `greenmailing'. That is a situation where minority shareholders demand excessive prices on securities. But, frankly, there seems to be little basis for this concern. What the proposal effectively means is that majority shareholders gain a mechanism to squeeze out minority shareholders at any price; the interests of minority shareholders will be effectively scrapped.Also the question arises of the independence of the expert's report which is proposed as a basis for establishing a price for these compulsory acquisitions. At the present time the proposal is that the purchaser be the person who pays for the expert's report, and indeed they should. But, by the process of commissioning it, the question of who controls the selection of the expert, I think, is a very pertinent point. It is certainly our view that the government ought to consider giving the takeovers panel the authority to choose the independent expert as a step for fairness with respect to compulsory acquisition.The third area of the government's proposal in relation to mergers is a revamping of the takeovers panel to sort out takeover disputes. The opposition generally welcomes a revamping of this particular organisation, but we have been concerned that the government has limited the capacity of the individual to take court proceedings with respect to actions arising out of the takeovers panel. The Australian Institute of Company Directors, in a submission also to the corporations committee, said:The AICD considers that a significant deficiencies in the provisions is proposed subsection 657G(2) which only allows ASIC to make an application to the Court for enforcement of the orders of the panel . . .I understand, from my reading of the financial press this morning, that the government may be seeking to broaden that. I have not yet seen any amendments, so I do not know quite what the government is proposing, but it would be a pity if the benefits of reform and of a revamping of the takeovers panel were to be diminished somewhat by the government not ensuring that there is fairness of access to courts to ensure that justice was being done to minority interests.The next area that the bill deals with is company fundraising. The proposals in the bill are intended to reduce the costs involved in capital raisings by start-ups and small and medium enterprises. In some of these areas the opposition does not have excessive concerns. For example, the proposal for the preparation of offer information statements, the proposal that issuers be permitted to raise up to $2 million each year from up to 20 persons without issuing a prospectus and the proposal that investors will be able to invest less than $500,000 if a qualified accountant certifies they have a gross income over the previous two years of at least $250,000 or net assets of $2.5 million are matters that are worthy of consideration, but the opposition is concerned about the extension of the definition of `sophisticated investors' in reducing the disclosure requirements for capital.The proposed extension would permit individuals judged by a licensed securities dealer to have previous experience in investing in securities to invest less than $500,000 in a way that reduces the disclosure or prospectus requirements. We believe that that particular proposal is fraught with difficulties. It is open to the potential of being abused by security dealers who could be financial advisers in order to maintain commissions from sales. We note that the CLERP 6 discussion paper, which is intended to discuss new licensing rules, may emerge in the not too distant future. We believe that consideration of this particular aspect ought to be delayed at least until the opportunity is given to look at the proposals to ensure that potential for abuse in this area is minimised.Overall we are concerned that shortcuts will hamper efforts to increase investor confidence in smaller companies. We think that greater transparency, investor protection and market integrity are absolutely essential to ensure access to capital for small businesses and companies and we are not at all convinced that the government has the appropriate balances correct in some of its proposals in this legislation.The third area relates to changes to the laws relating to directors' duties and corporate governance. The arguments in some of these areas remain unconvincing. In terms of the proposals the government is making to create statutory effect to business judgment and safe harbour rules, the business judgment rule offers directors a safe harbour from personal liability in relation to honest, informed and rational judgments. Our concern here is that we are not convinced, as the Labor government back in the early 1990s was not convinced, that this is necessary in this statutory form. In the early 1990s the Labor government carefully considered the introduction of a business judgment rule. However, in the light of a very clear judicial exposition of directors' duties from Justice Rogers, Chief Justice in commercial cases in the New South Wales Supreme Court, in the AWA case, the government did not see the need to complicate matters with legislation. As the then Attorney-General explained, Australia already has an entrenched business judgment rule in our existing statutes and in the decisions of the courts. The proposed changes may simply end up encouraging directors to act adventurously to the detriment of shareholders.With respect to the proposals to amend duty of care and due diligence, the bill rewrites the duty of care and diligence of directors taking into account issues such as the corporation's circumstances and the position and responsibility of the officer. The review, frankly, does not seem to be very different in substance from the current description in the Corporations Law. It uses the objective test of a `reasonable person'. However—and here is our concern—it adds subjective considerations on the appropriate skill of a director and the complexity of a company structure. The proposed description suggests that the law would not require high standards of care and diligence from all who were appointed to boards.In this respect I think I ought to quote the submission of Dr Geof Stapledon, a senior lecturer at the University of Melbourne, to the parliamentary committee. He says:. . . the vast majority of Australian company directors—those who are competent and hard working—do not need such a reform. Those who stand to gain are directors who, essentially, hold positions for which they are ill-equipped.Here again we are concerned with the detail of the direction the government is taking in this particular matter.Under the heading of corporate governance, the government is also dealing with statutory derivative action. This concept would allow shareholders to take court proceedings on behalf of a company. Our particular concern here is that this may well be too onerous for individual investors to pursue. It is our submission that it would be appropriate to permit ASIC to bring court proceedings under the statutory derivative action heading where it sees fit.The fourth area in which this bill deals with corporate arrangements is in accounting standards. The bill establishes a Financial Reporting Council as a ministerial advisory body with responsibility for the broad oversight of the Australian accounting standards setting process. The FRC will have powers to appoint members of the standards setter, the Australian Accounting Standards Board, and approve and monitor the AASB's priorities, business plans and targets. Our concern here is to ensure that the independence of the AASB is adequately maintained with respect to its functions and that the FRC's powers with respect to directing the AASB are limited very much so that they are not in a position to direct that organisation with respect to accounting standards.We also want to use this opportunity to draw the government's attention to the concerns that are widely held about where the government's intentions are in relation to accounting standards. The provisions are intended to boost the authority of the board to expedite harmonisation at an international level. It would seem to many, however, that the government has already decided which accounting standard to adopt. The government has implied that Australia should adopt the IASC standards as opposed to the US GAAP. Harmonising Australia's accounting standards with that of the world is in the main about easing Australian capital raising in the global market, particularly in the US. However, the US has yet to recognise the IASC, thus Australian companies seeking to raise capital in the US would still have to prepare a separate disclosure document based on the US standard even if it had been reporting its finances on the basis of the IASC.There are obviously dangers here in terms of Australia's capacity to effectively raise capital in the US if the government is not extraordinarily careful about the way in which it handles these particular matters. Mr Jarrett from the Securities Institute of Australia said in evidence to the committee:. . . acceptance of international standards in our jurisdiction must occur only if those standards are accepted for domestic reporting purposes in major capital markets, particularly the United States, given that it accounts for half the world's capital.In summary, our view is that, whilst the Labor Party certainly supports the need and the notion of the need for ongoing corporate reform to ensure that Australian companies are best positioned to take advantage of competitive strengths in the international environment and of innovations in capital raising, we stress that we do not believe the government has in all respects got the balances right. We believe that there is simply too much of an ideological preoccupation by the government with the view that less regulation is invariably better and are concerned that the government is not adequately ensuring that other balances are in place, fundamental for not only good public policy but also for strong economic performance—that is, that every action is taken to ensure the integrity of capital markets and the highest standards of protection of investors and shareholders.We are not at all convinced that in this respect the government has got the balances right. We suggest that in a number of areas it has shown, somewhat belatedly, that it is prepared to go back and look further at some of the amendments and some of arguments that are being put forward, and it should ensure that it comes back into the parliament promptly with the balances correct rather than somewhat half-baked as they are at the moment.10:55:005953Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—We have heard from the Australian Labor Party today some very interesting comments about the integrity of the system, the stock markets, the rights of shareholders and the processes of mergers. I remember back a short period of time when the Australian Labor Party showed no interest in Christopher Skase, Laurie Connell was a friend of the Australian Labor Party and Alan Bond was here regularly. Where are those men today? Now we have the Australian Labor Party expressing deep concern about financial transactions and wanting to modify government legislation—and this coming from members of a government that at that time proposed changes to the processes of financial transactions in Australia and stood for a reasonably controlled system of financial institutions.The Australian Labor Party seem to be very wise after the events and are nitpicking with government proposals that are strong and have integrity, yet rest as lightly as possible, in a legal sense, on the business world. Having strong law is significant. It must be certain law, but it must not impede genuine and honest transactions—transactions where there is integrity. That is something, I would contend, that the Australian Labor Party do not know, in a corporate sense, a great deal about. They have not demonstrated any will in the process of the ripping off of Australia by individuals of great substance. They did not show at that time any understanding of what was going on, nor did they show any regrets that it occurred, nor did they bother to apologise for what they had allowed to happen to Australia and to Australia's small investors—the people that lost fortunes. Then, to make the matter worse, they stood by as those institutions, which had loaned these irresponsible individuals huge amounts, ripped the heart and soul out of Australian small investors and small businesses to restore their profitability.The Australian Labor Party have got no credibility on these issues. I am amazed that any of them are in the House today talking on these topics and I am amazed that they have the gall to come into this place and present amendments and make any contributions to this debate. They ought to be hanging their heads in shame, re-examining their record, working out where they went wrong and proposing policy changes for the betterment of Australia. They have got no policy ideas and no proposals; they have proposed only carping and minor amendments to this legislation. It is time to go back and start reinvestigating where they went wrong during that period of time.How come your Treasurer and Prime Minister were cavorting with people who were ripping off the small investors of Australia, promoting them as great Australian figures, spending their spare time on their yachts and boats, and going to international venues with them? You have got nothing to say about that—no apologies, no comments and no benefits of experience to bring to the parliament by saying to the Australian investor, `We learned such and such, and we now wish to say we regret that we did not propose such changes when we were in government. We come to the parliament with a proposition which may be of value to the Australian people, the Australian parliament and the current government because we went wrong. We have learned from our errors and we now wish to make a contribution.' I think it amazing, in these circumstances, that the Australian Labor Party is participating in this debate. It is about corporate law economic reform. It is an ongoing program and it covers various aspects of corporate law in Australia.One of the features of this debate is that it deals successively with areas of corporate governance that have been of concern to the parliament for some time. I remember participating in the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs inquiry on mergers, takeovers and monopolies, which in May 1989 produced the report Profiting from competition, an interesting report ignored by the government of the day. There was a submission in December 1990 from the Australian Securities Commission to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs inquiry into corporate practices and the rights of shareholders that spelt out in detail various suggestions that would have stopped individuals from running rampant over the rights of small investors and the small savers in Australia. That submission and many of a similar type resulted in a report from that same committee to this House in 1991 on corporate practices and the rights of shareholders. That is work of this parliament ignored by the government of the time, just flicked into the bin. Chairmen from your own party stood up and made speeches about what was integrity and what was needed to retain confidence in the Australian administration of corporate matters. It was just ignored, yet you are in here today making comments about this government and the direction this government is taking.I would like to come to the bill and deal with some of the issues, because I think they are worthwhile issues and ones that should not be given the flick or be given the benefit of some gratuitous in principle amendment. The key reforms in this legislation make it easier for small business to access capital, protect investors and make accounting standards more relevant. The other one I want to touch on, although there are other issues in the bill, is facilitating electronic commerce. I have dealt with the area of protecting investors, and this legislation does go into that realm of making sure that investors' finances are protected and that reasonable strength is given to ensuring that the fundraising reforms focus on the need for investors to be provided with relevant, understandable, cost-effective information to enable them to make informed decisions. That is what investors need. It has to be relevant information, it has to be topical and it has to be understandable. Then they can make an informed decision. At the end of the day, if they make a poor decision, they should make that poor decision in the full knowledge that there is a risk factor in the decision they are making. That is what this government wants. It wants certainty for those investors and confidence that if there are risks there the investors are conscious that there are risks. Then there is always the sporting chance with greater risk of greater reward, and that is a calculated judgment which should be made by investors.I will deal shortly with making it easier for small business to access capital. On taking Australian accounting standards into the international arena, there has been some hint in the debate already about the need for Australia to maintain its standards. I want to press that plea. We have lived through the early 1990s, with the terrible mistrust that developed about the integrity of our accounting processes, our auditing processes and our lending processes. We have not advanced so much further in confidence that we can afford to relax our accounting standards and procedures. I would put a plea to the government and those in authority and the establishment of the Financial Reporting Council that it not be too hasty to pick up international practices if they have any impact in reducing Australian standards.I know that the accounting profession in Australia are very jealous of their reputation and the bulk of them want to maintain that. That has been one of the protections and also one of the advantages in comparative terms we have been able to offer South-East Asia and the Asian region over the last couple of years. The certainty of our accounting procedures and the integrity that is applied by the accounting profession in general terms have been to our advantage, so that investors from outside the nation have confidence in backing the Australian dollar, have confidence in backing Australian institutions and have confidence in backing Australian businesses. What does this result in? It results in Australians being able to have jobs in increasing numbers and being able to live within their means, and it results in Australia having a low inflation rate and low interest rates when there seems to be chaos all around us in neighbouring countries. So the integrity of the system is very much attached, in my opinion, to the accounting standards that this nation has adopted.To break those standards down in order to harmonise would in fact bring us to a level of accountability equivalent to some of the nations for which we would have the greatest concern. Therefore, we should be able to hold that standard and perhaps lift those nations around us. Just to digress, I know that the impact of the Australian legal profession on countries around us and the integrity of laws has led to the processing of laws being a substantial export commodity for Australia. The Law Council of Australia has been able to lead many countries down a path of greater certainty because of the expertise, knowledge and high level of education we have in Australia in legal matters. I believe that in accounting matters we must adopt a similar approach and be prepared to back our judgment. Given the success of a profession that has been able to work most successfully in a professional sense, we ought to be able to back our judgment and promote the concept that others should meet our standards rather than for us to adopt theirs. The other issue I touch on in brief is the strong consultation that has been adopted by this government in the preparation of the legislation before the House.Let us come to the matter that is of particular interest to me—making it easier for small business to access capital. The proposals in this legislation are late in entry into the House. This was legislation that I rather expected would be before the House sometime before the last election. I would have thought it would have been very much to the government's benefit to have had this matter before the House before the last election, because if there is an area of real concern that small business has it is access to capital for expansion and development and access to venture capital. The government has had a couple of really worthwhile initiatives in regard to venture capital. The Innovation Fund, which falls within the responsibility of the Minister for Industry, Science and Re sources, has around $250 million available as venture capital.In the Corporate Law Economic Reform Program Bill 1998 we have introduced another area that makes it easier for small businesses to go out and raise capital. This has been done by not requiring the same level of information to be contained in a prospectus. The information is similar, but it is not prepared in quite the same elaborate manner because it only needs to be available to a smaller number of people. Those people who have it available to them can make a decision based on accurate information that is provided through almost person-to-person contact with the individual who is supplying the funds.I notice this legislation has gone before the Joint Committee on Corporations and Securities, and the committee thinks it is a good program. The provisions for fundraising really mean that short form prospectuses for retail investors—that is, those who are arranging investment for individuals who want to lend into areas that they are interested in—do not go into the same detail. The provisions allow investors in certain industries to be provided with a short profile statement rather than with a prospectus. They also allow companies to issue prospectuses in electronic form.The facilitation of fundraising for small and medium size enterprises will allow those enterprises to raise up to $5 million through the use of an offer information statement, or OIS. The OIS introduces simpler disclosure obligations. Bodies wishing to use the OIS will be required to state the purposes for which the funds will be required and the risks involved, and to include a copy of their audited accounts. There is the protection for the lender. The lender will be able to see, with regard to the business they are lending to, what the funds will be required for and the risk factors involved. There will also be a copy of the audited accounts of the business. Investors will be warned of the risks of investing without a prospectus—so there is a protection there also—and the desirability of obtaining professional advice. I think the government has moved very responsibly in this area.A prospectus will not be required if a person makes a personal offer that results in securities being issued to 20 or fewer persons in a one-year period with no more than $2 million being raised. So this allows up to 20 people to supply a reasonable amount of money each to raise $2 million for the purposes of starting a new business or extending a current one. There are a number of businesses in my electorate that have received large orders from overseas but cannot raise the funds through normal channels. They would benefit greatly from this process in order to be able to expand their operations to take advantage of the orders that are already written and thereby fulfil a direct goal of the company. Investors will be able to see very clearly what they are in for, and the company owner will still be able to retain possession of the company.To facilitate small and medium size business fundraising, a company will be able to raise funds from sophisticated investors—and there is a definition of a sophisticated investor—without preparing a prospectus in a wider range of circumstances. A sophisticated investor is basically a person who has a substantial income or who has access to substantial corporate advice.I want to touch finally on the electronic commerce aspects of this legislation, because that is the forerunner of what I see for the future. Much has happened already over the last couple of years as far as the development of electronic information and commerce is concerned. The establishment of the Business Entry Point for the government was a breakthrough. It is possible to draw together for businesses in the one Web site all of the information that they would normally use. That includes tax information, details of the capacity to register a company, information about tax laws, and information about industrial research and development—all of the business related things that a government does.Eventually this web site will have the capacity for an investigator to go through the Commonwealth regulations relating to his business or to a potential business, going to the state regulations through a hot link to state government authorities and even to local authorities. They will be able to establish all of the ordinances, regulations and details applying to a potential business that is in an area remote from where they are. They will be able to access all the corporate and company law that is applicable to their circumstances. This particular piece of legislation will allow the display of electronic prospectuses and electronic OISs. That means that people will be able to investigate over the Net the potential raising of funds before they need get into detailed contact.I am very impressed with the work of the Australian Stock Exchange and the way in which their web site is working so that investors and people who want to raise small amounts of money for their businesses can interrelate. The significance of this to Australia becomes obvious when it is understood that, over the last 18 months, the small businesses and medium businesses of Australia have put on something like 43,000 or 44,000 people. (Time expired)11:15:005957Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellALP00—The member for Mitchell in his initial comments tried to blast the Australian Labor Party for participating in this debate, saying that we should not really be participating in this debate because we have nothing to say on the matter of any positive nature. I refer him to the report of the Joint Committee on Corporations and Securities on this very bill—the Corporate Law Economic Reform Program Bill 1998 . I refer him to the fact that the Labor Party members on that committee actually presented a detailed minority report which dealt with a number of the issues that he, himself, was interested in. I commend to him that he should read the minority report and some of the comments which the ALP members have put forward, because it is quite illuminating. The minority report was very positive. It was intended to participate in the process of reform but pointed out some of the weaknesses of the proposed legislation and called for further changes.However, I actually want to go to the explanatory memorandum and to the minister's statement in relation to this particular reform, because in his statement the minister says that one of the main aims of this reform is to provide a launch pad for this government's drive to make Australia a leading financial centre in the Asia-Pacific region. Obviously, we in the Labor Party support the idea of Australia being a leading financial centre and, indeed, a leading investment centre in the Asia-Pacific region. It is true—and it is not a point that has been noted by many of the financial commentators, all of whom have been saying that the Asian economic crisis is necessarily going to be negative for Australia—that some of us have been saying from the beginning that there will be a positive factor. The positive factor is this: many investors who had money in the Asian region and in the Asia-Pacific region will be, and have been, interested—in the light of what has happened in some of those economies such as Thailand, Korea and Indonesia—in looking at Australian as a safe haven.It is true that one of the reasons they have been doing that is the long tradition of Australia ensuring that the private enterprise system tries to operate within the bounds of law and guarantees people's investments as far as possible. That is not something that was suddenly invented by the Liberal Party. The fact of the matter is that the Australian Labor Party in its years of office did put in place a range of laws intended to ensure the protection of shareholders, the responsibilities of directors and, generally, the idea that people should behave responsibly with respect to the operations of the marketplace for their companies. I think the fact that there is a rule of law governing financial transactions, company transactions and the marketplace in Australia is a reason why many people who had investments in Asia have moved their investments—especially in terms of, for example, the financial side of their companies as distinct, unfortunately, from the manufacturing side of their companies—to Australia.We should encourage more of that. But I might say that it is all very well for the government to be talking about further encouragement of these moves from the Asia-Pacific region when one of its key policies is actually inhibiting this. I refer to the behaviour of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs with respect to people who want to come to Australia, even on short-term business visas, from the Asian and Pacific regions in order to investigate possibilities for investment and for capital transfer. There is absolutely no doubt that the department of immigration in relation to this matter has frustrated not only our trade situation with respect to those countries but the possibilities of investment not only from those countries into Australia but also from Australian companies into those regions.We have had the ridiculous situation where senior managing directors of companies and senior management personnel of companies in the Asian region—especially, for example, from China, from Vietnam and from a number of other countries—have, in fact, not even been able to get a short-term business visa, even when they have been invited by an Australian company to come over to investigate possibilities. Why? Because the department of immigration has its own agenda and its own rules in relation to what it calls `the risk factor', which it is applying to visitors visas—a matter which I have raised in this parliament and which I have also a notice of motion about.But there is another dimension to the visitors visa issue, and that concerns the question of short-term business visas for people to come here and actually have a look at what we have in terms of investment possibilities. When heads of major corporations in China and elsewhere are frustrated from coming for even a four-week visit or are required to virtually give an account of their whole life before they are able to get a four-week short-term visa, where have we got to? What sort of nonsense is this government on about when it talks about wanting to get closer relations with Asia, especially on the economic front, when this is happening in relation to short-term business visas? If you do not believe what I am saying, go and talk to the members of the Chinese community in Melbourne, Sydney and elsewhere—or the Vietnamese community, for that matter—and they will tell you what is happening.3K6CAMERONMr Ross Cameron—What about the bill? Let us talk about the bill.QJ4Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUS—This is very important to the bill because we are talking about ways and means of improving investment in Australia. In his first statement, the minister said he wants to use these reforms to ensure that Australia becomes a leading financial centre in the Asia-Pacific region. And, Sir, I am quite sure that you would support this goal—we all support this goal. But there is no point in further reforming our financial sector and making it all the more attractive when we do not even have the courtesy to allow people to come here to look at what we have so as to make an assessment. Something has to be done about this issue. Even the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia, the Minister for Trade, has expressed concern about the behaviour of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs in these matters.I turn now to the question of what it is that we are trying to ensure in this bill. I support many of the goals and many of the amendments in this bill. However, I want to make a couple of points about the responsibility of directors of companies. What are we aiming at in wanting to have a good private enterprise structure? Obviously, we are aiming at greater participation of people in that structure—I will come back to that in a moment—but we are also aiming at ensuring that the directors have a responsibility not only to the shareholders but also to the Australian community.We need to talk a little bit about the social responsibilities of directors of companies. This matter is actually discussed in the Corporate Law Economic Reform Program Bill 1998 . One of the new provisions in this bill deals with the case where shareholders feel that the company directors are performing in a way which is unacceptable and makes provision for them to pursue an action against the company directors, especially when those directors are unwilling to perform an action which those shareholders feel should be performed. What happens in this particular case is, according to the bill, that an application to a court by the shareholders has to meet the following criteria:The Court will be required to grant leave if the following five criteria have been satisfied:. inaction by the company . . . ;. the applicant is acting in good faith . . . ;. the action appears in the best interests of the company . . . ;. there is a serious question to be tried . . . ; and. the applicant gave written notice to the company of the intention to apply for leave . . . .The third criterion, dealing with the question of the best interests of the company, is the one that interests me. I looked up the relevant section of the bill, section 237(2))c), and looked for a definition of `the best interests of the company' but I could not find a definition; there is simply the bold statement that it has got to be in the best interests of the company.Let us say there is a mining company which is behaving in a way which is extremely injurious to the interests of certain indigenous people. Let us say that in this situation there are a number of shareholders who wish to object to the action of the directors of the company, and let us say that this group of shareholders wish to take an action in the courts under these new provisions. The court has to determine whether the action appears to be in the best interests of the company. But the question is: who is to define the best interests of the company in this matter? It might be said that in the very short term the best interests of the company are to maximise the profitability of the company and nothing else.3K6CAMERONMr Ross Cameron—Hear, hear!QJ4Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUS—What about the interests of consumers? What about the interests of the community? What about the long-term reputation of that company? Is it in the best interests of the company to maximise its short-term profit at the expense of the interests of, say, the people in the case that I referred to—the indigenous people—and then have its reputation spoilt for ever nationally and even internationally? Is that in the best interests of the company? Or is it in the best interests of the company, Sir, for the company directors to take into account the long-term reputation of the company, their social responsibility, in this sort of matter? I think it is a severe weakness of this bill that this matter has not even been discussed. I would like to ask the minister to address in his reply this question: who is to determine the best interests of the company in this kind of action by shareholders?This is a very important issue because perhaps the most serious criticism that is made of our companies at the moment, especially our large companies, is the fact that the interests, concerns and representations of ordinary shareholders are being ignored. That is the issue which keeps coming up. There have even been situations where, in some meetings of shareholders, they have had to bring in security guards to take people out of the room because certain vocal people were trying to express a different point of view about what the interests of the company should be, especially in the longer term. I am not talking about purely hypothetical examples; I am talking about real issues in relation to this matter.I now want to turn to another matter and that is the claim that the bill is actually going to promote greater investment in small companies. There are certain important provisions that where the investments are for amounts of up to $2 million, the normal provisions do not apply but other provisions apply. That is all right. Flexibility is a good thing in these matters. But, again, on the question of participation in the bigger companies—that is, the capacity of ordinary people to participate through shareholdings in the bigger companies—there is not much in these provisions at all to encourage this. There is not much which, in fact, streamlines or encourages the participation of ordinary Australians in these companies.Of course, when there has been privatisation, the Prime Minister has made a big deal of the privatised companies publicly advertising all their shares and of the capacities of people, including the workers of those companies, to get into shares. Fair enough. But what about already existing major companies? What about doing something to encourage small investors and ordinary people to invest in these companies by giving them access to the information which is required?I am not satisfied that the provisions of the bill do that. On the contrary: it appears to me that the bill attempts to water down the situation whereby those that are already in the circle are able to find out information about what is a good investment but those who are outside the circle, the ordinary investors, have nothing that gives them greater access to that sort of information. Okay. So the government decides that it is going to reduce the amount of information available in prospectuses. You might say, `Fair enough. It is too difficult.' But the government should have put in a provision which allowed information in respect of the prospectuses to be made simpler so that ordinary people can understand it, and to be made more readily available so that ordinary people have opportunities for these investments.In relation to this, there is one group of people who are very important potential small investors in a company. I refer to the workers in a company. We need to give the very workers that are involved in companies a greater role in participation in the companies, and that means giving them greater access as shareholders to the companies. What does the bill provide? I have been looking through it and trying to work out what it provides as an incentive for the workers in the companies to have greater access to shares. I do not see very much there at all.Maybe the minister can illuminate how this set of reforms, which were a great opportunity, could in fact help workers in companies who wish to become shareholders—and therefore have a greater stake in the company—to do so. I do not see that that is present. I know that, as I said before, the Prime Minister trumpets this in relation to the companies that he has forced into privatisation, but we are talking about the already existing companies in this country.One of the things that the government talks about a lot is how it benefits small business. One of its claims about benefiting small business is that it is effectively going to cut red tape and reduce the amount of paperwork and the amount that is needed for people in small business to understand and comply with. That is what the government says. Here is the bill. This bill, which is only one of the bills in relation to this matter, is 472 pages long—and then there is the obscure explanatory memorandum. I am wondering how the ordinary small business person is going to understand these two documents when they are running a shop or small business. When does this government get off from talking a lot about how it is going to help small business and actually do something to reduce this kind of paperwork? (Time expired)11:35:005960Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON3K6ParramattaLP10—The Treasurer, at question time yesterday, quoted from a recent speech to the Carnegie Council in New York by Professor Paul Krugman, who is the Professor of Economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The remarks of Professor Krugman are instructive for us as we consider today the Corporate Law Economic Reform Program Bill 1998. He said:I would like to see more Australias around the world. Australia's internal strength and its appropriate policy mix meant that its appearance of vulnerability did not result in any crisis at all. International investors continued to be confident about Australia, despite a relatively small and short lived fall in the currency, because of its excellent performance and—the key word—transparency that was not evident in the crisis hit nations.In his remarks Professor Krugman was addressing his mind to the question of why it is that Australia has managed to stand out from the pack, why it is that when all of those around us have succumbed to recession—and in some cases depression—in our immediate geographical region, including a number of Australia's major trading partners, the Australian economy has been sufficiently robust, has been resolute, has been flexible enough to move, to change, to adapt and to return a figure for economic growth yesterday which leads the world.The clue comes from Professor Krugman's remarks about transparency. In that regard, he was talking about the public policy revolution which has really taken place in this country, particularly since the election of the Howard government in 1996. A piece of legislation like the Charter of Budget Honesty leads the world in openly declaring to the electorate the cost of election promises and the means by which they will be funded. It allows electors to make a rational choice, really for the first time, between the policy platforms of the major parties which are on offer.This bill, the Corporate Law Economic Reform Program Bill 1998 , is in that same tradition. It is about transparency, it is about openness, it is about flexibility and it is about introducing a more commercial culture into regulation—what some have described as outcome based regulation in the fields of corporate governance. The bill has four principal subjects of its attention. They are: accounting standards, directors' duties, takeovers and fundraising.The member for Calwell made a number of remarks in relation to directors' duties which I feel compelled to respond to. The member for Calwell shares—apparently with many on the other side—a view that wealth is created as a kind of law of nature, that you sort of wake up in the morning and find wealth being generated all around you, that there is no real art or discipline or science or risk associated with the creation of wealth, and that the principal purpose of government is to regulate and control the creation of wealth.The member for Calwell talked about the biggest criticism of companies being that they did not look after minority shareholders. This is a case of being unwilling to take the log out of the eyes of successive governments before taking the speck out of the eyes of the companies. Governments have made a habit of loading regulation upon regulation onto that band of entrepreneurs, of risk-taking capitalists out there who are generating the wealth which pays our salaries, which pays welfare benefits, which pays for public housing, which pays for Medicare, which pays for our hospitals and which pays for our police forces. It is the risk-taking capitalists who get up every morning and, with blood sweat and tears, create wealth that we need to give some encouragement to. That is what this bill does.WU5O'CONNORMr O'Connor—What about the workers?3K6Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON—The member for Calwell did touch on the workers. That is interesting, because I have had a number of discussions with those who are promoting employee share ownership programs. I must admit that they expressed to me, when we came to government, a deep level of frustration about the lack of incentive provided by the Hawke and Keating governments over 13 years—when they had something to do about promoting employee share ownership programs and we saw a spectacular lack of activity and indifference to the interests of the workers.If you want to talk about the interests of workers and share ownership, you want to ask the simple question: where does Australia now stand after three years of coalition government in the world competition for the level of share ownership? Today, as a direct consequence of decisions taken by this government and by ministers such as the Minister for Finance and Administration in his shepherding of the partial privatisation of Telstra, you find that 5.5 million Australians own shares, that over 40 per cent of the adult population of Australia owns shares in listed companies. That makes us the second highest in the world. If we are capable of getting the next tranche of Telstra passed, the mums and dads of Australia will take their place as the number one share owning democracy in the world. That has got to be good for the culture of this place.On the two sides of politics, you find that on the Left of Australian politics the principal preoccupation is how to more precisely divide up the slices of a small economic cake. What they are concerned about is the precise equality in the division of the spoils of the economy. On this side of the House we are concerned to build a bigger cake. We are concerned that there ought to be more there in which the community can share and participate. That philosophy has repaid the dividend yesterday of 4.4 per cent economic growth, one of the fastest rates you find anywhere in the world. That means that under the coalition, for my constituents in Western Sydney, for the young job seeker in Parramatta, there is a job for him to seek. Under Labor there is a massive employment service bureaucracy, there are tens of thousands of Commonwealth bureaucrats—and they are all in a job—but the problem is there are just no jobs for the bloke who is looking for one and there are no jobs for the young high school student from Toongabbie or Winston Hills in my electorate. He looks out on a barren land, because Labor's alleged concern for equity results in a shrinking economy. So there is no cake left on the table. It may be beautifully and equally divided up but there is just not much there to sustain the people who need it.That is why I am astonished that the Labor Party and the Democrats will talk about equity, but they are like Pavlov's dogs: all you have to do is mention the word `minority' and they leap to attention, sniff maybe a vote to be had somewhere, and suddenly start attacking the majority, rushing to the defence of the minority shareholder. Unless you have a profitable company for that minority shareholder to participate in, the whole question of equity is academic. It is like when you come to tax reform. Labor opposes tax reform. The Democrats, thank goodness, are taking the rational forward looking approach and being players in the debates. I support the introduction of the GST on humanitarian compassionate grounds, because we have this creaky, ramshackle, falling down tax system which we know in 10 years time is going to be incapable of funding the welfare benefits, the pensions and the Medicare which are desperately needed by those most in need.Where are those who cry out `equity' today, who cry `wolf' going to run and hide in 10 years time when the demographic impact of increasing life expectancy and reducing births means that there simply are not enough taxpayers to fund the social welfare net for those in need? Where are they going to be then? They have their great sense of moral indignation today, but if they were really concerned about equity they would help us put in place a tax system that is going to last for a generation. They would help us put in place a broad based, low rate consumption tax that will allow us to adequately tax the growth sectors of the economy instead of those that are falling away. But they do not.In the same way we had the member for Calwell talking about the social obligations of directors. It felt like a scene out of Atlas Shrugged. The member for Calwell would require every Australian director to join the Save the Children Fund, to demonstrate against whale fishing in the South Sea, to become members of the local child-care centre and probably to acquire compulsory union membership or membership of the world labour organisation or whatever. He believes that Australian company directors are responsible for the implementation of Commonwealth social policy. The responsibility of Australian company directors is to produce profitable Australian companies. That is their responsibility. In the long run the people who will benefit, if they do it, are their employees because they will have a job to go to. The people who will benefit are the Australian people because they will have high quality goods and services available for them to purchase at a competitive price. The people who will benefit are those in need because we will have organisations which are capable of paying taxes, to generate the surplus of the economy upon which every member of this chamber is sustained. That is the obligation of Australian directors. Wealth does not happen by accident. To generate wealth is not an easy thing to do. It does not happen because you roll out of bed in the morning. It happens because bright, energetic, motivated men and women around Australia are prepared to take commercial risks. That is what creates wealth. We have a job to create a climate where they want to take risks, where there is a relationship between risk and reward, where they are not so loaded up with extraneous imagined social responsibilities that they cannot possibly perform their core duties and functions.I am not disparaging of the idea of a good corporate citizen. I entirely salute and applaud the Prime Minister's challenge to the corporate sector in Australia to become more philanthropic. But I do not believe we do it, as on high from here, by loading them up with more and more regulations, duties and protections of all of those who are not contributing that much to the generation of wealth. The people who speak loudest are usually the ones who contribute the least. I appreciate the fact that we have in this country a band of risk-taking capitalists who are feeding a vast army of Australians.The workers likewise make, in most cases, a great contribution. There has been a huge leap forward in the industrial culture of this country. The internal culture of the Australian Labor Party has not quite kept up with it. It is still locked in the sort of cardigan, trades hall mentality of confrontation. It has demonstrated an inability to become part of the mainstream debate on key issues such as tax reform. But the actual workers of Australia have demonstrated a real step forward in their culture, collaboration and cooperation. That sort of cultural change has been led in a substantial way by the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business and by the idea that we establish enterprise based culture rather than the rhetoric of class hatred which still comes forth from the other side from time to time.I will touch on a couple of the other matters in the bill. In relation to directors' duties, the bill clarifies the duty of company directors as they relate to conflicts of interest and to duties of care. That will, we hope, allow directors to spend more time building profitable companies and less time worrying about personal liabilities that often arise not as a consequence of the directors' negligence or bad practice but because of the uncertainty in the law which we write in places like this parliament, in other parliaments around Australia and, to some extent, in the judge-made law of the courts. We have sought in this bill to very clearly explain the relationship between the statute law and the common law, to clearly define directors' duties and responsibilities and to introduce what has been described as a `safe harbour', which means that, where directors act according to a business judgment rule, where that judgment is exercised in good faith, on best available knowledge and with professional care, they enjoy the benefit of protection from legal liability.Let me tell you why this is important. I had a situation recently where I was involved. It was not actually a commercial organisation. It was really a community based, student oriented youth development organisation. This particular organisation was crystallised into a corporate structure and required a number of directors in order to register. So I approached a colleague in this place to see whether he would consider being a director. He said to me, `Look, I think it is a great initiative. I wholeheartedly support its purposes. But I have reviewed the recent direction of directors' liabilities under company law, I have had a discussion with my wife about it, and we think that the level of care being imposed upon directors and the level of liability to which they are exposed make it impossible for me to accept the offer.' Frankly, I could not argue with them.This bill alleviates a little bit of that burden and clarifies so that directors can know exactly what they are getting into when they take up a position as a director. This bill encourages small business and gives it greater access to capital. A major corporation may have to spend $100,000 putting together a prospectus, going to the accountants and the lawyers and their investment bankers and the independent auditors—all of the advisory industry getting rich on the massive transaction costs associated with putting together an absolutely Rolls Royce prospectus—when the reality is that a small business simply cannot afford that level of cost to access capital.This bill is about creating a much more streamlined, more lightweight but nonetheless effective balance between investor protection and the ease with which small and medium sized businesses can access capital. This bill improves the relationship between Australian and international accounting standards, which can present a barrier to transparent evaluation of the value of Australian assets, both by Australian residents and by international investors. By creation of the Financial Reporting Council, which will advise government on these problems, and also the reinstitution of the Australian Accounting Standards Board, which will be responsible for the creation of national accounting standards, our objective is to harmonise Australian accounting principles with global principles, to create a more seamless interaction between Australia and the global economy. We hope that this will result in breaking down barriers, giving greater access to Australian investment for both Australian and overseas investors.We touched on the issue of takeovers. The bill is attempting to make takeovers easier, to strengthen those situations in which compulsory acquisition can take place. Some listening may say, `What is the benefit of making takeovers easier? Maybe we should be trying to make it harder.' The benefit is increased liquidity. If we want to talk about investor protection, in the real estate sector we would say to an investor, `Your best protection is location, location, location.' That is not just because of the returns on investments in better locations but because you know you have a ready exit strategy. You know you can sell the asset at the end of the period.In shares and securities, the most important and vital source of investor protection is a liquid market, the ability to unload the share when you need to sell it. That is a viable exit strategy. As a government, we often actually gum up the marketplace by excessive regulation. This bill is attempting to remove some of the biases against liquidity. For example, in the recent failed takeover of the GIO by AMP, the principal and ultimately successful argument employed by GIO was that its shareholders would be subject to excessive capital gains liabilities if the takeover was successful. That is an impost imposed by us in this place. So we skewed that investment outcome and the shareholder decision by a piece of Commonwealth regulation. This bill will streamline and improve that outcome.I have great pleasure in endorsing this bill and encouraging other members of the House to do likewise. It is part of a wider program of reform. It is making Australia more competitive. I urge the Labor Party to make themselves relevant and get involved in the public debate. (Time expired)11:55:005964Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—The Corporate Law Economic Reform Program Bill 1998 has had a long gestation period. The former Labor Attorney-General established the Corporations Law Simplification Program back in 1993, followed by an act in 1995 and an exposure draft for a second act in June 1995. This reform process has been picked up by the coalition government with the Company Law Review Bill 1997. The work of the simplification task force, set up by the former government, has been continued through to this bill, the end result of the process now known as the Corporate Law Economic Reform Program, or CLERP. The aims of these reforms have been to promote business and economic development. They are certainly praiseworthy aims.The reform process covers accounting standards, fundraising, directors' duties and corporate governance, financial markets and investment products. The legislation aims to enhance market efficiency, integrity and investor confidence. Corporate regulation will be revamped to provide a clear and consistent framework which reflects the contemporary business environment and encourages businesses large and small to create wealth, prosperity and jobs. They are fine words. I am sure most of the initiatives in this legislation will go a long way to achieving those goals.However, I want to concentrate on one aspect of this legislation which concerns me and others greatly. These are the provisions regarding compulsory acquisitions of shares once a shareholder owns 90 per cent of the shares. From what I can see, and from those small shareholders I have spoken with, it seems the needs of smaller shareholders have not been protected. In fact, despite the rhetoric of this government about shareholding mums and dads that Australia is heading towards being the greatest shareholding country in the world, the amendments relating to smaller shareholders do not back up that rhetoric. It seems these amendments would create a climate in which large investors get rails runs and can treat small investors with contempt. The explanatory memorandum to the bill claims the takeover reforms are designed to improve the efficiency of the market for corporate control, while encouraging better management and enhancing investor protection. The memorandum goes on to say:Takeovers, or the prospect of takeovers, provide benefits for shareholders, the corporate sector and the economy since they provide incentives for improved corporate efficiency and enhanced management discipline, leading ultimately to greater wealth creation.I detail one experience from a small shareholder that raises the question: greater wealth creation for whom? A constituent of mine and a good friend relates to me the story of a listed mining company whose shares have languished, with no return to shareholders, while capital has been used up on fruitless exploration. That was a risk the shareholders were willing to take, but now, with new leases in Western Australia showing much promise, with perhaps several million ounces of gold in the offing, the company directors have formed a new private company to bid for the remainder of the mining company shares not held by the major stakeholders. In fact, a major bank has lent money for this bid. The directors are now asking the shareholders to take a minor interest in another company with far fewer attractive interests in another metal.While protesting to the Australian Securities and Investment Commission about the way this has been handled, my shareholder constituent also discovered, through the Western Australian Stock Exchange, that the new director established company has already acquired 29 per cent of the shares, raising questions about the legality of the manoeuvre under existing Corporations Law.I ask you, Mr Deputy Speaker, whether ASIC is up to the job in supervising the existing takeover legislation let alone dealing with new laws. This was a classic case of treating smaller shareholders with contempt by saying, `Thanks for your help; we don't need your capital any more.' Under this bill, when this new private company gets to 90 per cent shareholding presumably it can just wipe the remaining shareholders off the floor, having used highly dubious means to get to 90 per cent and now aided by this flawed and unfair legislation to acquire the lot. One of the key proposals in the legislation is to allow a person to acquire shares beyond the current 20 per cent threshold without making a prior announcement of a full, unconditional takeover offer. Judging by the story I have recounted, and I am confident of its accuracy, there are already individuals and companies possibly breaking existing laws and operating in anticipation of this legislation.Not only my friend but many others have expressed grave concerns with the compulsory acquisition provisions in this bill. The Aus tralian Shareholders Association has been vocal in its opposition, while Dr Gordon Elkington says in his submission to the parliamentary joint committee inquiry:. . . proposed amendments reflect the view that dissenting shareholders and other minorities are simply a nuisance, to be swept away without any regard to general consideration of fairness.Proposed section 664A introduces a new provision allowing a 90 per cent majority shareholder to acquire compulsorily the remaining shares at any time. As the House knows, under current laws a compulsory acquisition can only take place where it follows a takeover bid. According to the report on this bill by the parliamentary joint committee, the section is `confiscatory in nature' and it is important to consider whether it always operates fairly or can be used as a means of oppression. While the bill places the onus on the majority shareholders to prove to the court that the terms set out in the compulsory acquisition notice give a fair value for the securities, it is the acquisition of minority shareholdings per se that I object to for the sorts of reasons and attitudes to minority by majority shareholders that I outlined in that story earlier.I am concerned at the impact of compulsory acquisition on self-funded retirees and the capital gains tax ramifications for them. Not only is the CGT concern an issue in mergers, as was demonstrated to the committee, but it is of equal concern in these now to be compulsory acquisitions. Recommendation 7 from the Joint Committee on Corporations and Securities recommends rollover relief from capital gains tax where shares are compulsorily acquired. In a statement released by the minister this morning, which I will have to have a closer look at, I noticed there were some flagged amendments and reaction to the committee report, which I welcome. I will deal with those amendments in the detail stage. The capital gains tax issue in this is essentially a tax issue and I wonder whether we will see amendments to this law or amendments to tax laws to deal with this issue, and I wonder why amendments flagged by the government have not been introduced here. I would have imagined there was time since the report's release to have had these amendments in this House, where the action should be in terms of amendments, surely. The Minister for Financial Services and Regulation nods his agreeance.I do not believe it is good enough to wait for the Ralph review of business tax to sort this out, given the complexity now of the GST mess that we have got to pick our way through. As much as I strongly support a broadening of our direct tax base rather than the regressive indirect tax structure, I am concerned that we are cementing in this legislation a tax slug on small investors that does run contrary. I would be interested to see the Ralph review's response to these matters. I do not believe the arguments about greenmailing by those share operators who would exploit the takeover market are sufficient reason to penalise those who have invested in good faith and are unprepared for a sudden compulsory acquisition. It is bad law to enact this in the knowledge that amendments are most likely when a review like Ralph's is completed. Why not do the job now in the interests of those who will be unfairly penalised? We are only talking here about rollover, so for those shares acquired after 1985 the tax will eventually become payable.I do not have to spell out the strong reluctance of shareholders to surrender shares under any circumstances other than by their own choice, especially where the threat of unplanned capital gains tax looms. As well, many small investors use financial advisers and the shareholder often does not realise the tax consequences of actions taken on their behalf let alone consequences forced by the legislation. Let me quote from a stockbroker who cares about small shareholders. In a circular from this company he says:The big company lawyers often find small shareholders, especially those who hang around after a takeover bid, a nuisance. That is no excuse to take away their rights to a fair go.The same article goes on to say how odd it is that a pro-market government should make laws allowing one person's personal property to be subject to expropriation by another person at a price determined by a so-called expert whose fee is paid by the would-be expropriator. It is big end of town stuff, and it rightly brings into question the government's alleged commitment to small business, self-funded retirees and the mum and dad investors.The Australian Shareholders Association says there are some companies listed on the stock exchange whose principal shareholders already hold more than 90 per cent of the shares. The example given is Australian Consolidated Investments Ltd, whose principal shareholder is Brierley Investments but which has more than 3,000 other shareholders. The association rightly points out that shareholders in companies such as these will be immediately at risk of having their shareholdings expropriated. I gather, having had a quick look at this this morning, there are some amendments that address those issues but, at the moment, with the way the bill is drafted, they will not be given any protection under the general takeover law. While there are provisions allowing the matter to be referred to the court—by the party making the offer, I might add—the court may only examine the fairness of the evaluation and does not have to look at the way in which the majority shareholder acquired the 90 per cent of the company.There are concerns, too, from the association about the way this legislation prescribes a new method of valuing company securities for the purpose of compulsory acquisition. The association believes this method is not designed to determine a market value for the securities, and it is a grave concern to me in terms of the so-called fairness of a buy-out that any court may have to determine for a minority shareholder irrespective of that forced acquisition in the first place.According to my reading of the bill, the introduction of a mandatory bid rule seems to contradict the competitive nature of the marketplace. At present, a takeover bid by one person or company is inevitably followed by rival bids which result in fierce competition for control; the benefits to shareholders should be obvious. Under the mandatory bid rule, a person can make an acquisition of shares taking them above 20 per cent followed by an announcement of a full, uncondi tional takeover bid for all securities in that class. This is allegedly designed to increase the certainty of the outcome and to add to economic efficiency—whatever that is. In the case I outlined before, the certainty of the outcome seems obvious, but it is not fair. It is one thing to have control of the company before making an outright takeover bid—that certainly adds certainty—but it is another thing when that control has been achieved by less than transparent means and the shareholders are left in a highly vulnerable position.The opposition has foreshadowed several amendments, and I say at this point that some of those amendments I agree with and others I do not. I notice that these will probably be taken as a whole in the consideration in detail stage, and I will not hold up the business of the House by seeking to do otherwise. But I make the point that, unless I were to seek to take this clause by clause and subclause by subclause, I really cannot effectively record my vote on the various amendments on this particular piece of legislation. I will say that again in the detail stage, but under the existing arrangements between the government and opposition there is no real room for me unless I want to—I believe quite unfairly—prolong the deliberations of the House.The opposition has foreshadowed several amendments which totally oppose proposed sections 661, 661A, 664A and 667A of the legislation. For the reasons I have outlined, backed up by evidence from my own constituents, I support these amendments. As for the introduction of a six-month time limit—and it is to be changed, I notice, to 12 months for pre-existing arrangements—I do not think it is either fair or logical, whatever the length of time. The interests of minority shareholders are just not catered for, whatever the time limit.As to other aspects of this bill, I really have not received any major representations detailing particular concerns. The fundraising provisions I will reserve my comments on. The exemptions appear reasonable although the extensions of the sophisticated investor exemption may expose some investors to high risk during boom periods like the eighties, but perhaps that is their risk. The offer, however, must always be made through a licensed securities dealer and that would seem to share the risk burden between the parties. I also note Senator Andrew Murray's minority report of the Joint Statutory Committee on Corporations and Securities in which he expresses concern at the abdication of the power of parliament to ASIC. Given my reservations about the ability of ASIC to monitor existing takeover laws satisfactorily, I support Senator Murray's suggestion that the powers of ASIC be subjected to a review and report to parliament in five years. As to the remainder of the bill, I will reserve my comments on the other proposed opposition amendments and the government's flagged ones until consideration in detail.12:11:005967Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—There are a number of welcome suggestions in the government's proposed legislation, the Corporate Law Economic Reform Program Bill 1998 , but also a number which should raise this parliament's concern. As is inevitable in the way in which our parliament is currently structured, regrettably the disposition of the disagreements will not come in this place but rather by discussion and further debate in the Senate. I think that we do need to have some serious consideration of the detail. I recall being a member of the first joint committee looking at the Corporations Law when the national scheme was put in place. There was substantial debate then on a number of the matters which are currently the subject of this legislation, most importantly in relation to the takeover arrangements and the way in which minority shareholders could be properly protected and dealt with.Since that time there has been a bipartisan concern to review the whole of the Corporations Law and to express it in as simple terms as possible. The Corporations Law simplification project was established by the former Attorney-General, Michael Lavarch. I was engaged in that process as Minister for Justice and worked closely with him. I must say that, unlike some other areas of the law, simplification remains somewhat elusive. Whilst the work of those involved in the drafting process and the revision process has been largely technical and undertaken in a cooperative and largely bipartisan way, unfortunately the language of the now-simplified draft still remains quite impenetrable to the lay person. I think that is a matter of some regret but I suppose successive governments have found it more than difficult to express some of the concepts that are in this area of the law in a form which is more readily accessible to the average investor. The aim, however, should be to try and achieve that.I turn to a couple of the points which the opposition has concerns about. Firstly, there is takeovers. Economic theory in relation to efficiency tends to come in cyclical fashions. At the time at which we first looked at the Corporations Law there was a significant debate about whether or not Australia needed to build strong, large corporations capable of holding their own on an internationalised playing field. The general view taken by the then Hawke government was that we should accept broadly that there was no merit in keeping Australian companies small. It was felt that therefore we should be willing to facilitate, both in the Corporations Law and in the trade practices law relating to competition policy, measures which would facilitate the aggregation of corporate structures under the takeover provisions and, through the trade practices law, measures which reviewed—for competition reasons—proposed amalgamations but which broadly allowed those, where there was no clear failure of public interest to be involved, to proceed.I think that is a view which has prevailed generally through to the current administration. But fashions in economic theory do change. The facts as they have emerged seem to suggest that more than a few of the spate of amalgamations, corporate takeovers and structures which were designed to take advantage of scale have in fact proved to be economically less than successful. There is a new body of economic literature coming through which focuses on core business and efficiency, and which suggests that economic policy should not be designed to facilitate takeovers except where there is more than the simple seeming market advantage of swallowing up a competitor and perhaps taking advantage of a store of capital that may be made available by the process.The record does seem to suggest that the mergers and acquisitions that have occurred have often been quite indigestible for the company which has set them up. And there is some dispute that the long-term social and economic consequences to the community have been at all beneficial. Certainly we know that most of these acquisitions and mergers have led to loss of employment. If it is true that there has been no net economic benefit—and in fact there has been a net economic detriment—as a result, perhaps we need to have a second look at how enthusiastic we should be about further facilitating the process of takeovers and mergers.That is not to say that takeovers and mergers should be regarded as inherently evil. Where there are synchronicities of economic activity or where there are gains to be had by the two entities merging, there is no reason to set your face against that. As a matter of common business practice, many organisations do gain benefits from joining their enterprises together and building a more integrated framework for progressing into the future. Where that is self-evident to both parties, provisions of the nature of these Corporations Law measures are not necessary because they are agreed mergers. The sorts of mergers we are talking about facilitating in this bill are mergers which are preceded with by way of compulsion—either by on-market acquisition of shares or, as proposed in these measures, a compulsory acquisition procedure which would allow takeover offers to proceed by a person who acquires the `full beneficial interests in at least 90 per cent of the securities' in a company so that they can facilitate the total ownership of the company.There are also provisions which go to making it much easier to proceed with takeovers and mergers and which are designed to allow, I suppose, surprise attacks. Presently, a company which seeks to make a takeover offer on another corporation has to make a bid fully revealing its takeover intentions to the market. This allows both those who would be placed in a minority position and those who wish to take advantage of any offer to do so on transparent, level playing field terms. The bill, however, enables a corporation or a person who acquires a substantial holding in another entity to proceed to a takeover offer before fully revealing its takeover—to effectively take control of a company before fully revealing its takeover intention to the market.That loss of competitive bidding is likely to deprive particularly minority shareholders of an opportunity to obtain the best possible price and other terms and conditions that would come from an open auction process. The opposition has quite significant concerns about this. There seems to be no internal public interest in the corporations field in facilitating this. It could be advanced only on the grounds that there is some larger facilitative national economic interest in allowing such secretive arrangements to come into play—surprise takeovers. The government argues that it would prevent green mail, the holding out of minority parcels of shares and the like. That is a difficult argument to sustain in terms of the takeovers and mergers provisions.More importantly, we need to be serious about whether we do hold the view that you do get overall economic gain. If we do not get overall economic gain in the majority of these takeovers then it is hardly in the community interest to proceed in a way which does not fully recognise the entitlements of those who would be minority shareholders in a takeover proposal. If there is no national interest, why subject their personal economic interests to any detriment? Why not allow them to take the full market advantage that they can in a competitive marketplace? It is strikingly difficult to conceive of an argument to justify this particular proposal.There are already provisions to deal with circumstances where only a handful of minority shareholders remain extant and refuse to sell. There are compulsory arrangements that can mop up a couple of reluctant holders of minority interests, small minority holders, and those provisions seem to be quite adequate. So I am puzzled about the reasons for these particular takeover and merger provisions. After all, compulsory acquisitions, whatever their intention, do involve the expropriation of the property of the shareholders whose property is sought to be acquired. I think you really do need to demonstrate a public interest case of a substantial nature to justify that course being pursued.There are a number of other provisions which concern the opposition. One of these is the attempt to limit the capacity of the courts to intervene or to be applied to after the Corporations and Securities Panel dispute process has been completed. I want to commend the government for the measures it has put forward to enhance the role of the Corporations and Securities Panel. They are good measures and well thought through, but the case for restricting access to the courts to only the ASC, subsequent to that process, has been little set out. It may well be, on fuller examination, that it has some merit, but on its face it does not seem to be a good case. Certainly, the Australian Institute of Company Directors is concerned about it and has expressed its concerns. So, too, have a number of leading commercial law firms.There is no advantage in having protracted litigation. I do not think anyone argues that there is. Nonetheless, even if this bill proceeds and purports to exclude the jurisdiction of the courts from reviewing the Corporations and Securities Panel takeover mechanisms, I think it is almost certain that collateral court proceedings will be devised by which any error, in terms of procedure or internal fault in the process, could be brought before the court. It seems highly unlikely that the courts would allow processes to remain incapable of scrutiny if they could be shown to have proceeded in a way which is contrary to the legal interests of a participant in one of these processes.So it is almost inevitable that collateral attack will survive, but all it will do is make the process rather more complex. That is just as likely to give rise to a whole range of ancillary but less direct legal mechanisms to address an issue which is still a subject of dispute between the parties, as it is to simply allow a proper straightforward approach to the courts. However, that is a matter on which we would like to hear more from the government in terms of its rationale and its legal advice as to whether or not collateral attack would be available. Certainly I am operating on the basis that it would be impossible to exclude that.I should mention a couple of other points. There are concerns about the provisions in relation to capital raising. This is no criticism of the provisions which try to assist small capital raisings. They are intelligent and crafted to help small entrepreneurs and smaller companies raise the necessary cash to begin their operations. Australia has had a problem in raising entrepreneurial capital and attracting venture capitalists to make those commitments. There are a range of measures—not just in Corporations Law—that need to be advanced towards that objective, but there is a bit of worry about some of the prospectus arrangements, particularly in relation to the capacity of licensed security dealers, to in a sense define some of their clients as sophisticated investors.It may well be that somebody possesses a substantial amount of capital—for example, as a result of a superannuation payout or some such matter—but not be particularly sophisticated. The test does seem to need some improvement. After all, if we were to find a circumstance where there were a number of people who lost money as a result of this, I do not think the government would be in a strong position. So that particular issue needs to be addressed—and it may be in the amendments that the government is going to propose. I have not sighted those yet, but the government has given a notice of intention that there will be some amendments and perhaps that will be one of the issues picked up as a result of the comments of the minority report on this bill and the opposition's comments in the Senate.Finally, on company directors' duties, I am not persuaded that it is necessary to provide some sort of safe harbour view about providing a comfort zone for directors. Existing court decisions already define directors' duties and responsibilities. The government in its own explanatory memorandum to the bill says that, under the existing common law, the courts rarely review bona fide business decisions. I think that is true. Given this, there seems little merit in the proposed changes. In fact, one suspects that, if you put in a provision that in a sense looks on its face to provide room for slippage as to directors' duties, people will be tempted to explore the limits of it. Rather than providing any comfort to people holding positions of responsibility in corporate governance, they will be forced to explore those limits and place themselves in greater risk.At the moment the legal framework is relatively clear. There are some grey areas but the broad road is known, and so, whilst there are liabilities that directors operating in that field may incur if they breach their responsibilities, at least they know where those responsibilities are defined. Greying it out, softening those edges, is just as likely to place more and more pressure on people to explore the edges. As they seek to maximise returns to their shareholders, they would be under pressure to see how far that grey area could be pushed. As a result, it is likely that more and more people would find themselves coming to the notice of courts to explore whether or not they have exceeded a limit which is not as clearly defined and understood as the present rules. So I think there is a degree of concern that we should have about this. We understand why the government has proposed it. It seems superficially an intelligent approach, but in practice it is likely to misfire. (Time expired)12:31:005970Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—in reply—That is a bit rough. I would like to thank everyone who has participated in this important debate, including the members for Melbourne and Denison. The member for Denison has obviously in his previous portfolio been very involved in monitoring developments in corporate law. I would like to thank the member for Maribyrnong for his thoughtful contribution and the member for Calwell for his thought provoking contribution during the debate. I also take the opportunity to thank the member for Calare for his constructive approach to this important bill. Certainly we will be addressing his concerns when we get into committee on individual amendments. I would like also thank the members for Forrest and Mitchell, who brought their experience to bear on the debate. In the case of the member for Mitchell, I would like to congratulate him, in the formal process of the House, on 25 years of service in the House of Representatives, where he has always contributed with a great deal of enthusiasm on behalf of his constituents. Finally, I would like to thank the member for Parramatta for his contribution, which was, in his usual style, very thoughtful and significantly well researched.There is no doubt that the bill before the House is a vital part of the government's program to modernise the regulation of businesses and financial markets in Australia. This is the first legislative piece of the government's Corporate Law Economic Reform Program. The objective of the program is to promote efficiency in the Australian economy while facilitating market integrity and protecting investors from fraud, negligence and abusive market conduct. Importantly from my perspective, this program, and this bill in particular, gives significant impetus to our push to become a centre for global financial services. There is no doubt whatsoever that one of the most significant comparative advantages Australia has over so many others, not only in the region but competing economies in the world, is the integrity of our regulatory system. It provides certainty, there is due process and there is transparency. They are our major comparative advantage in our promotional efforts for Australia as a centre for global financial services.It is probably worth reminding the House at this moment of the key elements of the bill. Firstly, the bill is reforming the fundraising provisions of the Corporations Law, which will facilitate more efficient capital raising by Australian businesses and ensures that investors receive information in a form which enables them to come to terms with the merits of an offer. In particular, companies seeking to raise funds will be able to provide information targeted towards the needs of retail investors through the use of short form prospectuses and profile statements. In addition, a range of measures will facilitate fundraising by small and medium sized enterprises—a vital reform for the continuing wellbeing of small businesses in Australia.I know only too well from my discussions with a number of small businesses in my own electorate of North Sydney that they have been frustrated at the enormous cost of raising capital in Australia. Some of them have gone to Vancouver, to the stock market there, to raise funds because the cost of raising funds in Australia was so extraordinarily high as a proportion of the amount of money that they were raising. In some cases, if they were trying to raise $20 million, it was going to cost them $3 million to raise the capital, which is an absurd proposition. So these businesses have been going offshore to Vancouver, which is a low cost centre for raising capital, and listing on that market. I warmly welcome this particular part of the CLERP Bill.Secondly, the bill makes substantial improvements in the area of directors' duties. Currently, effective corporate decision making is unquestionably hampered by legal uncertainty, arising particularly from the liability of directors for their actions. The introduction of a business judgment rule will provide directors with a safe harbour from personal liability in relation to honest, informed and rational business judgments. I repeat that: honest, informed and rational business judgments. I will deal with that in more detail in relation to the ALP amendments. This will not lead to any reduction in the level of accountability of directors, so shareholders can be sure that directors will be making their decisions in good faith and with due care. A new representative action will be introduced to enhance shareholders' rights to pursue an action on behalf of shareholders where their company, importantly, is unable or unwilling to do so.Thirdly, to ensure that accounting standards are responsive to the needs of the Australian business community and investors and not just to professional accountants, the standard setting process will be reformed. A new advisory body, the Financial Reporting Council, will be established with the aim of working towards adopting international standards having regard to what is happening in major capital raising economies. This provides a facility for us to react to the very rapid developments that are occurring in other financial centres. It gives us an opportunity to bring more practical and market oriented advice to the accounting standard procedures.Finally, the current complex and costly takeover rules will be completely rewritten to make takeover regulations simpler and clearer. In particular, a new mandatory bid procedure will give potential bidders an additional takeover method to employ whilst ensuring the interests of target company shareholders are protected.To facilitate speedy dispute resolution for takeovers, the existing Corporations and Securities Panel will be reconstituted to become the primary forum for resolving takeover matters during a takeover bid. I am particularly keen to see this panel suitably empowered so that it can make decisions without constant recourse to litigation, particularly during the takeover. This initiative is not just about an alternative means of resolving disputes during the takeover, it is about providing Australian business with the opportunity to show a level of maturity that has not previously been displayed during takeovers. The model from the City of London, in Britain, has many attractive features. Of course it is not an identical model to our proposal, but ours is similar in that it is a test of the goodwill of the business community in Australia in taking some responsibility for its own actions.The bill has been the subject of an inquiry and report by the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Corporations and Securities. The committee released its report on the bill on 12 May. As I have foreshadowed outside of the House, we will be moving amendments to the bill in the Senate. These amendments will include the implementation of almost all the recommendations of the majority report and a number of the recommendations contained in the supplementary reports, which I will deal with during the consideration in detail stage.In particular, we will be seeking to implement the recommendation that the new compulsory acquisition power be subject to a time limit to provide additional certainty for minority shareholders. We will be seeking to implement the recommendations made by the Companies and Securities Advisory Committee, CASAC, in relation to the takeover provisions of the bill. We will be seeking to implement the recommendations to clarify some of the procedural aspects of the takeover and compulsory acquisition provisions. We will also be seeking to implement the committee's recommendations Nos 8, 9 and 10 in relation to the fundraising provisions of the bill. The recommendation by the minority report is that the ability to enforce orders of the Corporations and Securities Panel be extended to persons other than the Australian Securities and Investments Commission.The committee's recommendation No. 7 that rollover relief from capital gains tax be provided in relation to takeovers and compulsory acquisitions will not be adopted at this time. Instead it will be considered in the context of the review of business taxation chaired by Mr John Ralph. That review is considering possible options for reform of the capital gains tax regime. It is appropriate that this issue be dealt with in that forum. If there is a constant complaint made to me by business, it is about moving the goalposts. The worst thing we could do would be to try to implement some measure in relation to a particular taxation issue during this debate and then seek to amend it at a later date as a result of the recommendations of the review of business taxation.The wide-ranging reform of Australia's corporate laws contained in this bill, in addition to the Australian financial sector reforms recently passed by the House, are a launch pad for the government's drive to make Australia a centre for global financial services. This bill does build a modern framework for Australia's business regulation. It will foster economic development and create employment opportunities. In developing this new regulatory regime, the government, in consultation with the business community and interest groups, is seeking to adopt a more flexible and efficient regulatory framework that can respond to market changes and, importantly, to market demands. It will permit market participants to adapt to the challenges of technological development in innovation and integration in the world's financial markets.I would like to address the particular second reading amendment moved by the member for Melbourne, which refers to `mum and dad investors'. The Australian Labor Party could not be further away than it is from the interests of mum and dad investors in Australia. They have constantly opposed every attempt by the government to privatise assets through public offers and through the provision of widespread shareholding opportunities such as the pending sale of a second tranche of Telstra and the sale of the first tranche of Telstra, which resulted in one million first time investors. The Australian Labor Party has absolutely no credibility when it talks about mum and dad investors.Privatisation and demutualisation have been the single most significant initiatives in terms of increasing individual share ownership in Australia to the extent that, today, Australia is the second highest share owning nation in the world after the United States. We are number two in the world. Around 40 per cent of the Australian population either directly or indirectly own shares.The member at the table, Mr Martyn Evans, says that once the Telstra share price goes down perhaps that will change. That is a constant reaction of the Australian Labor Party. It is typical of the type of attitude that the Australian Labor Party have had to broadening share ownership in Australia. It is no surprise that they should be the hypocrites that they are and come into this House and talk about the interests of small investors when they have done everything they can to obstruct the best interests of the small investors of Australia over the last few years, certainly while they have been in opposition. I fail to remember an initial public offer of Australian Airlines by the Australian Labor Party when they were in government. They chose to sell it to Qantas when they had a perfect opportunity to have a public float of Australian Airlines. However, rather than delve into the details of that, I might say that the CLERP Bill before the House provides significant opportunities for Australian retail investors to continue to have protection and invest with certainty in stocks that may be listed.Just in conclusion, I would like to thank a number of people who have been involved in the development of this process. In particular, I would like to congratulate the Business Regulation Advisory Group, including Catherine Walter, Peter Barnett, Lee Hall, Rohan Jeffs, Jeff Lucy, John Murray, Robert Nottle, Malcolm Starr and Les Taylor, who have made a significant contribution. I would also like to thank Treasury for their enormous contribution over an extended period—this has been a lengthy process—in particular Jim Murphy, who has put in many long hours, particularly in the extensive consultations. Veronique Ingram and Michael Willcock have done tremendous work supporting me through Treasury. I would also like to thank Stephen Yen—who, ironically, was a member of the Labor Party when I was at university, and probably still is. He has a fantastic intellect, which I have never doubted. He has made a contribution here. I thank Robert Patch, Emma Armson, Phillip Lynch, Jenifer Wells, who was in my office, Les Pascoe and Sandra Patch. I would also like to thank Kirstin Wijeyewardene from my office who has done a fantastic job as well during these consultations.In view of the amendments proposed by the Australian Labor Party and their lack of goodwill towards this process, I advise the House that we will not meet the 1 July deadline to have this implemented. That is because of the extensive opposition we have received from the Australian Labor Party during this debate. As I foreshadowed yesterday, if the Labor Party was seeking to make substantial amendments to this bill, then it would significantly delay any attempts by the government to implement it. This is not something new. This bill has been out there for public consultation for over a year, I understand. There has been extensive consultation, particularly undertaken by Senator Ian Campbell when he had responsibility for this. The lack of constructive assistance in the process from the Australian Labor Party cannot be underestimated. It is, therefore, with regret that I advise the House that we cannot meet the 1 July deadline. I hope and expect that the Australian Labor Party will take a more constructive approach to this process in the Senate. That is why we are moving our amendments in the Senate rather than in the House. Hopefully, a completed bill will come back to the House as soon as possible so that we can get this much lauded reform through the parliament and implemented as quickly as possible.Finally, I congratulate the Treasurer for his initiative in this process. Certainly, the extent of the Corporate Law Economic Reform Program has been his initiative. He has driven the process, given it all of the resources that it needs. He has continued to take an extensive interest in corporate law reform, sometimes on a weekly basis. His extensive experience in litigating matters relating to corporate law has been of invaluable assistance in the development of this very significant program. On that basis, we wish the bill well in its process through this House and through the Senate. We will not be accepting the Australian Labor Party's tortuous amendments. We thank everyone for their contributions in this debate.Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Tanner's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. [12.55 p.m.](Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr D.P.M. Hawker) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 ——Voting details are recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Question so resolved in the affirmative.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.5974Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.13:00:005974Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—by leave—I move:(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (lines 2 to 25), omit subsections (2) and (3).(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (line 26) to page 5 (line 8), omit section 181, substitute:181 Honesty—civil obligations (1) A director or other officer of a corporation must at all times act honestly in the exercise of his or her powers and the discharge of the duties of his or her office. Note 1: This subsection is a civil penalty provision (see section 1317E). Note 2: Section 187 deals with the situation of directors of wholly-owned subsidiaries. (2) A person who is involved in a contravention of subsection (1) contravenes this subsection. Note 1: Section 79 defines involved . Note 2: This subsection is a civil penalty provision (see section 3137E).(3) Schedule 1, item 1, page 6 (line 6), omit "Good faith ", substitute "Honesty ".(4) Schedule 1, item 1, page 6 (lines 8 to 14), omit subsection (1) but not the note, substitute: Honesty—directors and other officers (1) A director or other officer of a corporation commits an offence if he or she intentionally or recklessly exercise their powers and discharge their duties dishonestly.(5) Schedule 1, item 1, page 7 (line 27) to page 8 (line 7), omit "in good faith" (wherever occurring), substitute "honestly".(6) Schedule 1, item 1, page 9 (lines 23 and 24), omit subparagraph (b)(ii), substitute: (ii) after making an independent assessment of the information or advice, having regard to the director's knowledge of the corporation and the complexity of the structure and operations of the corporation; and(7) Schedule 1, item 3, page 81 (after line 11), before subparagraph (i), insert: (ia) the ASIC; or(8) Schedule 1, item 3, page 83 (after line 18), before paragraph (1)(a), insert: (aa) the ASIC;(9) Schedule 1, item 5, page 124 to 125 (table item 5), omit the table item. (10) Schedule 1, item 5, page 129 (line 9) to page 130 (line 23), omit section 614.(11) Schedule 1, item 5, page 137 (lines 7 to 14), omit subsection (2).(12) Schedule 1, item 5, page 139 (lines 18 to 23), omit subsection (2).(13) Schedule 1, item 5, page 140 (lines 20 to 28), omit subsection (3).(14) Schedule 1, item 5, page 142 (lines 10 and 11), omit the note.(15) Schedule 1, item 5, page 158 (lines 5 to 7), omit paragraph (i).(16) Schedule 1, item 5, page 162 (lines 26 and 27), omit "or" and paragraph (d).(17) Schedule 1, item 5, page 187 (line 6), omit "This subsection does not apply to a mandatory bid.".(18) Schedule 1, item 5, page 204 (lines 13 to 22), omit subsection 659B(1) and the note.(19) Schedule 1, item 5, page 207 (lines 22 to 25), omit subsection (3).(20) Schedule 1, item 5, page 220 (lines 2 and 3), omit the heading to Part 6A.2, substitute:Part 6A.2—General compulsory buy-outs(21) Schedule 1, item 5, page 220 (line 4) to page 227 (line 2), omit the division.(22) Schedule 1, item 5, page 227 (line 16), omit ", 662B or 664C", substitute "or 662B".(23) Schedule 1, item 5, page 230 (line 6), omit "or 664A".(24) Schedule 1, item 5, page 230 (lines 22 to 28), omit subsection (3).(25) Schedule 1, item 5, page 231 (line 4), omit "or 664C".(26) Schedule 1, item 5, page 232 (line 4), omit ", 664C".(27) Schedule 1, item 5, page 232 (lines 9 to 17), omit subsection (2).(28) Schedule 1, item 5, page 237 (line 13), omit "or 664C".(29) Schedule 1, item 5, page 237 (line 31), omit ", 664C".(30) Schedule 1, item 5, page 265 (lines 22 to 31), omit paragraph (8)(c).(31) Schedule 2, item 1, page 340 (after line 15), after subsection 225(2), insert: (2A) In carrying out its functions under paragraph (2)(f), the AASB must have regard to the interests of Australian corporations which raise or propose to raise capital in the United States of America. (32) Schedule 2, item 1, page 340 (after line 21), at the end of section 225, add: Restriction on powers (5) To avoid doubt the FRC does not have power to direct the AASB in relation to the development, or making, of a particular standard.(33) Schedule 2, item 1, page 342 (line 11), at the end of subsection (3), add "and, in particular, to ensure that any disclosure and transparency provisions in the standard are appropriate to the Australian legal or institutional environment".(34) Schedule 3, item 283, page 405 (line 26) to page 406 (line 2), omit the item.(35) Schedule 3, item 363, page 418 (lines 12 to 21), omit the item.(36) Schedule 5, item 11, page 436 (line 27) to page 437 (line 7), omit section 23, substitute:23 Honesty—civil obligation (1) An officer of a Commonwealth authority must at all times act honestly in the exercise of his or her powers and the discharge of the duties of his or her office. Note 1: This subsection is a civil penalty provision (see Schedule 2). Note 2: Section 187 of the Corporations Law deals with the position of directors of wholly-owned subsidiaries of Commonwealth authorities. (2) A person who is involved in a contravention of subsection (1) contravenes this subsection. Note 1: Section 5 defines involved . Note 2: This subsection is a civil penalty provision (see Schedule 2).(37) Schedule 5, item 11, page 438 (line 8), omit "Good faith ", substitute "Honesty ".(38) Schedule 5, item 11, page 438 (lines 10 to 20), omit subsection (1), substitute: Honesty—officers (1) An officer of a Commonwealth authority commits an offence if he or she intentionally or recklessly exercises his or her powers and discharges his or her duties dishonestly. Note: Section 187 of the Corporations Law deals with the position of directors of wholly-owned subsidiaries of Commonwealth authorities. Penalty: Imprisonment for 5 years. The Corporate Law Economic Reform Program Bill 1998 deals with important issues which go to the very integrity and stability of our financial services market. However, in some respects it fails the test of fairness, openness and transparency which has stood our current system of corporate regulation in good stead while the corporate regulatory systems of our nearest neighbours have been falling over like pins.The bill fails in areas where the government seeks to increase market activity for the sake of activity at the cost of prudent regulation that has fireproofed Australia from the Asian financial crisis. It fails in areas where the government seeks to reduce the openness and transparency for the entire marketplace, particularly for small investors. It fails in ensuring that the interests of smaller investors are not simply cast aside for the benefit of larger institutional shareholders and investors. That is why the opposition is moving a range of amendments which, while not detracting from the positive elements in this bill, provide more balance in the areas I have just mentioned.In relation to amendments 1 to 6 and amendment 36—directors' duties and corporate governance—the government considers the current regulation has caused significant uncertainty about the liabilities of directors which have constrained them from responsible risk taking. However, there is little concrete proof that abandoning the current standards would result in improved performances by Australian companies. Also, there have been very few cases in Australia which have found directors liable for breaches of duty of care, so where is the risk? These arguments have not stopped the government from proposing a business judgment rule that would give directors a safe harbour from personal liability in relation to honest, informed and rational judgments. Furthermore, the government has introduced for the protection of directors an act in good faith clause and a defence for reliance on advice from external experts.The problem with these proposals is that they would complicate matters when case law decisions have been satisfactorily consistent and fair. Court decisions have also clearly reflected the standards that the community expects of company directors. In addition, these proposals have the potential to encourage directors and officers to act recklessly to the detriment of the company and its shareholders. The majority of Australian company directors would not benefit from these proposals. Those who would benefit are the directors that lack skill, are irresponsible or are dishonest. Shareholder interests are not appropriately reflected in the government's proposals, and these amendments seek to address that problem in this bill.Amendments 7 to 8 relate to statutory delegation. The provision of statutory derivative action which would allow shareholders to take court action on behalf of their company is welcomed, but we expect the rules to be too onerous for individual investors to pursue. We therefore propose that ASIC, the government nominated consumer financial services protection agency, should have the right to pursue action under this provision.We have moved amendments 9 to 17 and amendments 34 to 35 on the mandatory bid rule so as to ensure that shareholders' rights, particularly those of minority shareholders, are protected and that transparency in the market is maintained. We have moved these amendments as we strongly question the need for this new rule and because we believe that it would lead to significant disadvantages and few benefits.What does the government propose with this new rule? The government wants to give takeover bidders control of a target company before the market has been advised of the takeover bid. The government wishes to encourage bidders to try to lock up key blocks of shares before launching their takeover bid. The result of this proposal is that it could grant the bidder effective control of a target company before revealing its intentions.Why would some takeover bidders want the mandatory bid rule? They would have a mechanism to discourage competitors emerging in the takeover process. Under such an arrangement, competitive bidders and directors of target companies would have less time to appropriately respond to takeover bids. Discovery of fair prices would also be re stricted as there would no longer be an option process. The mandatory bid rule would not be consistent with the proposed operation of the new takeover panel because the rule would go against the Eggleston principles, principles on which the proposed takeover panel would consider and make judgment on takeover disputes.The Eggleston principles require, first, that shareholders of a target takeover company know the identity of any person who proposes to acquire a substantial interest in the company; second, that the target shareholders and directors have sufficient time to consider the offer; third, that sufficient material is provided to them to make proper assessment of the offer; and, finally, that all shareholders have an equal opportunity to participate in the benefits of the takeover offer. The mandatory bid rule breaks at least the first three principles.The government has put forward that Australia needs more takeovers since we record less takeover activity compared to the US and the UK. This argument fails to consider the numerous other factors apart from securities regulation which influence decisions regarding takeovers. Takeovers can be both good and bad, depending on your position, but the government presumes to ease the takeover process so as to advance the motto that bigger is better in business and abandons certain economic and real life considerations.If Australia is to compete effectively in the international market, it would be far better for the government to create a competitive fertile ground in the domestic market to prepare Australian firms to meet the global challenges. It would also be important to note that there have been reputable accounts in Europe and the US of many unsuccessful mergers which failed to realise cost efficiencies and have led to less competition in the industry as well as job losses. (Extension of time granted)Amendment 18—the proposed revamp of the takeover panel—will prevent the restriction allowing only ASIC to undertake court proceedings. Allowing this to happen is unhelpful in the process of mediation. ASIC's decision to take further action may be influenced by its own interests in circumstances such as a limited budget. It would, therefore, be prudent that affected parties have the means to pursue court action should the takeover panel support such action.Amendments 19 to 29 deal with compulsory acquisitions. We consider that the proposal to allow a 90 per cent securities holder in a company to compulsorily acquire the remaining 10 per cent at any time to be totally unfair and inappropriate. The provisions in this bill allowing such practice would create a mechanism to squeeze out minority shareholders at an unfair price. The government members of the Joint Committee on Corporations and Securities have acknowledged to a degree the harshness of this proposal by recommending that compulsory acquisition be limited to six months after the initial takeover rather than having the mechanism available at any time.Since this government has been effectively encouraging more and more Australians to become shareholders, it is surprising that it is not taking the appropriate efforts to ensure that the rights of shareholders, particularly minority shareholders, are protected. In presenting these amendments, we do have in mind the interests of mum and dad first time investors who may be inexperienced and not necessarily able to represent their own best interests in this particular regard.Amendment 30 deals with fundraising. While small businesses and entrepreneurs are provided in this bill with a means to gain better access to capital for growth, that mechanism should not be open to abuse at the cost of the hard earnings of other individuals. Therefore, licensed security dealers should not be given the authority to be able to classify investors as competent or experienced which would excuse these investors from certain restrictions in capital raising that are designed for their protection.Amendments 31 to 33—accounting standards—move to expedite the harmonisation of Australian accounting standards with the international community, particularly that developed by the International Accounting Standards Committee, or the IASC, and must proceed with appropriate consideration of all relevant and essential matters. Such matters include concerns of Australian companies seeking to raise capital overseas, especially in the US, and the need to maintain a transparent and rigorous disclosure regime. Moreover, it is important that the Financial Reporting Council develop an appropriate role so as to assist rather than hamper the efforts of the Australian Accounting Standards Board.In conclusion, the ongoing reform of the Corporations Law is appropriate to ensure that regulation allows Australian companies to meet the changing demands of an increasingly competitive global marketplace and to take advantage of innovations in capital raising. But with improved market flexibility must also come an appropriate level of investor protection that maintains international confidence in the integrity of Australia's capital markets. This bill does not have the balance right. The opposition's amendments are designed to ensure that the bill is brought back into appropriate balance.13:08:005978Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—We reject the ALP's amendments to the Corporate Law Economic Reform Program Bill 1998 because we believe we do have the balance right. The ALP argues that the mandatory bid rule should not proceed as it effectively grants the bidder control of a company before fully revealing its takeover intentions to the market. Our response is the mandatory bid rule gives potential bidders the choice of which takeover method they would like to employ and, therefore, they are more likely to proceed with the bid. This provides an increased likelihood that assets will be used in the most productive way.On the compulsory acquisition proposal from the Australian Labor Party: I cannot help but think this is a token effort by the Australian Labor Party to appease a small number of very active greenmailers who might be particularly concerned even about the PJC recommendations, which we have said we are prepared to adopt. So we are prepared to adopt the six-month recommendation of the PJC, but we have to be very careful that we do not give encouragement to greenmailers who may choose to be the financial beneficiaries above and beyond normal shareholders out of an acquisition. I feel very strongly about greenmailers and what they try to do to the market and how they try to take advantage of the interests of the true mum and dad shareholders. Therefore, we need to have some independent means of assessing fair value, but not adopt the Australian Labor Party's approach of just throwing the baby out with the bathwater and leaving the greenmailers with an extensive profit.In relation to the role of courts in takeover disputes, the Labor Party must be getting advice from a group of lawyers, perhaps litigators—commercial litigators, for that matter—because, as I suggested in the summary speech on the second reading, we are trying to encourage the business community through the takeover panel to accept more responsibility for working out its own problems rather than running off to the courts and trying to buy time during the takeover process. To amend this provision as suggested by the Labor Party would undermine the effectiveness of the panel as a forum for the resolution of takeover disputes. We strongly oppose that proposal.On the other amendment from the Labor Party relating to offer information statements and profile statements, I can only say that I am perplexed that the ALP has argued that the offer information statements and profile statements would offer only limited gains and would simply hamper efforts to engender investor confidence in small companies. This individual proposal is about encouraging the reduced cost of fundraising without compromising investor confidence.It is to stop organisations like King Communications Australasia in my electorate of North Sydney from going over to Vancouver and raising money because the costs of raising capital in Australia are prohibitive. This is a significant stimulation to the development of small and medium enterprises and their opportunity to raise capital on Australian financial markets. Why the Labor Party has rejected it out of hand perplexes me, and I am very confident it has no support whatsoever among small and medium enterprises in Australia.The other fundamental objection we have is in relation to the business judgment rule. The Labor Party is proposing a change in the definition of the duty of care of directors, and I am advised that that increases the risk in relation to the business judgment rule. The fundamental purpose of the business judgment rule is to protect the authority of directors in the exercise of their duties, not to insulate the directors from liability. So we still want directors to be liable for their actions in full but, at the same time, we want to encourage directors to take progressive decisions in the best interests of the company, which is the basis for their fiduciary obligations. (Extension of time granted) Whilst it is correct that the courts rarely review bona fide business decisions, a failure to expressly acknowledge that directors should not be liable for decisions made in good faith and with due care can have the effect of encouraging business behaviour which is risk averse, which we clearly do not want.The ALP has also sought to substitute the word `honesty' for `good faith' in the context of fiduciary duties of directors. The Labor Party has argued that the use of `good faith' in the bill relating to civil obligations of directors should be changed. Our view is that the provisions have been rewritten to better reflect the actual law of the civil requirements of fiduciary duty. To use the term `honesty', which has a particular legal meaning, effectively imports a criminal-like standard of proof into a civil obligation—and maybe the Labor Party should have had the lawyers provide it with advice on that rather than on the previous provision. Therefore, it would make it much harder to obtain a judgment against a director in breach of a civil obligation.There are two other points that I wish to particularly address. The Labor Party argues that this bill must ensure that accounting standards do not disadvantage the Australian business community. That is a pretty obvious motherhood statement. Our view is that the proposal relating to accounting standards we have in this bill is a logical extension of the Australian Accounting Standards Board's current program to harmonise Australian standards with international standards.We must recognise that, in market trends, there is probably going to be the development of one major equity market around the world that will trade 24 hours a day, six days a week. The accounting standards need to be harmonised globally. Obviously there are challenges that we are all facing in relation to that, but the most important part about it is that we want to have the FRC provided with opportunities to constantly monitor the challenges of globalisation in relation to accounting standards. As such, we will not be accepting the ALP's amendment.In relation to the independence of the AISB, the ALP has said that the bill should ensure that the Financial Reporting Council does not exercise its powers and functions in a way that affects the independence of the AISB. One of the criticisms of the existing standards setting arrangements is the lack of accountability of the standards set-up and the Australian Accounting Research Foundation, which provides technical and administrative support to the standards set-up.On the one hand, we are criticised for a lack of accountability but, if we go to introduce a measure of accountability, the Labor Party opposes it. So we will not be accepting the Labor Party amendment on that either. In relation to other issues such as the mandatory bid procedures, sophisticated investor exemption and statutory derivative action, we also will not be accepting the Australian Labor Party's amendments in the House.13:17:005979Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—I hope not to take too much time. I just want to make the point before I start that I will work my way through the suggested amendments by the opposition, some of which I support, others I do not. It does highlight the fact that taking the Corporate Law Economic Reform Program Bill 1998 as a whole does preclude me from taking a vote on this issue, unless I insisted on taking it clause by clause, which I do not want to do.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—You can.KL6Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDREN—Again, I am interested in whatever amendments are drafted by the government in the Senate. Looking at the opposition's amendments on the mandatory bid rule, I agreed with their position on that. I am not convinced by the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation that the greenmailers are as significant as the minister has indicated, and I look forward, though, to whatever amendments he comes forward with.In relation to compulsory acquisition—sections 661A, 664A and 667A—I welcome the government's proposed amendments, but the end result is still confiscation. Therefore, I support the opposition's amendments on that. The government has indicated support for the recommendations of the report relating to the takeover panel, and that is encouraging as well. I note that, in the minister's press statement today, the government again has indicated amendments to sections 706, 707 and 708, relating to fundraising, and I am satisfied that it will handle that concern. In relation to the duty of care and diligence and business judgment rules, which the opposition opposes, I see no real problems with the government's thrust here and would not oppose them.I turn now to the good faith civil obligations and use of position and use of information. It is interesting to see that the need to review business judgments in certain situations was stated by Bowen in Hutton v. West Cork Railway way back in 1883. Hence, under the honest lunatic test, if a decision is shown to be one which no reasonable board could consider to be within the interests of the company, the making of the decision will be a breach of duty. Hence, the law has recognised that a director may act honestly but not in the best interests of a company. Also, I checked the legal definition of `good faith' in Butterworths Australian Legal Dictionary, and it means propriety or honesty. So I think we are playing with semantics here, and I would not be supporting that.The opposition chooses to oppose new section 189 which deals with reliance on advice. It seems the government's proposals again are reasonable, and I would not be opposing those. I understand the government intends moving amendments in the statutory derivative action area too. In relation to the accounting standards, it is interesting that the report from the committee said:The evidence presented to the Committee strongly suggests that international accounting standards have not yet been developed to the point where their automatic adoption in Australia would necessarily enhance the standard of financial reporting by Australian companies, or improve the ability of Australian companies to access major overseas capital markets.I would be tempted to support the opposition's moves on that. I look forward again to the Ralph review on the capital gains tax rollover relief but, again, it needs to be attended to and, again, we are talking about compulsory acquisition, and I have grave reservations about that per se. The other government amendments are also foreshadowed which enhance the bill's protection of investors, and I commend the government on that score. I just wanted to record my comments on those suggested amendments, and I will not be recording a vote.13:21:005980Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—I rise to speak to oppose the proposed amendments of the opposition. The Corporate Law Economic Reform Program Bill 1998 is about certainty and efficiency in the market for all shareholders, and it is specifically aimed to create an environment in which businesses can create value for shareholders and wealth for Australians. The bill, without amendment, ensures an efficient, responsible, competitive and flexible corporate environment. It is a significant step in the government's reform agenda to modernise specifically the legal structures and the regulatory framework under which Australian businesses operate. We are not proposing a relaxation of necessary regulation; we are proposing to simplify it, to give it certainty. The amendments proposed by the opposition are, in the main, inappropriate and unnecessary and fail to take into account the balance that the bill is able to achieve.Specifically in relation to compulsory acquisitions and the opposition's amendments suggesting that the new compulsory acquisition power will give the majority of shareholders a mechanism to squeeze out the minority, I reject that out of hand. The committee took evidence in relation to this. There were a number of submissions, and it is clear that the new compulsory acquisition power is fair to all shareholders, including minority shareholders. The provisions balance the interests of shareholders, avoiding either minority oppression or any dictation by minority interests. There are safeguards in the provisions to ensure that the interests of minority shareholders are protected and they receive a fair price for their securities.The role of the courts in takeover disputes has been a matter that has exercised legal and business minds for some time. It is our view that the bill's proposed limitation of the courts' role in some ways will ensure that the parties are not seeking to reopen takeover panel decisions by engaging lawyers and engaging in litigation after the takeover bid period. To amend this provision as proposed would undermine the effectiveness of the panel as the forum for the resolution of takeover disputes. One need only turn to the United Kingdom takeover panel to ascertain what a necessary part of the corporate framework it is, and we need less resort to litigation, not an encouragement of it as a matter of course or as a tactic.The United Kingdom takeover panel has been operating for over 30 years and is an example of how an effective, well-resourced, efficient takeover panel is the most appropriate forum for the purposes of resolving takeover disputes—the cheapest and, without doubt, the most efficient. The proposal that the business judgment rule will encourage directors to act entrepreneurially or adventurously without fear of external review is really inappropriate. The fundamental purpose of the business judgment rule is to protect the authority of directors in the exercise of their duties, not to insulate them from liability. That was not the intention, nor does that arise from the bill.There was also a suggestion that the use of `good faith' in the bill relating to the civil obligations of directors be changed and amended to retain the use of the term `honesty'. I really cannot see the point of the distinction in the context in which it has been raised. The provisions have been written to reflect the actual law of the civil requirements of the fiduciary duty of directors. To incorporate the use of the word `honesty', which has a particular legal meaning, imports a criminal standard of proof into a civil obligation. That is a totally inappropriate amendment and should be reconsidered in that light.In relation to accounting standards, we accept that Australia will be ultimately adopting international accounting standards, and there is a current program to harmonise Australian standards with international standards. There is an argument that the bill must ensure that accounting standards do not disadvantage the Australian business community. I am sure that that in fact will be the case with the passage of this bill. I take this opportunity to urge upon the House the passage of this bill without amendment.13:26:005981Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—I just want to respond to the observations of the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation that the opposition was delaying the Corporate Law Economic Reform Program Bill 1998 and acting irresponsibly in doing so. Firstly, the bill is not even listed in the Senate. The government is not all that good at managing business in the Senate. It is not even listed in the Senate.Secondly, Senator Campbell managed to get the Managed Investments Bill, the Company Law Review Bill and the financial sector reform bill through the Senate before 30 June 1998 and within a short time frame by negotiating with the opposition. Maybe the minister at the table will take a leaf out of his senatorial colleague's book. The minister has also announced that he will pull the bill even before the debate has occurred. This demonstrates a certain degree of contempt for the parliament in taking his bat and ball and going home. He could always be a bit more reasonable about his approach to Labor's amendments, and that would ensure that the bill got a non-controversial passage.Mr Martyn Evans interjecting—YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNER—Indeed, we could speed it up, if he wished to do so. But, as it is not even listed in the Senate, that might be rather difficult for him. His colleague's legislation appears to have been given priority over his. As a final observation on the point about the use of the term `honesty', it is a rather peculiar legal opinion that suggests that simply using this term immediately imports criminal standards of proof into the legislation. I would love to see the legal advice that actually suggests that that is the case.13:28:005982Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—We have helped to facilitate discussions through the PJC committee's report and assessment of the Corporate Law Economic Reform Program Bill 1998 . A joint committee looked at this bill. The Labor Party is solely responsible for the delay in this bill. It is solely responsible for the bill not beginning on 1 July.The Labor Party is hiding behind the skirt of the Senate in relation to a whole range of bills—TLAB4, Wallis, which was suffering undue delay, and the whole of the GST debate have been delayed thanks to the Senate. In relation to this bill, we have endeavoured to facilitate a process that would ensure that CLERP could be negotiated and discussed prior to 1 July. So the Labor Party should have the courage to come into this House and admit that it has been deliberately delaying government legislation in the Senate. I am not going to cop the member for Melbourne coming in here and reading the instructions from Senator Conroy.Question put: That the amendments (Mr Tanner's) be agreed to. The House divided. [1.34 p.m.](Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr D.P.M. Hawker) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 ——Voting details are recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Question so resolved in the negative.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.5982Bill (on motion by Mr Hockey)—by leave—read a third time.Bills5982r7425982Consideration resumed from 31 May.Senate's amendments—(1) Clause 3, page 2 (lines 9 and 10), omit paragraph (b).(2) Schedule 2, page 12 (after line 17), after item 7, insert:7A Subsection 11(1) Omit "or specified provisions", substitute "provisions (other than section 63) or specified provisions (other than section 63)".(3) Schedule 2, item 13, page 14 (line 18), at the end of subsection (4A), add "Whenever APRA gives a copy of a standard, or of a variation, to an ADI or authorised NOHC, it must also provide a copy to the Treasurer.".(4) Schedule 2, item 15, page 14 (line 27), at the end of subsection (5A), add "Whenever APRA gives a notice of revocation to an ADI or authorised NOHC, it must also provide a copy to the Treasurer.".(5) Schedule 2, item 51, page 31 (lines 17 to 19), omit paragraph (1)(b), substitute: (b) the Treasurer did not give prior consent in writing to the ADI entering into the arrangement or agreement or effecting the reconstruction.(6) Schedule 2, item 51, page 31 (lines 20 and 21), omit paragraph (c).(7) Schedule 2, item 52, page 32 (line 5), omit "; and", substitute ".".(8) Schedule 2, item 52, page 32 (lines 6 and 7), omit paragraph (c).(9) Schedule 2, item 53, page 32 (lines 15 to 18), omit the item.(10) Schedule 2, item 65, page 37 (line 10), after "subsection (4)", insert "and any regulations under subsection (3)".(11) Schedule 2, item 68, page 38 (lines 1 and 2), omit paragraph (a), substitute: (a) it does not pay, at the time of the delivery of the statement, the amount specified in the statement, as required by subsection (5); and (12) Schedule 8, item 3, page 185 (line 17), omit "relating to remuneration", substitute "of employment".(13) Schedule 8, item 3, page 186 (lines 1 to 6), omit subitem (4).13:40:005983Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—I move:That the requested amendments be made.I rise today to speak to the amendments to the government's financial sector reform package that have been requested by the other place. The transfer of credit unions, building societies and friendly societies to the federal prudential regime is a fundamental reform that will provide a new regulatory system that is less cumbersome and duplicative than the state and territory financial institution system. It will enable the non-bank deposit taking sector, including building societies and credit unions, to provide a more effective source of competition for the banks in the retail market across state and territory boundaries. They will operate under the same rules as banks and will be prudentially regulated by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, APRA, and regulated as if they were companies by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, ASIC.The single regulatory framework will also extend to life insurance companies and friendly societies while also recognising the special features of friendly societies. Consumer sovereignty is a fundamental philosophy of this government. By putting institutions offering similar financial products on the same prudential footing, consumers can be more confident when they make their choice of financial product. It is the government's view that these amendments only serve to bolster the fundamentally sound legislation originally presented to the House.I must say that some of the concerns of the opposition were unfounded and they relied on a rather mischievous discounting of the government's policy commitments. However, I am pleased to say that through open and frank negotiations based on goodwill we were able to reach agreement. In the interests of securing passage of this landmark reform package, the government agreed to opposition amendments and considers that these amendments do not hinder the intention of the bill. On that basis, I commend the proposed amendments to the House.13:42:005983Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—Labor welcomes the overall thrust of the Financial Sector Reform (Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill (No. 1) 1999 , which brings building societies and credit unions under the regulation of the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority and establishes a single regulatory framework for life insurance companies and friendly societies. But as the minority report of the Senate Economics Legislation Committee found, without amendment this bill and a related bill which we will deal with in the very near future, the Financial Sector (Transfers of Business) Bill 1999 , technically open the way for the collapse of the four pillars policy.The requirement for the Treasurer's consent for bank merger or transfers, de facto mergers, is an important legislative safeguard for the four pillars policy. As originally drafted, the requirement for the Treasurer's consent for bank mergers under section 63 of the Banking Act 1959 may not always have been required under these bills. The Treasurer's consent under this section would not have been required at all for transfers of business.The government proposed a number of amendments to the Financial Sector Reform (Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill (No. 1) 1999 intended to preserve the need for the Treasurer to consent to mergers and acquisitions under the Banking Act 1959. The amendments also extend this requirement for transfers of business occurring under the Financial Sector (Transfers of Business) Bill 1999 . Labor supports these amendments. Indeed, Labor has been arguing for amendments to require the Treasurer to be required to give or refuse his consent since the bill was first introduced into the House. I am delighted that the government has responded to those concerns.Even in this response there has been some reluctance and it was up to Labor to propose amendments to ensure that section 63 would apply under the transfers bill. I will come to these amendments when the House considers the amendments to the transfers bill. Labor proposed a number of additional amendments to the Financial Sector Reform (Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill (No. 1) 1999 and we are delighted that the government has agreed with all but two of them. Labor's amendments ensure that APRA is accountable at least to the government in relation to any conditions or variations in conditions it opposes only on one or more specified authorised deposit taking institutions or authorised non-operating holding companies.As my colleague the shadow minister for financial services and regulations said in the Senate, Labor is concerned that, while conditions or variations that APRA imposes on other groupings of ADIs or NOHCs must be published in the Gazette and in newspapers, the treatment is different for one or more specified entities. The government has agreed to amendments requiring APRA to give to the Treasurer a copy of any individual prudential regulatory standards. Labor's amendments also preserve the current requirement under section 63 of the Banking Act 1959 for the Treasurer to give prior consent in writing to ADI mergers or acquisitions and transfers. We have also secured amendments in the Senate intended to clarify the requirements for the format of any statement to APRA and the requirements for the timing of any payment to APRA.To Labor's pleasure, the government agreed to amendments to strengthen the position of APRA employees. The amendments are intended to preserve the terms and conditions of employment of employees moving to APRA, rather than limiting the preservation of terms and conditions relating to remuneration. Labor hopes that this will encourage APRA to use the mechanisms available under the Workplace Relations Act to allow those employees wishing to do so to negotiate a certified agreement. The employment amendments also remove the variation of the terms and conditions power that the government had sought to confer under the bill. I commend the amendments to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills5984r7415984Consideration resumed from 31 May.Senate's amendments—(1) Clause 11, page 10 (lines 10 to 12), omit subclause (2), substitute: (2) APRA must not approve the transfer of business if it considers that the transfer should not be approved, having regard to provisions of another Act: (a) that are prescribed for the purposes of subsection 43(4); or (b) referred to in subsection 43(5), (6), (7) or (8).(2) Clause 12, page 10 (lines 19 and 20), omit paragraphs (b) and (c).(3) Clause 12, page 10 (after line 23), at the end of the clause, add: (2) Subject to subsections (3) and (4), in deciding whether to approve the transfer of business, APRA must consult with: (a) the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission; and (b) the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. (3) APRA does not have to consult with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission in relation to the transfer of business if the Commission has notified APRA, in writing, that it does not wish to be consulted about: (a) the transfer; or (b) a class of transfers that includes the transfer. (4) APRA does not have to consult with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission in relation to the transfer of business if the Commission has notified APRA, in writing, that it does not wish to be consulted about: (a) the transfer; or (b) a class of transfers that includes the transfer.(4) Clause 25, page 20 (lines 10 to 15), omit paragraph (a), substitute: (a) APRA is satisfied that: (i) the transferring body has contravened a provision of its regulatory legislation; or (ii) if the transferring body is an ADI—the body has informed APRA under subsection 13(3) of the Banking Act 1959 that it considers that it is likely to become unable to meet its obligations, or that it is about to suspend payment; or (iii) if the transferring body is an ADI—APRA has appointed a person, under subsection 13A(1) of the Banking Act 1959 , to investigate the affairs of the body, or to take control of the body's business; or (iv) if the transferring body is an ADI—APRA has appointed an administrator, under subsection 13A(1) of the Banking Act 1959 , to take control of the body's business; or (v) if the transferring body is an ADI—APRA has appointed a person to investigate and report on prudential matters in relation to the body under subsection 61(1) of the Banking Act 1959 ; or (vi) if the transferring body is a life insurance company—APRA has given the body a written notice under subsection 139(1) of the Life Insurance Act 1995 stating that APRA proposes to investigate life insurance business of the body; or (vii) if the transferring body is a life insurance company—a judicial manager of the body has recommended, in accordance with subsection 175(2) of the Life Insurance Act 1995 , that a compulsory transfer determination be made in relation to the body; and (aa) APRA has considered the interests of depositors or policy owners of the transferring body (when viewed as a group) and considers that, having regard to their interests, it would be appropriate for the transfer to be made; and(5) Clause 26, page 21 (lines 19 and 20), omit paragraphs (b) and (c).(6) Clause 26, page 21 (after line 23), at the end of the clause, add: (2) Subject to subsections (3) and (4), in deciding whether to make the compulsory transfer determination, APRA must consult with: (a) the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission; and (b) the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. (3) APRA does not have to consult with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission in relation to the making of the compulsory transfer determination if the Commission has notified APRA, in writing, that it does not wish to be consulted about: (a) the transfer concerned; or (b) a class of transfers that includes that transfer. (4) APRA does not have to consult with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission in relation to the making of the compulsory transfer determination if the Commission has notified APRA, in writing, that it does not wish to be consulted about: (a) the transfer concerned; or (b) a class of transfers that includes that transfer.(7) Clause 43, page 33 (line 2), omit "and (6)", substitute ", (6), (7), (8), (9) and (10)".(8) Clause 43, page 33 (line 3), after "any", insert "law of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory, or in any".(9) Clause 43, page 33 (after line 4), at the end of subclause (1), add: Note: For the effect of a certificate of transfer, see sections 22 and 35.(10) Clause 43, page 33 (line 5), omit "and (6)", substitute ", (6), (7), (8), (9) and (10)".(11) Clause 43, page 33 (line 20), omit "and (6)", substitute ", (6), (7), (8), (9) and (10)".(12) Clause 43, page 33 (line 20), omit "section", substitute "Act".(13) Clause 43, page 33 (line 24) to page 34 (line 4), omit subclauses (4), (5) and (6), substitute: (4) The regulations may provide that some or all of the provisions of another Act (not being provisions referred to in subsection (5), (6), (7) or (8)) apply in relation to a transfer of business that takes effect or may take effect under this Act, with the modifications (if any) specified in the regulations. The regulations have effect accordingly. Nothing in this section limits the operation of those provisions (as they have effect subject to any modifications specified in the regulations). (5) Nothing in this Act limits the operation of any of the provisions of the Privacy Act 1988 . (6) Nothing in this Act limits the operation of any of the provisions of the Trade Practices Act 1974 . (7) Nothing in this Act limits the operation of any of the provisions of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 . (8) Nothing in this Act limits the operation of section 63 of the Banking Act 1959 . (9) For the purposes of section 50 and related provisions of the Trade Practices Act 1974 a transfer of business (whether voluntary or compulsory) that takes effect under this Act is taken to be: (a) to the extent that the transfer is of shares in the capital of a body corporate—an acquisition of the shares by the receiving body; and (b) to the extent that the transfer is of other assets—an acquisition of those assets by the receiving body. (10) The provisions of this Act and the provisions: (a) prescribed for the purposes of subsection (4); or (b) referred to in subsection (5), (6), (7) or (8); operate independently of each other. In particular, a decision under one of those provisions has effect only for the purpose of that provision, unless express provision is made to the contrary.13:46:005986Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—I move:That the requested amendments be made.The amendments to the Financial Sector (Transfers of Business) Bill 1999 provide for the independent operation of the Trade Practices Act 1974 and ensure that a transfer is taken to be an acquisition of shares or assets for the purposes of section 50 and related provisions of the Trade Practices Act. This amendment addresses the unfounded concerns that the transfers of business mechanism was designed to ride roughshod over the carefully constructed economy-wide safeguards which already apply to competition. That was never the government's intention. This amendment only serves to implement, albeit in an alternative fashion, the arrangements to which I committed when these bills were first considered by the House.In addition, the government is willing to accept that the Workplace Relations Act and section 63 of the Banking Act also be referred to directly in the transfers bill so as to ensure their operation. I am advised that their application is entirely consistent with safeguards for employment and requirements for approvals already provided by the bill.APRA will be required to consult with both the ACCC and ASIC. The government is willing to agree to this amendment. However, I should hasten to add, as stated publicly by APRA, that such consultation would have occurred anyway. Certain other amendments clarify the meaning and strengthen the operation of clause 43 of the transfers of business bill. Finally, the government saw fit to strengthen the criteria used by APRA before a compulsory transfer can occur, thus more directly linking its use to prudential purposes.In closing, may I take this opportunity to note that securing the passage of the financial sector reform legislation represents just one element of substantial cooperative effort. The processes required extensive consultation between the Commonwealth, the states and territories. I thank everyone involved for their support. In particular, I would like to thank Peta Furnell, Paul Lindwall, Andrew Sellars and Matthew Crooke, who have been involved from Treasury. I would also like to thank Francesca Kibria and Ruth Gabbitas and Peter Cullen from my office, who have put significant effort in. I would also like to thank Alison Roy for her contributions during the discussions and facilitation through the Senate process.This is landmark legislation. It is landmark because it provides the Australian consumers with greater choice. It means that the Australian financial services industry is provided with enough oxygen to be able to survive the new global marketplace. With that in mind, I recognise that the process has required considerable effort on the part of industry. I also pass on my thanks to those who have worked through the plethora of issues with officials and governments and who are making the change to the new regulatory regime, in particular, the credit unions, building societies and friendly societies who have worked very cooperatively with us through this process. There is no doubt that this transfer is a significant part of the government's financial system reforms and will bring long lasting benefits to Australian consumers and business.In conclusion, Mr Stan Wallis recommended this as part of the well-recognised Wallis reforms. Certainly this is the second half of that landmark reform process of the Australian financial system. I thank Mr Wallis and all those who worked with him during that extensive process. I commend them for their effort and recognise that the recommendations and effort they have put in place are now finally implemented in legislation and will have effect.13:50:005987Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—Labor agrees with the government's amendments to the Financial Sector (Transfers of Business) Bill 1999 with some additions which I will discuss in a moment. We have argued strenuously for the government's amendments even while the government was content with the original bill. What sort of a government is this that has to have basic and significant deficiencies pointed out to it only after the bill has been introduced into the parliament? The transfers bill as it originally stood failed to require APRA to consult with the ACCC and ASIC about any proposed transfers of business under the bill. However, APRA's role is as a prudential regulator. The competitive and corporate regulatory functions in the financial sector are performed in accordance with the Wallis recommendations by the ACCC and ASIC respectively. APRA is not the body best equipped to carry out those functions and should consult those bodies that are. Labor is pleased that the government has proposed amendments requiring APRA to consult the ACCC and ASIC.On another issue, the transfers bill, without amendment, would have operated to exclude the operation of the mergers provision, section 50, of the Trade Practices Act. This would have meant that the bill would have operated to allow transfers to occur even if they breached section 50—that is, allowing a transfer, a de facto merger, to occur even if it had a substantial anti-competitive impact on the financial sector. Labor is pleased that the government has recognised the stupidity of that position and proposed an amendment to bring section 50 into play.However, there are a number of other acts that need to operate under the transfers bill. Labor is delighted that the government agreed in the Senate to an amendment ensuring that the Financial Sector (Transfers of Business) Bill 1999 will not operate to the exclusion of the Workplace Relations Act 1996. But what other legislative protections are being lost? The government has a broad regulation making power under the transfers bill. It is to be hoped that these regulations, including the transfer rules, will preserve the so-called `stodginess' of our prudential and corporate controls lauded by the Prime Minister on 17 May 1999. Labor will be monitoring these regulations closely, together with the use of the transfers mechanism.Labor also proposed that section 63 of the Banking Act 1959 be enshrined in the transfers legislation to ensure that the Treasurer's consent would have to be given before any transfer could occur. We also proposed an amendment intended to ensure that any requirements for consent or advice imposed under the Financial Sector (Transfers of Business) Bill 1999 itself or by section 63 of the Banking Act 1959 are not deemed to have been obtained by operation of subsection 43(3) of the transfers bill.We are delighted that the government agreed in the Senate with these amendments. We still have some concerns about the bills themselves, particularly about the application of the transfers mechanism. The government has given a series of undertakings in relation to these bills and we now await their prompt fulfilment. It is simply outrageous for the government to claim, as the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation was reported to do so in the Australian Financial Review on 26 May, that Labor has been playing a spoiling role in relation to legislation in the Senate. Labor considers that the amendments we proposed, and those that the government put forward after Labor highlighted the flaws in the original legislation, will serve to strengthen the bills under consideration. Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills5988r811Billsr812Billsr813BillsBills5988Debate resumed from 13 May, on motion by Mr Hockey:That the bill be now read a second time.13:52:005988Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—The A New Tax System (Closely Held Trusts) Bill 1999 and related bills are anti-avoidance measures aimed at curbing one aspect of the abuse of trusts. This abuse arises where chains of trusts are used to disguise who the ultimate beneficiary of the trust income is. There is difficulty in ensuring that the original trust income, which is supposed to have flowed through the chain of trusts, has been accounted for by the ultimate beneficiary and that the net assets of the ultimate beneficiary actually reflect receipt of that income.The legislation proposes that a trustee of a quite closely held trust with a trustee as a beneficiary must disclose to the Commissioner of Taxation who the ultimate beneficiary of trust income and capital distributions is within a specified period. Closely held trusts are defined as those which are discretionary trusts or where up to 20 individuals have fixed entitlements to a 75 per cent or greater share of the income or capital of the trust. There are certain trusts which are excluded from this regime, namely, superannuation funds and other superannuation entities; deceased estates until five years after the date of death; fixed trusts which are wholly owned by tax exempt persons, for example, charities; and unit trusts which are listed on the Australian Stock Exchange.If the ultimate beneficiaries are not disclosed, then the income to be distributed through a trust beneficiary is to be taxed at the maximum marginal rate plus Medicare levy, that is, 48½ per cent. Labor has no problem in supporting this legislation. It improves the equity of the tax system and makes those with the capacity to pay, pay more of their share. This is precisely the kind of tax reform, tax improvement, that all Australians can support, not the divisive, unfair and unacceptable proposals that ACOSS has rejected today. In passing I mention the press release put out by ACOSS today, which states:After careful analysis, the Australian Council of Social Service has concluded that the new Government-Democrat tax package is still fundamentally unfair and is unacceptable.. . . . . . . . ."The package will therefore widen the gap between rich and poor, and the whole nation will suffer from greater division between the haves and have-nots.""The Senate should not pass this package in its current form.". . . . . . . . ."As a result, equity suffers from a $5 billion net increase in consumption taxes and poorly-funded tax cuts. Further, public revenue will be eroded by another $3 billion a year once the financial taxes go.""ACOSS urges the Government and Democrats to return to the drawing board."I turn now to the question of taxing trusts as companies. The legislation is expected to raise $30 million per year for 1998-99—it commenced on 13 August 1998—and for 1999-2000. Thereafter, the so-called entity tax regime is due to commence. The explanatory memorandum at page 26 states:After these periods—that is, after 1999-2000—the effect of the measure is likely to be absorbed by the entities' taxation proposal announced in Tax Reform: not a new tax, a new tax system: The Howard Government's Plan for a New Tax System , if it is implemented as announced from 2000-2001.This clearly throws doubt on the government delivering on its promise to tax trusts as companies. The minister has to explain to the House precisely what this explanatory memorandum means. We have heard the Deputy Prime Minister refer to the `magnificent explanatory memorandum' that will accompa ny the diesel credits fiasco. This was cover for the fact that he had no idea what the Howard-Lees GST deal meant for diesel. We know what it means: it means nightmare on Highway One. It means more urban pollution. It means more greenhouse gas emissions. It means more expensive public transport, for example, buses.Speaking of the Deputy Prime Minister, he was recently reported by Glenn Milne as assuring the National Party that he would `kill' this issue in cabinet. The government should come clean on this. The decision has to be taken to tax trusts as companies and factored into the ANTS package. There is no wriggle room at all for the government on this issue. Yet Mr Fischer brazenly announces that he is going to kill it. How can the Democrats support a GST before they know what is going to happen with respect to trusts? How can they take this government on trust? This legislation before the chamber now was announced on the same day as ANTS, yet it only ranks about 30 seconds in importance in terms of the order of introduction of the ANTS legislation. These anti-avoidance measures should have been given a higher priority than the GST legislation.Why hasn't this government moved more quickly to close down tax avoidance through trusts? How long has the government known about the issue? When did Treasury first advise the government about this chain of trusts issue? We know the government wanted to appear to be doing the right thing by announcing this measure at the same time as it announced its tax package, but how long did it sit on it before then? Why wasn't the announcement made as soon as the problem was discovered? The government should introduce the other legislation concerning trusts which implements other decisions announced in the ANTS package immediately. It is unacceptable to hide behind the Ralph review.Debate interrupted.Questions Without Notice598959895989Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Treasurer, do you agree with the Victorian Premier's assessment of your dog's breakfast of a tax that `the demarcation between all foods and basic food will create many anomalies, leading to inequities that penalise low income purchasers'? Treasurer, isn't Premier Kennett right when he says your tax package is going to be `absolute craziness'?WI4REITHMr Reith—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There are standing orders, and ironical expressions and the like are not allowed under the standing orders. He should be made to redraft his question.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the House makes a valid point of order, in that a number of questions and answers have been structured in more ironical terms than the standing orders would allow. I will allow the question to stand, but I warn members on both sides that questions ought to be structured in a way that does not have an ironical expression about it.5989Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I have seen the comments that were made by Mr Kennett and I think they were made in the context of advocating that there be a two-tier rate in relation to food—one of 10 and one of five—with a broader definition of food. I am quite familiar with the proposal, because we actually worked it up in my office over two weeks ago. Both the Prime Minister and I put it to the Australian Democrats on the first day of our negotiations, which I think were two weeks and one day ago. We put the merits of such a proposition to the Australian Democrats. The Australian Democrats did not accept that particular proposal and proceeded to negotiate that issue and others issues with the government. So there is nothing particularly new in that particular proposal. I do not think the Democrats will find any more interest in it than they did when the Prime Minister and I—at our persuasive bests—put it to the Australian Democrats.59895989Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRNOK6Eden-MonaroLP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister's attention been drawn to a speech by the Chairman of the US Federal Reserve, Dr Alan Greenspan, in which he warns of the dangers of protectionism in the United States? What are the implications of this for the efforts of US lamb producers to block Australian exports of lamb?5990Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for Eden-Monaro for his interest in this issue. My attention has been drawn to a speech made by Dr Greenspan in Boston yesterday, in which he said:I am concerned about the recent evident weakening of support for free trade in this country. Should we endeavour to freeze competitive progress in place, we will almost certainly slow economic growth overall and impart substantial harm to those workers who would otherwise seek more effective, longer term job opportunities.That is particularly apposite in the light of the imminent decision of the American administration on the question of the possible imposition of quotas on imports of lamb from Australia and New Zealand. This is of very direct concern to the Australian government.Members on both sides of the House will know that the United States International Trade Commission has recommended restraints on Australian lamb exports to the United States. The government has already expressed its anger about efforts to cut our exports and has campaigned strongly against any restraints. Our lamb exports to the United States are worth $100 million, and this is a very vital issue indeed for Australia's lamb producers.I wrote to President Clinton on 22 May, expressing the concern of the government about the protectionist approach being adopted by the United States. The Deputy Prime Minister has put great effort into this issue, and he campaigned very hard on it during his recent visit to the United States. It has been the subject of personal appearances before the relevant committee by both the Australian Ambassador in Washington and also the New Zealand Ambassador in Washington.Any restraint on imports would be a damaging step in the bilateral trade relationship between Australia and the United States. It would invite questions about the United States' commitment to further liberalisation of agriculture and trade and to a new global trade round that we hope will be agreed by the World Trade Organisation in Seattle in November.We have demonstrated unequivocally that imports are not the cause of the problems of the United States lamb industry. Their problems are due to low domestic demand and very poor marketing of the United States product. We have even offered to cooperate with United States producers to promote and develop the lamb market in the United States as the only long-term solution for the United States industry. There is absolutely no case for any restraints. If they are imposed, it will amount to punishment being meted out to a successful Australian producer who has been more successful than his competitors in marketing a product to United States consumers. If the Americans impose restraints, they will be making a mockery of the rhetoric so frequently employed to exhort the rest of the world to reduce trade barriers.59905990McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—My question is to the Minister for Small Business. Minister, do you agree with Mr Kennett's criticism of your government's tax package that:Many small businesses which sell food—whether they be milk bars, mixed businesses or independent supermarkets—will find that they are unable to afford the necessary hardware and software to comply.Do you also agree with his criticism that:I believe that these compliance costs could well be beyond the capacity of many small businesses to accommodate.Is this why Senator Alston, representing you in the Senate, recently said that, under a system with a food exemption:. . . small business will spend more and more time on less and less, so that eventually they will have to spend most of their time going to see the lawyers and accountants in order to arrange how to successfully wind-up their business.OT4CHARLESMr Charles—I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I thought he was supposed to ask a question, not give a speech.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for La Trobe knows, when he raises the point of order, that the length of the questions will be determined by the chair. I am prepared to agree that a number of questions have been longer than is ideal. I will interrupt the Manager of Opposition Business when I think it appropriate. Has the Manager of Opposition Business completed his question?5I4Mr McMULLAN—Yes.5991Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I have seen the comments of the Victorian Premier and I do not agree with them. In fact, I do not think they are constructive and, quite frankly, I do not think they are right. The reason that I support small business is that small businesses are good for this country and they create a lot of jobs. The reason I am in favour of tax reform is that it is very good for small business. In the time I have been the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business and the whole time that I have been in parliament pushing for small businesses they have always said that it is about time they had a fair and a decent tax system. What we are doing for small business is that we have the biggest income tax cuts in Australia's history. That is fantastic for small business.You talk about red tape. The hypocrisy of the Labor Party talking to us about red tape has no boundaries. The fact is that in this tax package—something that seems to have escaped the Premier's notice—we take five existing tax administrative systems and reduce them to the pay-as-you-go system, which is a much simpler system. In our tax package we are abolishing provisional tax. I do not know what the Premier thinks of provisional tax, but I tell you what: the small business community are cheering that we are getting rid of provisional tax. That is a fantastic boost for small business.In the design of this tax system we are finally giving small business, particularly independent grocers, a fair go against the big operators. They suffer a $120 million disadvantage today; in future, that disadvantage will be obliterated. I do not know what the Premier thinks of that, but I reckon it is about time we had a fair go for small business.I do recognise that the Premier did say that, all things considered, he still accepts the tax package. I say to anybody who accepts the tax package that they need to appreciate all of the benefits in the tax package and the fact that when you look at the totality of those benefits it is very good for small business. To say that small business is going to go broke is, quite frankly, just plain silly—not much better then the stunts we have had from the Labor Party this week. I do have very firm views about this, because I am strongly supportive of the small business community.The last thing I would say about these comments is this. This country has needed genuine tax reform for over 20 years, and the one person who has provided leadership in this issue—doggedly, persistently, with determination—for over 20 years is none other than the Prime Minister. When that package was agreed last week it was one of the greatest achievements in Australian politics in recent times. Those who support national leadership, those who support the small business community, will take a constructive attitude to this package. It is a great thing for the future of this country.DT4CREANMr Crean—Do you have another point of order? We have lots of headlines.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will exercise more restraint.59915991Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUSCU4HindmarshLP10—My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. Can the Attorney-General inform the House of changes that have occurred in the rate of firearm related deaths since the Howard government provided the initiative and the leadership to introduce uniform national firearm laws?5991Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I thank the member for Hindmarsh for her question. One of the high points of the Howard government's first term in office was successfully tackling the difficult and complex problem of uniform national firearms laws. The Prime Minister's leadership and the government's commitment—and, I would add, the support of the opposition—led to a national firearms legislative scheme and to a national firearms buyback scheme. We now have some evidence of the impact of that legislation and of that scheme.The scheme resulted in the removal of some 640,000 firearms from the community. In addition, the Australian Institute of Criminology has recently issued a report which indi cates that there has been a decrease between 1996 and 1997 in firearms related deaths. The number of deaths in 1996 was 523 and it reduced in 1997 to 438. This is both encouraging and welcome. I point out that the three categories of firearms deaths that are particularly relevant—suicide, accidents and homicide—all had a reduction. We have to treat the AIC's figures with some caution, as we need further time to evaluate fully the impact of the laws, but generations to come will benefit from them.I take the opportunity to remind all states and territories that their compliance with the national firearms agreement reached in 1996 continues to be monitored. Compliance with the agreement is one factor the Commonwealth will take into account when exercising its discretionary power to reimburse the states for expenditure under the buyback scheme. Non-complying jurisdictions will not be reimbursed. The national firearms legislative scheme and the buyback scheme will contribute to a safer Australia for generations to come.59925992Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, do you agree with the comments by the Premier of Victoria on 3AW this morning that your new tax system `is just going to be diabolical' for small business operators such as owners of small milk bars and small family run independent supermarkets? Do you agreed with the Premier's comments that `we have seen the height of stupidity reached where we are now going to consider putting the ingredients of bread in legislation or ingredients of other products in legislation'? Prime Minister, if Premier Kennett thinks that your tax system is going to be diabolical and the height of stupidity, why shouldn't the rest of Australia?5992Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The reason the rest of Australia shouldn't think that is that it is not. The remarks made by the Premier of Victoria are wrong, and they are rejected by the federal government. Can I just make a couple of observations. I have seen a transcript of the remarks and he said a lot of things.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—Did he say it on a car phone? Was it on a car phone?ZD4Mr HOWARD—He said a lot of things about you as well. I can tell you that they were not very complimentary.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—Did he say it on a car phone?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Banks knows that persistent interjection is never tolerated and I warn him.ZD4Mr HOWARD—The Australian Labor Party has not even entered the debate. They are like a puff of wind somewhere off on the horizon. He went on to make some equally uncomplimentary remarks about the Australian Labor Party. The Victorian Premier has a lot of characteristics and one of those is—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Brisbane, the member for Bruce, the member for Jagajaga, the member for Melbourne!Mr Tanner interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—There are no good interjections.ZD4Mr HOWARD—There are some very dim ones, Mr Speaker. The Victorian Premier has many characteristics, and one is that if there is a game in town he likes to be part of it. I think it is fair to say that this week the only game in town has been the debate about taxation. As my colleague the Treasurer observed, the idea of having a differential rate for food was in fact generated by the federal Treasury, was worked upon in the Treasurer's office and was put by the Treasurer and me in the discussions that we had with Senator Lees and Senator Murray something like 10 days ago. After some exhaustive discussion, they indicated very firmly that they were not going to put it. I understand that the fact that we had put it was very extensively reported in a number of newspapers.So I do not think it is the most blindingly inspirational contribution to this debate at this late stage. Jeff cannot stay out of any debate. He really does enjoy making a contribution. All of his contributions are colourful, often right and often very constructive but they are sometimes very wrong and unhelpful, and on this occasion it falls into the latter category.59935993Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer advise the House of the reasons for Australia's continued strong economic performance? How does the government intend to build on this success?5993Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for his question on the Australian economy. I acknowledge his interest in the economy and economic developments, which have been the big issues before the nation this week. The Australian economy continues to perform exceptionally well against the backdrop of an international downturn and an Asian financial crisis. The Australian economy, in the year to the March quarter of this year, grew at 4.8 per cent. That is the result of economic reforms which have been put in place and which have given Australia a transparent policy framework at a time when the region has been in crisis. One of the first things this government did when it came to office was sign an agreement on monetary policy between me and the Governor of the Reserve Bank to lock in low inflation. Of course it was opposed by Labor—the Labor Party which threatened to sue the government for entering into such an agreement. When this government came to office it put into legislation the charter of budget honesty, which was designed to make our accounts transparent and to lock in good fiscal policy. This charter of budget honesty is now recommended by the IMF as the world class fiscal instrument for developing countries and developed countries around the world.When this government came to office it determined to take away the $10 billion deficit that the Labor Party had been hiding and to put this economy into surplus. Can you imagine where our economy would have been if we had still been in deficit during the Asian financial crisis? When this government came to office it decided to put in place a debt reduction program. Over our period of office we have paid off $24 billion of Labor's debt—$24 billion of the $80 billion that was run up by Labor in its last five years of office. If the Labor Party ceases its mindless obstructionism in relation to the Telstra sale, this government will have the opportunity to eliminate all Commonwealth debt in the next century. Not only did the Labor Party determine to run up the debt but now it wants to stop a government eliminating it. It is bad enough to have created the problem, but to try and block the solutions is doubly negligent. The Labor Party fought the government all the way in relation to its economic reforms. In July last year, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was opining on how the government had taken the petrol out of the economic car. The Labor Party was saying that growth would be slow in Australia because we were running a balanced budget. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said:After three Costello budgets, we have slower growth . . . In July 1998, as the Australian economy was leading the world, here was the economic expertise of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition: `we have slower growth'!DT4CREANMr Crean—We have.CT4Mr COSTELLO—`We have'—4.8! There is terribly slow growth out there! Faster than the United States and Britain and France and Germany and Italy and Canada. Terribly slow growth! Can you imagine if the genii of the Labor Party were running things. He then went on to say, with all of the seriousness with which they hold up tins of tomato out at the front of the House of Representatives, with all the seriousness with which they hold up tomato soup tins at the front of the House of Representatives:And now we face the Asian economic crisis. It is not what I would call a fireproofed economy. The Treasurer has fireproofed the economic car by taking out the petrol. We do risk an economic crisis of major proportions.He told the people of July in 1998. He was as right about that as he was as right about how we needed to maintain deficit budgets, as he was right about the need to keep a regulated labour market, as they are right about the need to keep the 1930s tax system. These are people with all of the perspective of the Scullin government of the 1930s—irrelevant, out of the debate, producing stunts, while the big cause of economic reform is handled by a government which is prepared to lead.59945994Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Treasurer. Treasurer, doesn't your new GST package fund the Nightmare on Main Street, predominantly by retaining—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition knows that that has a touch of—DT4Mr CREAN—It is his quote.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will be warned if he responds in that manner to the chair.DT4Mr CREAN—Doesn't the GST package fund it by predominantly retaining most of the state taxes that you said had to go? Will you be drawing on the surplus to fund the yearly $2.5 billion shortfall when these taxes are repealed, or will they remain forever, as suggested by Premier Olsen?5994Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—That is one of the most confused questions that you will ever come across in this House. As I have said, and I will say it again, a $3 billion shortfall in revenue through the exclusion of food is funded, as far as the states are concerned, by the Commonwealth taking back the funding of local government, which local government sought, by postponing for six months the abolition of financial institutions duty, which then becomes abolished in its entirety—something that the Labor Party opposes—and by putting back to 2005 the abolition of the bank accounts debits tax—again, something that the Labor Party opposes.These questions would have some relevance if the Labor Party would stand at the despatch box and announce its policy. Whilst it has a policy of keeping FID, BAD, stamp duty on share transactions and bed taxes, are we seriously going to take questions on, `Why are you putting back the abolition of indirect taxes?' You want to keep them all. That is your policy. It is like the questions we got about the diesel fuel rebate. `Why are only some trucks getting a rebate back to 20c a litre?' was the question, when it is Labor Party policy to keep all trucks at 43c a litre. It is like the questions about classifications. The Labor Party asks questions about classifications endlessly. When did it get an interest in classifications under wholesale sales tax?DT4CREANMr Crean—On a point of order, Mr Speaker: my question went to the way in which they were going to fund the package. If the Treasurer cannot remember—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has made his point of order.DT4CREANMr Crean—I seek leave to table their document which shows the funding mechanism is the other state taxes which are being deferred.Leave not granted.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Treasurer is responding to a question which also dealt with the way in which the surplus is being used to fund the states.CT4Mr COSTELLO—As I have explained, not only is the shortfall funded through the mechanism of local government FID and BAD, but the government has a proposal to abolish stamp duty on shares and will abolish immediately Labor's bed taxes. I do want to make one other point, and that is this: this government is going to abolish the wholesale sales tax. This government is going to repeal the wholesale sales tax in its entirety. It is going to be fought tooth and nail by the Labor Party because the Labor Party loves wholesale sales tax and it will be a great boast to get rid of that blight from Australia.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—On a point of order, Mr Speaker, as to relevance: the wholesale sales tax raises $15 billion. You raise $30 billion with this.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. Has the Treasurer finished his answer?CT4Mr COSTELLO—Yes.59945994Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON6K6FordeLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment Services. Minister, can you inform the House of the figures that have been released in the last week regarding the performance of the government's Work for the Dole program?5995Abbott, Tony MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPEmployment Services10—I thank the member for Forde for her question which gives an opportunity to announce some more good news from the government. Work for the Dole is one of the signature programs and outstanding successes of this government. Last week, I released a formal evaluation of the program based on monitoring 9,400 participants and more extensive survey of smaller groups. I am pleased to tell the House that 83 per cent said that their Work for the Dole experience had increased their determination to get a job and 75 per cent said that their experience had increased their self-esteem.The fundamental purpose of this program is to reintegrate the long-term unemployed into the community. It is to restore the social contract. It is to end forever any notion that there might be a human scrap heap of useless people. This program has also had very good employment spin-offs. Using the standard methodology for judging all labour market programs, 34 per cent of Work for the Dole participants were in paid employment three months after leaving the program. A further 11 per cent were in education or training and of the rest 23 per cent had had some employment outcome.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—What did they say about Jobstart? Give us a comparison with Jobstart.EZ5Mr ABBOTT—I have been asked about Jobstart. To get into Jobstart, you actually have to have a job. You have to have a job to be part of a Jobstart evaluation, whereas Work for the Dole is for the long-term unemployed. Work for the Dole compares extremely well with brokered labour market programs under the Working Nation program of the former government.A New South Wales Chamber of Commerce survey revealed that the expansion of Work for the Dole was the single most popular measure in the recent Peter Costello budget. The Leader of the Opposition, in his budget reply, suggested that there should be a further doubling of Work for the Dole. So this great program is going from strength to strength and is already generating support all round the community.59955995Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is again to the Treasurer. Treasurer, do you stand by yesterday's statement to the House that you will not dip any further into the surplus to pay for any revised GST deal with the states? If so, why has Treasury Secretary Ted Evans agreed with state officials that the public housing measure in the Democrats' deal will cost the states money and asked them to produce financial estimates of the loss they will suffer? Treasurer, who has been telling the truth?5995Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—When you are asked a question like that from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition the odds are that it is him who is not telling the truth. He comes in here and makes all of these allegations as to what might have been said in heads of Treasury meetings or what may not have been said. He comes in here and says that I said something yesterday. If his question is—after all of the interjections, all of the palaver and all of the bluff—whether what I said yesterday is right, the answer is yes.59955995Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Can the minister inform the House whether the Australian government is still considering opening a consulate in Dili, East Timor? If so, when will consular staff arrive and what will be their function?5995Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for Curtin for her question, and I recognise the interest she shows in international relations and in the important issue of East Timor and our broader relationship with Indonesia. During the Bali summit between Dr Habibie, the President of Indonesia, and the Prime Minister and other ministers in late April, one of the points of agreement reached was that the Indonesian government would allow the Australian government to open a consulate in East Timor. We have been having discussions over the details and the mechanics of the opening of that consulate with the Indonesian government over the last few weeks since the Bali summit. We have found a property which the Australian government will be able to use for a consulate. We finally last week got the approval from the Indonesian government to open the consulate. I am glad to be able to inform the House that today three consular officers from my department have arrived in East Timor and will begin the process of opening and operating our consulate in East Timor. The consul himself will arrive in Dili almost certainly during next week.I think this is an important step. We are the only country in the world that has a consulate in East Timor. It gives the Australian government the opportunity principally to ensure that we are able to fulfil our consular functions for the large number of Australians who are and who soon will be in East Timor. This consulate will be able to help Australian journalists who are on the ground there. It will be able to provide assistance and advice to the Australian civilian police presence as part of the United Nations civilian police operation, and it will be able to provide assistance to Australians in the military liaison team—should there be Australians in the military liaison team; and we would be happy for Australians to participate.This initiative has been possible only because we have maintained a balanced relationship with Indonesia. If we had taken the advice of others—not least the increasingly incredible member for Kingsford-Smith—we would not have a relationship with Indonesia, we would not be able to pursue these sorts of initiatives and we would not be able to provide the sort of security we are able to provide to Australians through having a consulate on the ground. This is an important initiative. We are the only country on earth that has established a consulate in East Timor. I think it is a significant achievement of this government that we were able to do it. The Labor Party had 13 years to take that initiative, 13 years to open a consulate, and never did it.59965996Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOTXW4DicksonALP00—My question is to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Has the minister seen reports this morning of a new document which states that the Demo crats have done a deal to secure something which was at least an option before the government anyway? Has the minister seen this earlier document from the Road Transport Commission which shows that the Democrats were offered a package of diesel emission standards virtually identical to those already agreed to by the commission and endorsed by vehicle manufacturers and the road transport industry? Minister, why did you negotiate in bad faith with the Democrats?Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—If the member for Dickson and members on my right persist in this—Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—It is unreasonable for the member for Dickson's question to be lost in a cacophony of voices from the right hand side of the House and she may—Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Dickson was denied any opportunity to conclude her question and she may conclude it without the ironical expressions.XW4Ms KERNOT—Minister, isn't it the case that these emission standards would have been introduced GST or no GST?5996Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I was able to negotiate in very good faith with the Democrats last week. I found it, I have to say, quite a rewarding experience. I would think that the Democrats might have some interesting observations about those who have dealt with them in good faith. The fact of the matter is that we dealt in good faith with the Democrats and I make no apology for that, and I believe that they would reinforce it. And it is not true to say that the standards that we are now bringing forward in relation to engine technology and fuel quality in this country were in some way agreed, planned, locked into place or whatever. The fact of the matter is that in a number of very substantial ways what we are doing to make, I believe, a very substantial difference to the quality of air in our major cities ought to be set out.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—They said they had agreed with you.4K4Mr ANDERSON—The old Leader of the Opposition, since he is apparently such an expert on this out of the blue, ought to find me the evidence that the automotive community had agreed on this, because they certainly had not told the government or anybody else that they had. There are a lot of documents floating around. I understand that in part this National Road Transport Commission document that is being referred to may be of some interest. I am quite happy, if it is desired by those opposite, for it to be tabled.But let me make the observations that, in terms of the key aspects of our package, diesel sulphur content will be down to 500 parts per million by the end of 2000 and negotiations with the oil industry for diesel at this standard to be available in urban areas will continue with an objective of reaching that by the year 2000. The diesel standard will be set at 500 parts per million by the end of 2002 for road transport fuel. A mandatory fuel standard of 50 parts per million will apply from the year 2006.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—But you can achieve this without a GST!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition!4K4Mr ANDERSON—The key changes to vehicle standards are as follows: introduction of the so-called Euro 3 standard for medium sized diesel vehicles in 2002-03, previously the timetable was 2006—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—I was raising a point of order. The point of order was that the question asked was: would not these emission standards have been introduced with or without the GST? What he is pointing out absolutely is that these things have been agreed—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—What is the Leader of the Opposition's point of order?PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—to be implemented by the relevant people.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition does not have a point of order and will resume his seat. The minister is being entirely relevant. Does he wish to add to his answer?4K4Mr ANDERSON—I am quite happy to, Mr Speaker, I haven't quite finished. The intro duction of Euro 4 standard for all new diesel engines—2006-07—and there was no previous implementation date at all for Euro 4 before, which is a very important development; the introduction of Euro 3 standard for all petrol vehicles a year earlier in 2005-06. We negotiated in very good faith. We have a set of outcomes that will make a real difference to air quality in urban areas in Australia. No-one has been duped except you who have not been prepared to enter in good faith into any negotiations.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—On a point of order: obviously he should table the document and I am asking for him to table it. He has still got it.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—You didn't want it.Opposition members interjecting—4K4Mr ANDERSON—Here it is.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—By any measure that was a most unsatisfactory exchange between both the minister and the Manager of Opposition Business since the chair was not consulted, but I gather that the document sought to be tabled has now been tabled.59975997Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Minister, from observations in my electorate, farmers really like the tax package—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hinkler has the call.YU5TANNERMr Tanner—Is this your stand-up comic routine?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Melbourne!KV5Mr NEVILLE—because frankly they recognise that it will help them. Minister, could you advise the House how a typical farming family in an electorate like mine will do better under the government's tax reform package?5997Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTrade10—I thank the honourable member for Hinkler for his questions. Of course, the member for Hinkler is absolutely correct in that the farm community right across Australia as a whole supports the government's tax reform package in its entirety. The areas where farm families will benefit are very important, and we highlight these. Not only will farm families and farm operations benefit from getting rid of Labor's embedded wholesale sales tax system; to help them become more competitive in the export marketplace we are going to provide improved family payments for farm families, particularly in the electorate of Hinkler. Under our family payments package we will ensure that farm families are treated the same as other Australian families. They will no longer be discriminated against as far as assets tests are concerned. Depending on the ages of the children and the incomes of the parents, struggling farm families can receive family payments up to nearly $5,600 per child per year.We are delivering equity to Australian farm families. We are going to abolish Labor's embedded wholesale sales tax system, which does have an impact on the farm family operation in Australia. In the member's own electorate of Hinkler, which is a very strong sugarcane growing area, Labor's embedded wholesale sales tax system is an added burden to the cane farmers. Their cane harvesting contractors do not get exemption from the wholesale sales tax system. The truck driver transporting the cane to the mill does not get sales tax exemption. The truck driver transporting the product from the mill to the wharf does not get the exemption. So Labor's embedded wholesale sales tax system does disadvantage farm families. The rates of 12, 22, 32 and 45 that we are going to abolish are disadvantaging the farm families in the electorate of Hinkler.Transport costs in Australia under the Labor Party have been a huge impost on rural Australia. We are going to make those much fairer. We are maintaining the full diesel fuel rebate for farmers. We are maintaining the full diesel fuel rebate for cane railways. We are cutting the cost of diesel on road transport in rural Australia by 23c a litre. All these are going to go towards building a stronger rural sector in Australia.Farm families will benefit absolutely from our revised tax reform package by improved family payments and income tax cuts—the $12 billion worth of income tax cuts will also benefit farm families across Australia. We are going to provide major savings to road and rail transport and, most importantly, we are going to abolish Labor's embedded wholesale sales tax system which will benefit without question the rural community and particularly the cane farmers in the electorate of the member for Hinkler.59985998Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—My question is to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Do you recall that on Friday the Prime Minister released a document which provided a precise costing of the government-Democrat deal to exclude urban operations of mid-range vehicles from the diesel fuel rebate—$199 million in extra revenue in 2000-01, $209 million in 2001-02 and $223 million in 2002-03? How were you able to provide this precise costing when it is clear no-one knows precisely how the diesel rebate scheme will work? In making the costing did you assume that truck operations in Queanbeyan would receive the rebate or not? And what about Tweed Heads, Ipswich, Nambour, Maitland, Wyong, Rockingham and the La Trobe Valley—are these places in regional Australia or not?5998Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—All those people over there do not want rural and regional Australia to have the benefits of major tax reform. Let it be noted out there—their now spokesman for regional services and transport over there was once on the side of the Democrats. Now she is on the side of the Labor Party—or was. She now appears to be on the side of Senator Bob Brown. One thing we do know is that she is not on the side of rural and regional Australia.YU5TANNERMr Tanner—I raise a point of order on relevance. The minister so far has made absolutely no reference to the question, which is about how the costings were applied.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Melbourne makes the point of order on relevance. Has the minister concluded his answer?ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Yes.4K4Mr ANDERSON—Yes.Honourable members interjecting—59995999Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Forestry and Conservation. Minister, can you inform the House of the benefits the new tax system will deliver to the Australian forestry industry, especially in my electorate of Gilmore? In particular, will this new tax system create new export opportunities?DT4CREANMr Crean—You are gutless, Anderson, gutless.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the Deputy Leader of the Opposition!Mr Sercombe interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Maribyrnong is warned.5999Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLPForestry and Conservation; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—I thank the member for Gilmore for her question. She constantly makes representations on behalf of the forestry workers in her electorate and she is a very hard worker. The forest products industry employs over 82,000 people. Its prices flow through to all downstream activity in business and personal consumption. It is subject to intense competition as an exporter and from imports. For instance, ABARE recently reported that a GST country in Canada is exporting sawn timber to the Australian east coast at as low as $340 a cubic metre and no Australian mill can compete at that price.Export woodchip prices all around Australia were recently negotiated down by the Japanese by 6.7 per cent and it resulted in job losses in Tasmania. The federal Treasury has advised me that under the original ANTS package, which remains substantially unchanged for forestry, the savings to this embattled industry will be as follows: to the forestry and logging sector, $40 million per annum; to the saw milling and dressed timber sector, $120 million per annum; for other wood products, $170 million per annum; to the pulp, paper and paper board industry, $200 million per annum; and to paper containers and such products, $160 million per annum. This totals a whopping $690 million.Whilst the new tax deal has marginally reduced these benefits, it will also add new opportunities such as the increased commitment of $100 million—taking the figure up to $280 million—to investment in clean fuels which will assist in developing fuel production from currently unusable forest residues.In particular, and in response to the member's question about exports, let me refer to the Labor Party's tax cost burden associated with pulp, paper and paper board of $200 million. The consumption of these products, by way of imports, is the major contributor to Australia's $1.5 billion trade deficit in forest products. As a simple example in this particular area, the Australian Paper mill at Maryvale has approximately 100 trucks fully employed servicing its operation. I have contacted the Road Transport Forum which has advised me that a typical truck of that nature pays $1,730 per week in Labor's indirect tax charges. This is a $173,000 per week burden on this one employer's ability to compete. Australia must convert from a vulnerable woodchip exporter to a paper manufacturer and exporter, and Tasmania is the logical location for such an enterprise, producing a world class volume of a minimum of 750,000 tonnes of high quality paper per annum.There is an international interest in such a project, but those who have contacted me have made it clear they are not interested until Australia has an internationally competitive tax system and resource security guaranteed by the government's RFA legislation, which of course is presently in the Senate. This parliament has five Labor representatives and five Labor senators from Tasmania, yet they all oppose both these measures. Anybody who votes in an election has the right to think the people they elect will stand up for them when they so desperately need that type of development in Tasmania. Where are these people when international firms come to the government and say, `We have an opportunity to develop an area of Australia that is in some trouble'? What is the answer we get from the Labor Party representatives of Tasmania? `We are opposed to it. Let the people stay on the dole.' 60006000Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware of this assessment of the GST's impact on learning: `It is nonsense to suggest that education is GST free when you are applying a GST to the single most substantial educational resource that students should have at their disposal—books'? Are you aware that the author of this statement—CT4COSTELLOMr Costello—What about your tax?PE4Mr BEAZLEY—Oh, there is a 22 per cent tax on books, is there? All right. Are you aware that the author of this statement, Senator Lees, promised at her party's campaign launch last year: `Democrat Senators and lead candidates have all pledged that we will not at any time support the new tax on food or on books'? Why did you and your new tax commissioner, Senator Lees, agree to a tax on books?6000Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Unlike the Leader of the Australian Labor Party, whose tax policy consists of waving cans of tomato soup in front of television cameras—at long last he has found a policy; I suppose I should at least concede that—the Leader of the Australian Democrats has sufficient concern for the national interest of this country to reach a compromise understanding with the government. The Leader of the Opposition talks about tax on education. He did not of course mention the 22 per cent wholesale sales tax on computers, a frequently used instrument of education, apparently something the Leader of the Opposition—oh!PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. The question was specifically about the application of this tax to books. Everybody knows that the 22 per cent sales tax does not apply to computers in schools.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Prime Minister, I would have thought, was being entirely relevant since one would always suppose that computers were directly related to education.ZD4Mr HOWARD—An equal observation could be made in relation to books used in schools. The fact remains that in the whole of this debate the most remarkable take-out of all, and the one which over time the Australian people will be most conscious of, is that this nation has had for a period of almost two years an intensive debate on the future of Australia's taxation system. Whatever criticisms may be made of the government and the Australian Democrats, at least the members of the government and the Australian Democrats have been willing to apply their energies and their views to finding a solution which they believe is in the best long-term interests of this country. By contrast, the Labor Party has sought on all occasions to obstruct, obfuscate, distort, mislead and deny. At no stage has the Labor Party sought to lay out an alternative taxation plan.There was a time when Australians could expect of their parliamentary oppositions a willingness to lay out an alternative vision for this country. The man who sits opposite me in this parliament has now had over three years to lay out an alternative vision for Australia. He has had eight months since the last election to lay out an alternative taxation reform. He has taken the easy, lazy political option.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order and it goes to relevance. The question was specifically about the application to books. The Prime Minister knows darn well that there was a better vision handed out by us and there were more votes for it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition has an obligation to draw my attention to relevance but not to advance any argument in the process. The Prime Minister is addressing the question of tax reform and I invite him to bring his remarks to the question.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I am indeed, Mr Speaker. At the last election the Labor Party had something about reforming the capital gains tax and they could not move away from it too quickly straight after the election. Our view is that it is the responsibility of political parties in this place to advance positive solutions for the long-term challenges of this country. We now have the strongest perform ing economy in the Western world because this government has been willing to embrace reform. We have had no help from the Australian Labor Party, and over the last 3¼ years the Australian Democrats, by contrast, have taken a constructive national interest approach. The Leader of the Opposition can wave his cans of tomato soup in front on television cameras. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition can wave his bags of salad in this House. The Australian people will remember that when the call went out for an alternative taxation policy there was a resounding silence, a deafening silence, from the Australian Labor Party.60016001Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANEWN6GroomLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Is the minister aware of comments relating to the revised tax package and its impact on education and families? If so, what is the minister's response to these comments?6001Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the member for Groom for his question. I know he has an interest in quality education for young people in his electorate. Indeed, he has a great interest in accurate information. I am aware of comments that have been made about the tax package by the Australian Education Union. The Australian Education Union has made the claim that school costs to families will rise by some $200. This is all of a piece with the shonky analysis we have had from the Australian Education Union in relation to the budget. When we examine the analysis of the Australian Education Union and look closely at its figures, what we find is that it has actually totally ignored major impacts of the package on the disposable income of families, it has totally ignored major impacts of the package on the costs of delivering education and it has overstated the impact of the GST on price increases. The Australian Education Union, which is believed implicitly, of course, by the member for Dobell and the Labor Party—they never say anything on education that has not in fact come from the Australian Education Union, and they repeat this figure—has been wrong on every occasion that it has sought to make a comment on the government's tax reforms.Let us just hit these comments for six and put the facts on the record. The facts are that the tax reform package is going to have an immensely favourable impact on the disposable income of families. The average family is going to be some $40 to $50 per week better off, after the impact of the goods and services tax, and they will have that extra money to spend on clothing and other educational items, including books, that will be available to the family. Indeed, as a result of this change the average family will be some $2,000 a year better off, whereas the Australian Education Union is saying that they will be $200 a year worse off. They will be $2,000 a year better off, after the price impacts of the GST.From 1 July 2000 the youth allowance, assistance for isolated children, the Australian postgraduate awards and other income support for students will increase by four per cent. The cost of a whole range of materials needed for school will go down, because those materials currently contain the flow-through effects of the wholesale sales tax, the tax which the Labor Party supports. So we can anticipate that the price of computers, a major item at the moment for families sending their children to school, will come down under the government's tax reforms. From the point of view of schools themselves, the cost of providing education will be lowered by the tax reform by some $720 million over three years. Above all of that, the goods and services tax and the tax package will provide the states with a growth tax, a tax base that will enable them to meet the growing costs of education over future years.This is a wonderful package for education. The Australian Labor Party, plugged in only to the Australian Education Union, does not recognise this. The Australian Democrats have recognised the value of this package to Australian families and the community. The coalition has long put forward this package because it recognises this fact, and even the Australian Labor Party must now be beginning to get the message that the Australian community sees the benefits of this package and it supports a majority of parties, the Liberal Party, the National Party and the Australian Democrats, who want to deliver an historic benefit to families and education in this country.60026002Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—The Democrats have become part of the grand coalition, we see.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Dobell will come to his question.MG4Mr LEE—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, do you recall saying earlier this year:We know that a school child without basic reading and writing skills will not be able to realise his or her full potential.How can you claim that education is GST free when you are going to impose a GST on books which parents use to teach their young children to read and write? Do you admit that parents will pay more for books like Test Your Child's Reading and the Macquarie Children's Dictionary ? Prime Minister, you said this tax package is in the best long-term interests of the country. How can it be in the best long-term interests of the country to make it more expensive for parents to help their children learn to read?6002Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—If the member for Dobell had read the full context of that particular remark of mine, and I do recall making it, he would realise that it was in the context of improving standards of literacy and numeracy in Australian schools. I am delighted therefore to remind the parliament—MG4LEEMr Lee—Well, tell us about the GST on these books.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I thank the member for Dobell—in fact, I am profoundly indebted to the member for Dobell—for giving me the opportunity of reminding the parliament of the wonderful things that my colleague the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs has done about lifting standards of literacy and numeracy. Not only has the minister insisted for the first time on decent national standards for basic literacy and numeracy in Australian schools but he has also won the support of the government to provide hundreds of millions of dollars to both government and non-government schools in order to lift the standards of literacy and numeracy within Australian schools. It is also the case that under the funding arrangements delivered by the government's tax reform plan the states of Australia will over time have more money to provide even more assistance to the government schools of this country, for which they are principally responsible.MG4LEEMr Lee—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. The question was not about how much funding will go to the states; it was about parents being forced to pay 10 per cent more for these books.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Dobell will resume his seat. The question, as I recall it, asked the Prime Minister how he was going to respond in relation to the capacity that young people would have to learn to read or that their parents would have to teach them to read. The Prime Minister is being relevant.ZD4Mr HOWARD—The reality is that the coalition government has put more resources into lifting standards of literacy and numeracy than any federal government in this nation's history. I am delighted that the member for Dobell should ask me that question. I would say to him and to the parliament that this government is proud of its record in lifting standards of literacy and numeracy. We will continue to devote both the necessary priority and the necessary resources to this and, through taxation reform, the additional resources that will flow to the Australian states to fund their obligation to government schools.60026002Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—My question is to the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation. Minister, the government recently announced its plans to make Australia a centre for global financial services. Can the minister inform the House how long it will be before we actually see financial institutions responding to the government's strategy and opening operations in Australia?6002Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—I thank the member for Wannon, who I understand is chairing a very important parliamentary inquiry into the impact of globalisation on the economy. I wish him and the parliament well in that inquiry. We have good news for Australia. The Asia-Pacific Loan Market Association has decided to open an operation in Australia. This follows on from their existing operations in Hong Kong and Singapore, and is a direct result of our marketing efforts over the last few months in Hong Kong.This is a very important market facilitator because it facilitates the syndicated loan markets across the world. It represents 105 of the largest financial institutions in the Asia-Pacific region which provide billions of dollars for infrastructure and development right across the world. In fact, last year alone the Loan Market Association lent four times the total value of all the shares listed on the Australian Stock Exchange. Over $1,800 billion was lent through loan syndication around the world. Of that, over the last three years $88 billion has been borrowed by Australian borrowers undertaking projects throughout the Asian region.This means jobs for Australians. This is a real result of all the fundamental reforms that we have undertaken over the last three years—the reforms that have delivered a budget surplus, the reforms that have delivered transparency and honesty in the budget and the reforms that have delivered record economic growth of 4.8 per cent over the last year. These are the results of the reforms that we are still undertaking and that we expect to undertake over the next 12 months.It is not just us saying that Australia is a great place to invest. I am also pleased to reannounce, on behalf of the New South Wales government, that Western Union Financial Services has decided to set up its regional headquarters in Sydney. That is going to operate from the beginning of June. That means 120 new jobs for Australians. Edward Furham, President of Western Union Financial Services, recently said:The combination of a high-quality, culturally diverse work force, a large multilingual population and Australia's economic and political stability make Sydney a very attractive city to establish a regional operation centre.We can only continue if we are freed from the shackles in relation to our ongoing reform program. That particularly relates to taxation reform.The most significant aspect of the result of the negotiations last week between the Prime Minister and this government and the Democrats is that it sends a message to the world that we are continuing with the fundamental reform that is crucial to Australia's future. That is the fundamental part about it. Our commitment to reform is unwavering. That will start to deliver jobs. I quote from Ken Courtis, the Chief Economist of Deutsche Bank Asia, last night on Lateline:If Australia can put its case out clearly to the world that it's reformed taxes, it's reformed its labour market, it's made it easier to start companies, then the dream of having Sydney as one of the major financial centres in the Asia-Pacific region could start to be realised, and then that opens up a whole new series of opportunities to this country.Good news.60036003Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—Mr Speaker, my question is to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Is the minister aware of the following recent comments by leading children's author Paul Jennings:The decision to tax books will impact directly on children. Kids learn to read by reading and being read to. Children from homes without books will be much more likely to end up in remedial classes. The amount of tax raised on books will be far less than the cost of intervention programs for those who do not learn how to read.Wasn't Senator Lees right to say that it is a nonsense to suggest education is GST free if you tax books? Minister, as a former academic, which figure of speech do you think best describes your commitment to literacy: hyperbole, irony, rhetoric, euphemism or the plain Anglo-Saxon con?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Denison will resume his seat. I have warned the House against questions that are ironical. That question is out of order. I call the member for Dunkley.MG4LEEMr Lee—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. On past occasions you have given members the opportunity to rephrase their questions. Will you extend that courtesy to the member for Denison?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Dobell knows that it has been the practice of the chair to extend that courtesy. Earlier in this question time I indicated that there had been much too much ironical expression in questions. Clearly the member for Denison, knowing that was on the tail end of his question, chose to leave it there. The member for Dunkley has the call.60046004Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. Could the minister advise the House of what initiatives are proposed to be implemented by this government to improve air quality in urban areas and what the impact will be of the implementation of the government's tax package on improving air equality?6004Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTrade10—I thank the member for Dunkley for his question. I acknowledge the member for Dunkley's ongoing interest in the improvements that the coalition government is making to the environment. It, unlike the former administration in this country, is making significant inroads. Improving urban air quality and reducing air pollution have been high priorities of our government since coming to office. In fact, this government is doing more than any previous government to address this important environmental issue. We have worked with the states to establish a national standard for ambient air quality. Labor was unable to secure agreement from the states for any national environment protection measures.The question goes to the measures that we have recently announced we are going to undertake. Those measures will allow us to fund new programs. They will allow us to build on existing initiatives and accelerate the introduction of a number of measures. Some of those measures include that we will provide funds to assist in the conversion of commercial vehicles to compressed natural gas or LPG. We will provide incentives to switch to low sulphur diesel fuels through differential excise treatments. We will introduce progressively tighter diesel fuel quality standards in 2002 and 2006, and we will accelerate introduction of new diesel and petrol vehicles emission standards made possible by the availability of cleaner fuels.We will see vehicles using better engine technology and cleaner fuel. Our government, along with the Australian Democrats, is providing a huge win for Australia for better air quality and a huge win for the Australian environment. The agreement that was reached the between the Prime Minister and the Australian Democrats was interestingly described by the Leader of the Australian Democrats in the Weekend Australian last weekend. It said:While praising Mr Howard as "pleasant and cooperative", Senator Lees condemned her Greens and Labor critics, saying the Democrats "did not want to stop the country as some clearly do."She went on to say:"We achieved more in 13 hours with the Coalition than we ever did in 13 years with Labor," . . . That says two things about the Australian Democrats and the Labor Party. The first is that it indicates how inefficient the Australian Labor Party were in government if they could not achieve anything with the Democrats in 13 years. The other is that it seems to indicate the inability of the former leadership of the Australian Democrats. This agreement and our government's commitment to the air quality in Australia are without question, and we are going to continue to improve the air quality in Australia.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Mr Speaker, on that note, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper . A very good week for the government!Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The House will come to order! Members on my right. Member for Hindmarsh. That sort of behaviour is not tolerated.7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—What about the Prime Minister? He was giving a clap.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Prospect is warned!Questions to the Speaker600560056005McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—I have a question to you, Mr Speaker. Have you changed the dress rules for the galleries? If so, why have you not advised members? If not, why have journalists been ejected from the press gallery for not wearing ties when members do not have to wear ties?6005Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will respond to the question from the Manager of Opposition Business. The Speaker has not changed the rules in any way. The chair was unaware of any action taken yesterday. Clearly, I am in the most disadvantageous position—5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—It happened again today.10000Mr SPEAKER—to see any such action. In fact, I understand that on yesterday's occasion one of the security officers, acting in what might be described as a `zealous' manner—though I do not use that term critically, because it suits me if all security officers are zealous, as it were—took action which he thought was within the guidelines. It was not action that was requested by either me or the Sergeant-at-Arms. The matter has been clarified.Honourable members interjecting—ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Leave him alone.IJ4SNOWDONMr Snowdon—Pull your head in, Howard.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for the Northern Territory is warned!6005McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—Mr Speaker, my further question to you is: given that this appears to have happened again today, will you make arrangements to make sure it does not happen again?6005Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I thank the Manager of Opposition Business. Of course, I will follow whatever events occurred today. It is not my proposal to mount a rear-view mirror on the chair in order to monitor the gallery, but I have no doubt those in the gallery will do so for me.60056005Griffin, Alan, MPMr GRIFFINVU5BruceALP00—I have a question for you, Mr Speaker. Under standing order 150, could you please write to the Minister for Health and Aged Care requesting an answer to question 572, which has been on the Notice Paper since 31 March?6005Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will take that action on behalf of the member for Bruce.Documents60056005Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—Papers are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the papers will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings .Motion (by Mr Reith) proposed:That the House take note of the following paper:Productivity Commission—International Air Services report.Debate (on motion by Mr McMullan) adjourned.Matters of Public Importance6005600510000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER— I have received a letter from the honourable member for Dobell proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The detrimental effect on education of the revised Howard/Lees GST package.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—15:22:006005Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—I am sure, Mr Speaker, you, like most Australians, remember the taxpayer funded ads that were run by this government in the lead-up to the last election. Every one of those taxpayer funded ads said education would be GST free, and every one of those taxpayer ads misled the Australian people because education is not GST free under this government's tax reform proposals. The first thing is that the government misled the Australian people when it said that education would be GST free. The other group of people who misled the Australian people were the Australian Democrats, when Meg Lees said:Democrat senators and lead candidates have all pledged that we will not at any time support the new tax on food or on books.That is Meg Lees, the Leader of the Australian Democrats. So in fact Senator Lees was just as misleading when she said they would never vote for a tax on books as the government was when it said that education would be GST free. We will make that point very clearly this afternoon.We on this side of the House believe that books are a fundamental part of our lives. We on this side of the House believe that a GST on books is the same as a GST on knowledge. It is a tax on knowledge and a tax which should not be imposed by any government. I want to read some quotes to the House from some famous Australians. Have you seen this poster before, Minister? Let me remind you what Robert Hughes said about the government's proposals:I wholeheartedly oppose the application of a GST to books. A tax on books is a tax on knowledge and on imagination. It is a thoroughly bad idea.We not only wish Robert Hughes a speedy recovery but thank him for his support in opposing this GST on books. Phillip Adams said:Books were and remain the bricks with which we build our knowledge, our very lives. Yet at this moment, when new technologies threaten the book as never before, our book prices will rise between 5 and 10 per cent. Sales will fall. Families will buy fewer books. People trying to improve their skills for re-entry to the work force will be taxed. And there is a significant possibility that we will have fewer Australian authors writing Australian books. Less local content in this global age.If the minister dismisses Phillip Adams, what about one of Australia's greatest authors—Morris West:A tax on knowledge is the first step towards tyranny.What about Jane Campion, one of the greatest Australians involved in the film industry:All our country towns, all our cities have libraries, places where you can borrow books and read them for free—why?—because governments have long understood the importance of Knowledge, it is life transforming potential and have altruistically wanted their peoples to enjoy that knowledge as a privilege available to all. To tax books is punitive. It clumsily disregards the philosophy at the heart of our culture. Knowledge, and its sharing, is one of our greatest human achievements, an achievement to be proud of and to actively promote, not tax.What about the quote from Meg Lees, who may not be in the same league as the others, but she said:It is nonsense to suggest that education is GST-free when you are applying a GST to the single most substantial education resource that students should have at their disposal—books. Sadly, this example of a lack of understanding and forethought is far from isolated in the tax package.Meg Lees was right when she said before the election that a GST on books is wrong. She is misleading the Australian people when she now claims that in some way there is no tax on education when she has agreed to allow the GST on books to proceed. We make it clear that Labor is opposed to a GST on books. We make it very clear that this is something that will make it harder for many Australians to make sure their kids can read and write properly.I remind the House that at question time we asked the Prime Minister: why should parents have to pay up to 10 per cent more for a book like Test Your Child's Reading? Why should parents have to pay up to 10 per cent more for books like Macquarie Children's Dictionary, My Desktop Dictionary, My Book of Sounds or The Write Stuff, a book that has been put together by a good Australian publisher like Jacaranda, a book that helps people learn to write properly? Perhaps there are one or two people in this parliament that could do with a little bit of help from The Write Stuff. I can certainly assure the minister that by imposing a 10 per cent GST on The Write Stuff the minister is making it harder for parents and teachers to make sure that kids in our schools right across the country can write properly. Why put a 10 per cent GST on a primary atlas? Why make it harder for parents?Mr Downer interjecting—MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—You might do with this, Alexander. This might be something that would suit Alexander Downer, now he mentions it. I thank you for your interjection. The Labor Party caucus might make a gift to the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the primary atlas if he is willing to accept it. I am happy to pass it across the chamber. Only Alexander Downer, as the foreign minister, would need the primary atlas. Only Alexander—come in spinner.I make the point that we on this side of the House think it is so ridiculous that any government would impose a 10 per cent GST on books—books that are going to be used by parents to help their kids learn. But out there amongst low income families this is not a laughing matter. Out there are families that cannot afford to buy many books to put in their kids' bedrooms, to put on the shelves in the family lounge room. Increasing the cost of all books means that there will be fewer books in our homes, especially in the homes of low income families. It is those kids that are going to be the real losers because this government is so pig-headed it will not agree to exempt books from the 10 per cent GST. That is the first point we make.The second point we make is that the government does not understand that in other countries they have realised the damage this would do. For example, we hear a lot of people talking about the Irish model for exempting food, yet in Ireland they also have a zero rate for books. In Ireland they have realised the damage that is done by imposing a 10 per cent GST on books. I simply say to the House that the Canadian experience was that when they imposed a seven per cent GST there was a 12 per cent decline in trade books and a 26 per cent decline in schoolbooks purchased. So in other countries where they have gone down this path there has been a significant reduction. There was a 26 per cent decline in schoolbooks purchased in Canada when their prices went up seven per cent.The thing we have to understand is that fewer books sold means fewer rewards for writers, authors and publishers, and that is not good for our culture. It is not good for us to have less local content, less knowledge about ourselves. It also means that fewer books bought in families leads to poor literacy right around the country. For those reasons, we believe that the government is making the wrong decision in going down this particular path. The other point I make is that we are not alone in pointing out the problems associated with this tax. Let me remind the House of the views of Libby Gleeson, chair of the Australian Society of Authors, who described the Democrat deal with the government as something that generated a `deep sense of betrayal'. She made clear her views on Senator Lees's promise given in a National Press Club speech before the election, when Senator Lees said:A tax on books is a tax on literacy, learning and literature. We will not vote for a tax on books.It is a pity she cannot have the same attitude today. My colleague the member for Denison earlier today sought to ask the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs to respond to the views of Paul Jennings, another great Australian author. Let me read the entire letter that Paul Jennings has sent to a number of newspapers:The decision to tax books will impact directly on children. Kids learn to read by reading and being read to. Their attitude to books is largely formed before they start school. Wealthy families will happily pay the extra GST dollars and their children will be off to an early start on the road to literacy. Children from homes without books will be much more likely to end up in remedial classes.The amount of tax raised on books will be far less than the cost of intervention programs for those who do not learn to read. And this does not include the social penalties inflicted on and by those affected.When kids like doing something they cannot be stopped. The reverse is also true. If parents and teachers are to win children away from the television they must have the cheapest and best books that we can provide.We as a society cannot afford a GST on books.None of us in this chamber could say it better than Paul Jennings. He more than any other Australian has encouraged young kids to read. He more than any other Australian has been successful in making children develop a love for books and a love for stories. Paul Jennings understands the damage that will be done, especially to kids from low income backgrounds, because of these changes.We on this side of the House have regularly been subjected to lectures from the minister for education and the Prime Minister about literacy. I am sure many on this side have had to sit through many answers on literacy from the minister. Let me remind the House of what the Prime Minister said in his first major speech of the year, a speech entitled `The Australian Way' on 28 January. He said:We know that a school child without basic reading and writing skills will not be able to realise his or her full potential.He went on to say:But I believe, and most Australians would agree, that reading and writing properly are the most fundamental prerequisites for getting a job.That is the view of the Prime Minister. We even had the education minister in his budget press release state:The consequences of poor literacy and numeracy achievement at school include an increased likelihood of leaving school early, poor access to further education and training and a much higher risk of unemployment.They are very big on talking about literacy—both the Prime Minister and the minister for education. In August last year Dr Kemp, the minister at the table, promised Australia that he would fill 12,000 places in a new literacy program. That was his major announcement in the budget last year. He said that 12,000 places would be provided for 18- to 24-year-olds. He was so keen about this program that he committed $14 million of taxpayers' money to fund 6,000 places, irrespective of how many people actually turned up for the places.Ms Plibersek interjecting—MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—My colleague the member for Sydney may well ask how many people have actually completed these training courses. We know that, with only a few weeks to go before the end of this financial year, only 283 18- to 24-year-olds have actually begun a training course. He promised us 12,000, he paid for 6,000, and only 283 have actually started the courses.It is not only a waste of taxpayers' money. Think of all the young kids with literacy problems who cannot read and write properly who could have benefited if this minister had done his job properly and had kept his promise that 12,000 young people would be able to do the courses. That is the great tragedy in this: not that millions of dollars of taxpayers' money has been wasted but that you are big on talk and hopeless at delivering the programs, hopeless at making sure that young people actually get the literacy programs that he talks about.In fact we have spent $14,000 for each of the 283 young people who have started these literacy programs. What a massive lost opportunity for those young people who missed out because this hopeless minister was not able to make sure that the programs delivered matched his rhetoric! I am sure that many people do understand that every time this minister gets into trouble he starts talking about literacy. Whether the trouble is about the damage he has done to universities, the abolition of the growth funding for TAFE or the fact that this minister more than any other has taken money away from public education across the country through his enrolment benchmark adjustment, whenever this minister gets into trouble he starts talking about literacy.This minister seeks to use literacy programs as a diversion. Rather than try to actually make a difference, to help those young people who need help, he uses them as some springboard for publicity rather than try to make sure that young people get the opportunities that they deserve. We expected that of this minister.What we did not expect was the Democrats to do a deal with the government and to support a 10 per cent GST on books across the country. The Democrats, in coalition with the Liberal and National parties, are going to be voting to impose this 10 per cent GST on knowledge, this 10 per cent GST on the books that parents wish to buy to help their children read and write. All we can do in this chamber is appeal to the Democrats to reconsider their decision.We welcome the fact that Senator Stott Despoja has taken a brave decision in saying that she will cross the floor on some issues, perhaps even on this 10 per cent tax on books. But what we say is that there is not much point in being the deputy leader of a party if your party then undermines schools and makes it harder for parents to buy the books to help kids to read and write.We say to all of the Democrats: join Senator Stott Despoja. Cross the floor. Stop the 10 per cent tax on books. Try to make sure that you do not make it harder for parents to teach their kids to read and write. This is going to be one of the most important issues that this parliament will decide between now and the end of June when the tax package is finalised. How can it be good for Australia to make it harder for parents to teach the kids to read? How can it be good for Australia to force parents to pay more for school uniforms, bus fares and all of the other hiring of equipment? This government is bringing in a GST which will hit education hard. (Time expired)15:37:006009Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—We know that the member for Dobell has absolutely no credibility on any educational issue, because he is the voice of the education policy which the member for Werriwa walked away from after the staff members of the Leader of the Opposition had, as the member for Werriwa described it, `stuffed up the policy'. There is now no credible education policy being put forward by the Labor Party, and to have the member for Dobell, the shadow minister for education, walk into the House and speak for the first time on literacy and numeracy as if he had some concern for literacy and numeracy amongst young Australians is the height of hypocrisy. The fact is that, when the Labor Party left office, 30 per cent of young Australians could not read and write at a satisfactory level. And yet the member for Dobell wants the Australian people to believe that he is not simply responding to industry pressure here but that he has some broader public interest concern about literacy and numeracy. In the education policy which the member for Werriwa dumped during the election campaign there were four lines on literacy and numeracy. That was how much they cared about literacy and numeracy.This government has put in place national standards. Every young Australian in years 3 and 5 is now being assessed against those standards. Additional resources have been put in to helping the students with special needs in literacy and numeracy. As the Prime Minister said in question time, there has never been such a national effort to bring young people to a satisfactory literacy and numeracy standard in the early years of schooling, where they have to pick up these skills. The member for Dobell does not really want to listen to this, because he is not interested in the facts—unlike the Democrats. The Democrats were prepared to listen to the government's arguments. They were prepared to respond to the facts. They were prepared to accept the justice and validity of the decisions that the government has taken in this tax package.Before I get onto the impact of the government's tax package on the book industry, I just comment on the other element of hypocrisy in the member for Dobell's statements, and that was that somehow or other the GST on books is a tax on knowledge. The fact is that the centrepiece of the tax system which the Labor Party supports is the wholesale sales tax—that incredibly complex tax with four or five different rates which cause tremendous costs to a number of Australian industries, including its export industries, one of which is the book industry of course. The effect of that wholesale sales tax is to put up, by some $720 million over three years, the cost of delivering education in Australia, because there are inevitable consequences of a cascading tax flowing through into the costs of any institution which uses products which are subject to the wholesale sales tax system. While educational institutions and schools themselves have an immediate wholesale sales tax exemption, that does not mean that they are not affected by the cascading of the wholesale sales tax. The impact of this cascading is that the cost of education in this country is put up by $720 million over three years. We plan to remove that tax effect. The cost of delivering education will be cheaper. And yet the member for Dobell comes into this House and says that we believe in a tax on knowledge while they put a tax on Australia's educational institutions which over four years is about one billion dollars. If ever there was a tax on knowledge, it is the wholesale sales tax, and we are going to abolish the wholesale sales tax.The Democrats responded to this argument. They understood, but the member for Dobell, who only listens to the Australian Education Union on education matters, does not understand, because the Australian Education Union does not understand. He comes in here and week after week mouths the press releases of the Australian Education Union—with not a grain of original thought, not any sign that he has really addressed these issues seriously, just the empty rhetoric, the special interest pleading, of the Australian Education Union.I now turn to the impact of the government's tax package on the book industry in Australia. I have to say that I regret the comments of some very good authors who clearly have not had the opportunity to hear the cases and the arguments that the government has been able to put to the Democrats. If they had heard these arguments, I am sure their views would be very different, because the government's tax reform package is very good for the Australian book industry and it is very good for families and other Australians wanting to purchase books.Let us have a look at the impact on the book industry itself, first of all. A significant element of the Australian book industry—not the major element but a significant element—is involved in exporting. Any element of the industry involved in exporting has the cascading effect of the wholesale sales tax removed and is completely free of the GST. So this package is very beneficial. While books themselves individually will attract the GST, the industry is currently burdened with the cost of the wholesale sales tax on the cost of production, particularly in relation to capital equipment. The GST on capital equipment includes computers, which have a wholesale sales tax on them at the moment of 22 per cent. That is not an input tax credit. There are no input tax credits for the book industry on the wholesale sales tax that is placed on critical items like computers and other capital equipment. They cannot claim back the cost of this tax as an input credit as they will be able to do under the government's tax reforms. So the costs of production of that industry will come down as a result of the government's tax package.Not only will production costs come down, but books are substantial items with heavy freight costs attached to them, and the government has announced significant cost savings to freight industries in the form of an improved on-road diesel fuel rebate. This reduces the effective diesel fuel excise to 20c per litre for all vehicles over 20 tonnes and regional transport vehicles weighing between 4.5 and 20 tonnes which undertake operations in regional areas. The book industry and other industries relying on freight will gain a significant benefit from the government's tax reform package in this regard. Freight moved by rail transport, as books often are, will benefit from a 100 per cent excise credit under the government's tax reforms.In addition to these improvements in the situation for the book industry itself, what the member for Dobell tries quite ineffectually to conceal is the fact that the tax package includes a massive $12 billion tax reduction to Australians and Australian families. This $12 billion tax reduction means that the average family in Australia is going to be some $40 to $50 a week—some $2,000 a year—better off after the price effects of the GST. They will have more money available to them and that will come at the discretionary end of family income. As I am sure the book industry would realise, as it refers to the actual facts of the case, that means that many Australians are going to be buying more books than they have bought in the past. The costs of production in the industry come down and families are better placed to purchase the products of the industry.This is a tax reform package which is especially beneficial to families on lower incomes. Therefore, despite the crocodile tears from the member for Dobell, low income families will be significantly more able to purchase the books that they need for their families. So any suggestion whatever that this package has anything other than a very positive impact on the ability of young Australians to read and write is totally false. I am quite sure these arguments were presented to the Australian Democrats and they responded because they saw the validity of them. These arguments have been totally ignored by the puppeteers of the member for Dobell, the Australian Education Union, and therefore of course by the member for Dobell himself. The government will be going around Australia making these arguments, hand in hand with the Democrats, putting the facts of the case before the book industry, the Australian public and particularly Australian families. If there is one thing the Australian public and Australian parents know, it is that this government is very committed to making sure that every young Australian can read and write properly.The member for Dobell refers to the literacy and numeracy program under the mutual obligation arrangements. One of the things that the experience of the first year of that program demonstrates—or less than the first year; it was introduced in September or October last year—is that the young people who were the victims of Labor's failure over 13 years and who are now out of school, many of them unemployed because they do not have those basic literacy skills, are very reluctant to put up their hands and say, `Yes, I can't read and write properly.' The member for Dobell should hang his head in shame at the disastrous impact that the failure of his party's policies have had on opportunities for so many young Australians.Unfortunately it is the case that young Australians who are unemployed, particularly those who are long-term unemployed, are very typically young Australians who went right through school during the Labor Party years and came out without the ability to read and write at a level that would satisfy an employer. Many of these young people have now developed a range of tactics to conceal the fact that they do not have literacy and numeracy skills. We have seen the reluctance of many of these young people to come forward and make themselves available for this program. That is why the government has taken steps to encourage young people who exhibit these skills deficiencies to go on the program. As a result of those steps we are now seeing a greatly increased flow of young people into this excellent program, achieving the very excellent benefits available.The member for Dobell is not winning any credibility or any support with the crocodile tears he is now weeping as he pretends to have some concern for these young people. He and the Education Union have never endorsed the national literacy standard and they have never endorsed the assessment of young people against that standard—the very action which the Australian community knows will finally address the needs of these young people.Mr Lee interjecting—BT4Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMP—Victoria is one of the big participants in this and in fact, if any state has responded positively to putting into place the whole-of-school literacy policies that will achieve results, it is Victoria. So the interjections of the member for Dobell are once again totally incorrect and totally beside the point. The government is very proud of what it is doing for young people in this country. It is very confident that the book industry will benefit from the tax package we are putting forward and it is very confident that no young Australian in their family setting is going to be in any way disadvantaged by what we are doing. On the contrary, they will have opportunities opening up for them that they have not had up to this time.15:52:006011Sawford, Rod, MPMr SAWFORD3J4Port AdelaideALP00—This debate is about the detrimental effects on education of the revised Howard-Lees GST tax package. It needs to be placed in some sort of context with the government's and this minister's track record and credibility—I use that word interestingly in this debate—on education. Only then can you accurately describe the impact of this GST deal between the government and the Democrats. The third factor, which the minister himself reminded me of, is the views of the Democrats. Only two weeks ago, they were saying things like the following quotes from page 4 of the Australian on 18 May. Senator Stott Despoja said:If it's an unfair GST, then I won't lose any sleep having voted against it.Senator Murray said:There's no ground for compromise.Senator Bourne said:I don't think there's an awful lot of room to move.Senator Allison said:We have gone as far as we need to go.And here's a really good one from Senator Bartlett:We are pretty much at our bottom line on this already.On your bottom all right—how perfunctory. Going through the motions on your back is more like it.This is a debate about the further withdrawal of education opportunities for our young people, for our nation, and it is an indictment of the government and this minister's negative and cavalier attitude to education. This government and this minister ought to be roundly condemned. This minister makes up the third part of a trifecta of dumbing down education in this country. I know that, the opposition knows that, and of course many people on the back bench on the government side know it as well. We are not the only ones, Minister, who cringe when you get up in this House and mention the word `education'.We know the Prime Minister has no time for education. He proved that in a previous life when he refused to take a shadow education portfolio. We know the Treasurer has no time for education. In the 1996 budget he slashed and slashed education until he removed $2.7 billion from the education portfolio. In the 1999 budget he exercises a 20 per cent pea and thimble correction, but that convinces nobody. We know this minister has no time for education. His stewardship has been an unmitigated disaster for educational opportunity for an increasingly disconnected younger generation.This minister has some superb skills. They are not necessarily admirable skills. He is superb at stonewalling. He is superb at misinformation. He is superb at totally mesmerising the press gallery with such confusing detail that he escapes all accountability from the fourth estate. In fact, they run away from him in droves. No-one in that gallery has ever bothered to analyse what this minister actually says. In one second reading speech—listen to this very carefully—the minister explained more as less and less as more over and over again, and all in the same speech. He does not like hearing this. The minister's second reading speech on 26 November 1997 is an excellent example. He opened his speech with the following words:This government is one committed to expanding—more—the number of places in higher education, to improving—more—the resources of higher education.More is more! Good, terrific! `Well done, Minister,' your equivalent to Sir Humphrey could be saying. But in the next paragraph, in the next sentence, he explains he will do this with less money, $200 million less. So more is not more; it is actually less. He goes on in the same speech and says:Despite efficiency cuts—less—to the forward estimates, the total Commonwealth expenditure on higher education will remain higher—more. So now, more is not more; less is more. But do embarrassment or commonsense stop him there? No way. This minister has no glory, he has no shame, he has no love whatsoever of education. He just keeps rolling along. Further into the same speech he says:To spread the burden of fiscal restraint fairly, the Commonwealth has phased in the reductions—less—in the growth—more—in the amount of money for higher education.So less is more: is it, or isn't it? The next sentence says:On top of that, we have provided the opportunity for the sector to expand—more—and become less dependent—less—on Commonwealth money.More is less, or is it? Are you confused? You bet. No wonder the press gallery run away. That is obviously the strategy. In just a few examples in one speech, more is more, more is less, less is more, less is more again, but then of course, more is less. George Orwell's predictions about some politicians in his essay 51 years ago, `Politics and the English Language' actually had a thumbnail sketch of the member for Goldstein. He summed him up good and proper.The key measure of this government's or any government's success or failure in education expenditure is the percentage of GDP which education actually receives. In 1996, the percentage was 2.06 per cent. In the 1999 budget, it was 1.6 per cent, a massive 22.3 per cent cut. More is less: no, less is less. That is the story of education in this country. There is no escape from that. That is the real story, the only story. That is the truth. That is the context in which this debate should be held—massive cuts to education and a minister who simply defies credibility on any level whatsoever.On top of that, the Australian population now has to be subjected to the detrimental effects on education of the revised government-Democrat GST package. The GST which the Democrats have agreed to is a tax on books, clothing, private tuition, software, public transport and student union fees. This in itself places an enormous and a severe cost burden on students and parents and a massive administrative burden on schools, TAFEs and universities, forcing them to divert scarce resources from teaching—the real name of the game—to bookkeeping. On top of all this, there is a massive budget withdrawal of funds for education.The Australian Democrats in their campaign launch in September 1998, and as recently as 21 May this year, indicated their support for no GST on books. What do the Democrats stand up for? Obviously it is not education. Senator Meg Lees, in a remarkable interview with Fran Kelly on Radio National, pointed out that there is no tax or no cost for students on second-hand clothing. What a whack in the guts was that? And then Senator Lees expressed surprise at the attitude of students who protested at Democrat offices. The Democrats Deputy Leader, Senator Stott Despoja, is keen to distance herself from her colleagues' views but at least she will be able to make a decision—something sometimes quite foreign to Democrat senators.But the one that really takes the cake is the education spokesperson for the Democrats, Senator Lyn Allison. She has simply resorted to parroting the lines given to her by Minister Kemp. Not a great strategy, I would have thought, from the Democrats. We all know how credible the minister's lines are, don't we? Nudge-nudge, wink-wink. Senator Allison claimed in a press release that the real gain flowing from the GST is that the states will get more money. The Democrats obviously do not understand that under the original coalition GST the states did not get one extra dollar until the fourth year. The Democrats obviously do not understand that even with the Democrat GST any possible state benefit will take even longer. Did you explain that, Minister, to the Democrats?Miss Jackie Kelly interjecting—3J4Sawford, Rod, MPMr SAWFORD—You could not explain anything; why don't you keep quiet. The Democrats obviously do not understand that the government can cut back on Commonwealth specific purpose payments for schools at any time in the future. The Democrats obviously do not understand that giving extra money to people like Jeff Kennett and John Olsen, who seem pretty adept at closing schools and sacking teachers—didn't Kennett sack 8,000 teachers and close 300 schools in Victoria?—may not quite be the way to guarantee the future of Australian schools.The Democrats obviously do not understand education for they certainly do not understand the ramifications of their GST deal with the government. They have been done over well and truly. The GST package forged between the government and the Australian Democrats continues the downward slump of education in Australia and should be rightly condemned. No matter which vested interest in education is asked for comments—the students, the parents, the teachers, the AEU, the AVCC, the NTEU, the authors, the booksellers, the publishers—only one reply is forthcoming: outright and unequivocal condemnation.16:02:006013St Clair, Stuart, MPMr St CLAIR84BNew EnglandNP10—I take this opportunity in this very important debate to thank the Leader of the Australian Democrats and the Prime Minister for coming up with a tax reform deal that will benefit all Australians. We read so much about the fact that there was no need to change the tax system. We all realise—particularly those of us who have come into this place new—that Australia well and truly needs tax reform. The leadership shown in this place by the Prime Minister and by the leader of the Democrats, Senator Lees, is admirable, unlike the lack of leadership shown on the other side. The Labor Party for some reason has dealt itself out of the game. It has often been said in this place that it sits up in the grandstand and merely looks on as a spectator.As the member for Dobell would of course be aware, there are many hidden wholesale sales taxes in the present system that were put there, naturally enough, by the Labor Party. I was just looking at some headlines in the papers referring to the leadership of the Prime Minister and of the leader of the Democrats. The Sydney Morning Herald of 31 May says:The GST compromise between the Howard Government and the Australian Democrats represents a triumph for the Prime Minister.It goes on to say in regard to Senator Lees:By compromising and by accepting aspects of the deal that do not fit the Democrats' notion of what is absolutely right, the party provided a witness to the fact that—unlike the Labor Party—it was prepared, at last, to behave as a party rather than a collection of leftist interest groups.Therefore, it dealt itself into the game. The same article says:The significant loser from the GST deal is the Labor Party, specifically its leader, Mr Beazley. For three years Labor has ditched the great economic reforms of the Hawke-Keating governments for a leftist populism that is associated with its prized recruit, Mrs Cheryl Kernot.It always appears to be the case that the member for Dobell is merely representing the interests of the teachers unions and others he is beholden to. One of the things that appears to be lost in the debate—I hear this particularly in my electorate of New England when talking with teachers up there—is that the constitutional responsibility for public education rests with the state government. It has never since Federation rested with the Commonwealth government. It is a state government responsibility. It is something that really needs to come out. When I was talking to people at one of the schools in my electorate, I noticed a fax from the New South Wales Teachers Federation dated 12 May talking about the federal budget. The last line of the fax says:A quality public education system must be well funded. Politicians must be held accountable.The New South Wales Teachers Federation is saying, `Let's look at the politicians in the states to make sure they accept their responsibility.'Let us also get on to the whole question of hidden tax, and I was just listening to all the speakers that have spoken. Bus travel in regional and rural Australia—we are going to get substantial benefits in the reduction of diesel inputs, for example. How many of us have our children go to school on country buses?83OHULLMrs Hull—Most of us.84BSt Clair, Stuart, MPMr St CLAIR—And most of us travel vast distances to make sure of a seat. We are going to save on tyres for our buses, thank goodness, so again there is going to be a major benefit. Let us look for a moment at the Labor Party's record.834LAWLERMr Lawler—That doesn't take long.84BSt Clair, Stuart, MPMr St CLAIR—My colleague the member for Parkes is quite right. Labor failed to improve educational standards. After 13 years, as the minister has said, 30 per cent of school students failed to meet minimum acceptable literacy and numeracy standards. That is an amazing figure.Labor's unfair school funding policy for non-government schools based on an ERI disadvantaged many schools serving low income communities. In my electorate alone, as there is in most country electorates, I have about 100 schools, and as you go about them you realise what damage was done to literacy. Labor neglected the 70 per cent of school leavers who do not go from school to university. Labor neglected the vocational education and training needs of young Australians. They promoted higher education at the expense of vocational education. I have four sons; two of them are tradesmen because they worked to come out as tradesmen. We have a lack of qualified tradesmen in Australia, particularly in rural Australia, because the focus got off these particular things. Labor's youth dole policy encouraged young people to drop out of school and then go on the dole without genuine prospects of gaining employment or improving their quality of life. Under Labor little progress was made in raising the standards of education for our indigenous people.The Labor Party supports a system which imposes a 22 per cent tax on many of the items that families have to pay for in the course of mounting their children's education. Many education related goods currently have a hidden tax. I quote the Courier-Mail headline of Tuesday: `Beazley the Invisible Spender.' In these hidden taxes is the 22 per cent wholesale sales tax that parents are already paying. They are paying it on scissors, crayons, drawing pads, computer disks, oil paints, protractors, post-it notes, envelopes, computers, diaries, satchels, glues, pastes and manila folders. The list goes on and on: sticky tape, exercise books, compasses, drawing charcoals and dividers—quite amazing.Let us look at our commitment to education on this side of the House. Under the coalition, Australian schools will receive $4,500 million in 1999, an increase of nearly $350 million over last year. In the year 2000 government schools will receive from the Commonwealth $382 million more than they received under Labor's last year. The 1999-2000 budget announces funding for the 1998 election commitments, and all those election promises have been met by this government. In the 1999-2000 budget there is $47 million for strategies to improve literacy and numeracy in the middle years; $84 million to support the national literacy and numeracy plan; $90 million for the national Asian languages and studies in Australia schools strategy; $10½ million in additional funding for the schools component of the Tough on Drugs strategy; $77.7 million for quality teacher programming, which we desperately need; and $19.6 million to increase assistance under the isolated children's scheme's basic boarding allowance. The important thing is this: let us look at Labor's contribution. They are out of touch, they are out of date, they are irrelevant and they are out of the game.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The discussion is concluded.Miscellaneous601516:13:006015Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—On behalf of the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation, I move:That:(1) The House of Representatives:(a) welcomes the public launch today of a draft document for reconciliation by the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation and congratulates the Council on its efforts;(b) indicates support for the Australia-wide consultations on the draft document for reconciliation;(c) notes that this consultation process will culminate in an event in May 2000 being organised by the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation to launch the Council's final proposals for a national document for reconciliation;(d) commends the consultation process and calls on its Members to take active steps to encourage all Australians to participate in the consultations, including local governments, State and Territory governments, schools, businesses, and community organisations and groups; and(e) agrees that a successful May 2000 reconciliation event, which attracts broad community participation and support, will make a significant contribution to advancing national reconciliation; and(2) A message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution.I think it entirely appropriate that, on the day that the draft of the reconciliation document has been released for a process of public comment, I should sponsor on behalf of the government and, I understand—in terms of the motion, that is—with the support of the opposition, a motion which welcomes the publication of the document today, commends to the people of Australia the consultation process that will now be undertaken, notes the holding of a significant event in the year 2000 and generally encourages a positive, forward-looking approach to the issue of reconciliation. I do not pretend that on every aspect of this issue there can be unanimous agreement within the parliament but I do believe, in so far as the broad goals of reconciliation are concerned, there is common goodwill towards achieving effective reconciliation across the political divide. That is why the government remains very strongly committed to the process and that is why this motion is brought today.I have said on earlier occasions that the objectives of reconciliation are really threefold: there must be a shared commitment to raising the living standards and broadening the opportunities available to indigenous Australians, who are still amongst the most disadvantaged within our society; there must be a realistic acknowledgment of our interrelated history; and there must be a mutual acceptance of the importance of working together to respect and appreciate our differences and to ensure that this does not prevent us from sharing the future as Australians. The reconciliation process, in the view of the government, must focus on the future in a positive and principled fashion. It is for that reason that, in the time it has been in office, this government has focused very heavily on making provision for policies which produce better outcomes for the indigenous people of this country.The recent announcement of $115 million for an indigenous employment strategy was made bearing in mind that the unemployment rate of 23 per cent amongst indigenous Australians is three times the average for the rest of the community. I am very pleased that within that strategy is the establishment of a corporate leaders program to improve employment prospects for indigenous people.Only last night many of us attended the annual dinner of the Mining Industry Council here in this building. The newly elected chairman of the Mining Industry Council, Mr David Stewart, spoke very positively of the attitude of his industry towards greater support of indigenous people and greater acknowledgment of the need for greater cooperation between the broad community and the indigenous people of Australia. I made the comment in my speech to the dinner that some of the many fine initiatives of companies within the mining industry were perhaps not as widely known and as widely appreciated as they ought to be.In the recent budget the government provided funding of $11.8 million for better access to primary health care services. We are establishing a network of 35 remote area health centres to address the significant health problems of remote communities. There is $41.2 million for the ATSIC-Army program, which will provide basic infrastructure to remote communities and skills transfers to indigenous people. This program, which is an outstanding example of practical cooperation between the Australian Army and ATSIC, arose directly from an initiative of two members of the Council for Reconciliation, Mr Ray Martin and Mr Robert de Crespigny, who some two years ago came to me and suggested that what was needed, amongst many things, to drive home the practical goals of reconciliation was an attempt to address practical areas of disadvantage, and none is more profound than the lack of adequate clean running water in many indigenous communities of Australia.I am very pleased to say that the provision for that program has won universal support within the Australian community, and not least amongst those members of the Australian Defence Force who have participated in it. One of the more encouraging experiences I have had in my contact with indigenous communities was to be briefed on a visit to one community by members of the Australian Defence Force on this particular program and to hear first-hand what a great experience the members of the Army found this commitment to be.There are significant increases in funding for indigenous education. For example, in the recent budget there is an increase of $16 million to the indigenous education strategy to improve literacy and numeracy competencies to increase school attendance levels.I have said on many occasions, and the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, Senator Herron, has said on numerous occasions, that the key to the removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander disadvantage within the Australian community is to increase economic independence and through that to lift indigenous people out of the cycle of welfare dependency. It is very interesting to note that Mr Noel Pearson, one of the better known indigenous leaders and a person who has not always been complimentary about the policies of the government I lead and a person who would not necessarily for a moment share all the views I hold on indigenous affairs—and that I frankly acknowledge—has in recent weeks drawn attention to the lethal character for the long-term benefit of the indigenous people of this country of continued welfare dependency. That is a message for the entire Australian community. None of us should imagine that it is a message which is confined exclusively to the indigenous people of Australia.There are many areas of legitimate debate about the process of reconciliation. As I said at the commencement of my remarks, there are areas where the government and the opposition will disagree and where we are unlikely to ever agree. But there are many areas where we do all agree. We agree on the objective of reconciliation. We agree that this country's fabric will be greatly enhanced if a successful process of reconciliation can be achieved. We agree that as a group the indigenous people of this country remain the most disadvantaged of any group within the Australian community. We agree that part of the process of achieving effective reconciliation is to improve the provision of education, housing, employment and health facilities amongst the indigenous people of this country. We all agree with the need to focus very much on a cooperative and positive future level of cooperation between all sections of the Australian community.It is in the belief that, despite the differences we will inevitably have on aspects of indigenous policy, there are many areas of common ground between the government and the opposition and because the aspirations and the spirit of the motion put forward can be supported by all sides of this parliament I am happy to move this motion.In concluding my remarks, on behalf of the government we do appreciate the industry and the work of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation. I want to record the government's thanks to Mrs Evelyn Scott, the chairman of the council, and to all the other members of the council. The debates are vigorous, the views expressed are varied. I do not underestimate the difficulty of achieving agreement within the Australian community on the words of the document. None of us should be in any doubt about it.I have read the document and there are many sentiments in it that I readily embrace and I am sure all Australians will readily embrace. Equally, there are things in the document that I believe, the government believes and I think many Australians believe could be expressed in a different fashion and addressed in a different way. But that is the natural process of consultation and response about a document of this kind. It is unreal to imagine that anybody could pick it up and give 100 per cent assent to it without debate, but I do commend to all Australians of goodwill—those who believe in a realistic process of reconciliation—a positive involvement in the process of consultation. The government and I certainly hope that out of this can come a proper basis for moving forward, recognising that it will be difficult but nonetheless recognising the immense feeling of goodwill of all Australians towards achieving that objective.16:23:006017Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—I support the motion and welcome this document, the draft declaration for reconciliation, on behalf of the opposition. We welcome it for two reasons. We welcome it, firstly, because we believe real reconciliation between indigenous and non-indigenous Australia is an absolute national priority as we approach the end of our first century of nationhood. This document provides an opportunity for discussion among all Australians and, most importantly, seeks the input of indigenous Australians on an issue of vital importance both to them and to the nation. I look forward to the outcomes of the consultation process with the Australian people. We also welcome this draft declaration because it shows that, whatever the foot-dragging of Australia's national government on the issue of reconciliation, there remain people with patience, dignity and quiet hope who continue to push the process of reconciliation forward. Most of us in this place understand the hard work of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation and its chairperson, Evelyn Scott, that has gone into building support within the community for reconciliation and we pay tribute to the council here today. The draft declaration speaks of a journey for all Australians, a journey beginning with learning the shared history of indigenous and non-indigenous Australia, and enriching the understanding between Australians. It also speaks of strategies to advance reconciliation, to work towards economic independence and achieve better outcomes in health, education, employment, housing, law and justice.We have recently seen some positive initiatives in these areas from the government. They were welcomed by us at the time they were announced and I repeat that endorsement today. But, ultimately, as just about everyone in this place must know, real reconciliation is not a matter of documents. It is a matter of the human heart. Reading between the lines of this document you cannot fail to be impressed by the sense of patient and dignified dedication to a cause, and the preparedness always to put disappointments aside and strive to move forward. I think the preamble in the document represents that. I did rather hope that that was the document we would sign off on and we would confine our discussion to the strategies. I hope that remains the case after these deliberations today.The best example of this is the form of words in this document for that most important of contributions to reconciliation: an apology to those wronged by past government policies, a genuine apology to the stolen generations of Aboriginal children. I think these words could have included a more direct statement of sorrow and apology. The Prime Minister said there might be a bit of disagreement on words, but there could have been such a statement. Nevertheless, the govern ment have done very well indeed with the words they have there.Let us not forget, on that matter of an apology, that we are dealing with officially sanctioned acts and this parliament is an official body. We need that apology for no other reason than to avoid the gathering national nightmare of all the heart-rending cases now proceeding through the courts of this land, costing millions of dollars, of which precious little goes to the actual victims—$6 million, so far, in trying to prevent these cases coming forward and a Treasury risk, placed in the Treasury papers associated with the budget, identifying as a potential outcome in this area some hundreds of millions of dollars. The opportunity is still there in the future in the quiet dignity of this draft declaration, in the way in which it extends the hand of indigenous Australia, to those who stand in the way of reconciliation, with these words:Our nation must have the courage to own the truth, to heal the wounds of its past so that we can move on together at peace with ourselves, and so we take this step. As one part of the nation expresses its sorrow and profoundly regrets the injustices of the past, so the other part accepts the apology and forgives.Those are magnificent words. I could have strengthened them a bit, but I could not have matched them in a literary sense and nor could any of us match the drafting in the document in that sense at all. Of course, I wish the language of this subtlety and ingeniousness was not necessary. The only thing wrong with it is that it was necessary in the first place because, as legislators, we all know this: all the canards have long since disappeared. There is no obstacle to an apology from the government speaking for governments past but far more importantly for governments to come. The obstacles are ones of individuals within the government alone. That is why we in the opposition say again today that it is time for the Prime Minister to allow the parliament to say sorry. If it is appropriate for this Prime Minister to open the Olympics on behalf of all of us, then it is only right for him to deliver a meaningful, thoughtful and sincere apology in this place speaking to such a motion.If personally uncomfortable, he need not be, because an apology from him in these circumstances would in fact be one from all of us. These last three years have not been glorious years in our national history, and it is within the Prime Minister's gift to undo so much of that ill feeling with one stroke, and we urge him to do it. He should know that the day he does he will have me and all of my party and all our combined energies 100 per cent behind him. Then we can resume the strides we have made in the past on reconciliation. Then we could still get there by 2001. And then we would all have something to be very genuinely proud of.16:30:006019Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—I address this motion in the role I have as the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation. It is important to note that this parliament did unanimously vote in 1991 to establish the Council for Reconciliation. It had cross-party support. The council has, of course, undertaken its task to this point in time, and it is appropriate for parliament to provide recognition and support for the council in its work. The council has invited the parliament to consider in this formal motion support for the consultation process which it has initiated.The council itself recognises that the document is one that might well be changed and modified as a result of the consultative process which it is undertaking. I think it is important to recognise that any document that is going to flow from the work of the council and from the consultative process itself is one that should promote unity amongst us, and that ought to be one of the very important considerations for the council and for the nation. There will be considerable discussion about the words in the draft document and the proposed national strategies. This debate, and fostering of it and encouraging it, should be the focus of the parliament and the community at this point in time. Obviously the government will express its views to the council. We will participate in the public debate, but we want to do so in a positive and a constructive way.I would like to commend to members the document that is being circulated by the council. This is the draft document that has been prepared for discussion. There is detail there about the way in which you can assist your constituents and others who might be interested in the subject to contribute very positively. The overarching role of the council is to promote the process of reconciliation between indigenous Australians and the wider community. If it is going to fulfil that mandate, it needs to take the opportunity to consult with all the people of Australia and to assist them in making their views known. That process can be undertaken in a very open and constructive way, and I would like to urge colleagues to be involved in supporting the council in that task. I would certainly like to urge colleagues to ensure that the council is supported in its efforts to produce a document that will, as I say, be unifying in the way in which it is seen.One of the aspects that have been important to me as minister assisting the Prime Minister is to see the extent to which the Australian community as a whole are taking an interest in the council's work. I have had the opportunity of meeting with many groups in various states of Australia and talking to them about their aspirations. There are obviously important parts of our Australian community that have not yet been engaged in this process, and I think that is why this consultative process is going to be very important at this time.It is also important to note that the council has been encouraging partnerships to address indigenous disadvantage. We have been very supportive of those partnerships. I had the opportunity in Parliament House earlier this week to launch, on behalf of the council, Partnerships in Reconciliation: It's Up to Us, which sets out examples where Australian people are undertaking practical projects to advance the reconciliation process. At that launch I was particularly impressed with the representative of the Gumala Aboriginal Corporation, Mr Charles Smith, as well as the representative of Hamersley Iron, Mr Jeremy van de Bund. The partnership between the people represented by each of those organisations and those bodies themselves in relation to the Marandoo mining project in the Pilbara is providing important employment and training opportunities for Aboriginal people in the spirit of cooperation and alliance. It is these types of partnerships that can advance the reconciliation process—the same sort of work we have seen being undertaken by the Australian Council of Local Government Associations in the partnerships approach that they are taking.I also want to say that the government strongly notes Aboriginal disadvantage, and it is in that context that we have been determined to improve areas of disadvantage in the way in which the Prime Minister outlined in his comments today. This is an important time for us to be involved in an honest and forthright way in the discussion that will take place. I believe that the outcome—that is, the document that will be proposed ultimately by the council—will be improved with the widest possible contribution by the Australian community as a whole.16:36:006020Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM4T4BanksALP00—I rise to support the motion before the House. Just over 100 years ago, conventions were held and a document was drafted which, except for a few negative references, all but ignored the original inhabitants and owners of our land. Indigenous Australians were excluded from the process. That document eventually became our Constitution. While the negative references have been removed, the Australian Constitution as amended still does not reflect the rich and proud history of our indigenous peoples. We need to learn from the mistakes of the past, not repeat them. Lack of consultation with Australia's indigenous people and lack of negotiation must be left in the history books and never repeated in the present or in the future. Indigenous Australians must have secure, ongoing and full input into the draft document that is now before us. They must have a place at the table. There must be a shared sense of ownership, a sense that both sides have contributed and will continue to contribute in the national effort for reconciliation. As shadow minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs, I am keen to hear the views of indigenous people on the draft document. Now is a time for listening. Now is not a time for setting one's personal views in concrete. There must be negotiation and there may need to be compromise, but this can only work if both sides agree to respect each other's opinions. There is a need to listen to others' points of view and to accommodate both sides.Now that the draft document has entered the public consultation process, it is time for the politicians to take a step back, to listen and to let the people take over. Reconciliation has become a grassroots movement. Now is the time for the grassroots to have an input into this document. This document needs to be owned by the people, not by the politicians. This consultation, this negotiation, this partnership between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians is the way forward. We made mistakes in the past because we were not listening. We thought we knew what was best for indigenous Australians. We were wrong. This draft document is an acknowledgment that that approach was a mistake.The reconciliation process is about acknowledgment of, and respect for, the culture of our first Australians. It is about respect for the enduring cultures of indigenous and non-indigenous Australians. If we cannot respect the culture of our first Australians, how can we respect the cultures of our later arrivals? It is about us fully and freely accepting and recognising the mistakes of the past, making efforts towards a better future and going about it with a generosity of spirit. It is about indigenous Australians accepting our regret and working with us so that we can all share the future equally. This requires generosity on their part, which I believe is there in abundance.This parliament has recognised its respect for the often harsh history of indigenous Australians by flying the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander flags, along with the national flag, at the three entrances to Parliament House and near the entry of the two chambers during Reconciliation Week. I understand that these indigenous flags will also be flown during NAIDOC Week this year. I would like to congratulate you, Mr Speaker, and the President of the Senate for carrying out the initiative of Speaker Sinclair to fly these flags. This is an important symbol. It is a visual reminder to us during Reconciliation Week and NAIDOC Week that we cannot go back to the past and we must work together for a shared future. It is a reminder of the pain and suffering caused to indigenous people and its enduring consequences. It progresses the process of reconciliation.In the same vein, a document of reconciliation can be a visual reminder of the mistakes of the past. But it can also be a visual reminder that we must all make efforts in the present so that our future is shared, so that the potential of our land is accessible to all and so that all Australians, both indigenous and non-indigenous, have the right to seek their own aspirations. This draft document has such potential, and I look forward to hearing ideas from all sides during the public consultation process.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills6021s2016021Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.6021Bill (on motion by Miss Jackie Kelly)—by leave—read a third time.Bills6021Message received from the Governor-General reported informing the House of assent to the following bill: Wool International Privatisation Bill 1999 Bills6021r8076021Debate resumed.16:43:006021Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRISFI4NewcastleALP00—The budget is the essence of a government's policies, its strategies and its approach to the Australian community. I note in this budget, as in last year's budget, the increase in PAYE personal tax is growing at a much faster rate than inflation and certainly at a much faster rate than the increase in personal non-PAYE tax. I think the fact that that has been maintained throughout the life of this government gives a very good insight into its policies.It is also of interest to note that in recent days government members and ministers have been asking for the opposition to indicate a policy. This is the same bunch that dumped on the public something like 65 policies in three weeks in 1996. These are the people who produced something like 12 kilograms of paper which they then expected people to vote on. Having won an election, they then decided that some were core promises and some were not. So they have some audacity to start demanding policies on taxation when they well know the majority of the community and the voters voted against their tax policies and voted for ours.This afternoon I want to speak about the matter of student visas. I was recently a member of a delegation to Norway on a bilateral exchange with the Norwegian parliament. At the outset I want to express my appreciation for the hospitality of our hosts, the Norwegian parliament, and for the professional support provided by our staff and the embassy staff from Stockholm. When I first arrived I asked a few questions regarding Norwegian students. Members may not be aware, but there is a substantial number of students in Australia from Norway. I was surprised to find that the embassy staff were not particularly familiar with the information and nowhere on our agenda were we actually talking to the Norwegian parliament about the student exchange that is taking place.The embassy was able, however, to invite to a reception on our last night some representatives from the agency that actually processes Norwegian students. I was able to meet with a representative of the International Education Centre, who act as agents for Newcastle University. I was aware that at my university there were a substantial number of Norwegian students across a range of faculties, and one which I thought was particularly interesting was medicine. The fact that Norwegian doctors are being trained in Australia is not a commonly understood issue, but it has great ramifications in terms of our operations within the world. I took time out of the official program the following day to visit that centre and to meet with the representatives because I was curious. I knew the market was growing and I wanted to find out how it was working. I must confess that I was very disappointed at what I learned.I should point out, firstly, that Norway currently exports about 11,000 students. It is a quite deliberate government policy based on the fact that they think it is cheaper to do that than to build more universities. They also think that the spread of education across the globe is in their national interest. Of those 11,000, at the moment about 1,000 apparently come to Australia. Mind you, it is hard to find out. I then discovered that the embassy in Stockholm was not very aware of the situation because they have no contact with them. There used to be embassy staff attached to student visas out of Scandinavia, but that staff position was wiped out in June 1998, I think, or certainly a year or two ago. So there is no official contact between the students from Norway and the embassy that looks after Norway.I then discovered that the fees that we charge students are extremely high. For example, for Australia the fee is $300 for a student visa. Of the equivalent countries, the next dearest is New Zealand at $A185. The USA charges $A70 and Canada charges $A130. In other words, we charge something like four times the price of the American visas and more than twice the price charged by Canada. Of course, the travel costs to those two countries are also much cheaper than to Australia. The people I spoke to both there and in other parts of Oslo made it very clear to me that Norwegian students like to come to Australia. Actually, they see it as a great place to be educated. We have a great reputation in terms of our skills and our quality, but we have some obstacles in terms of our distance and now, clearly, in terms of our price.I gather that there are probably four or more agents that handle students in the Scandinavian countries. In recent years the processing of visas was outsourced to agents. But they do not get paid by the government. So the government collects the $300—actually at the moment it is $285, to be precise; about to go to $290 in July—but the agents do all the work. Of course, the agents are then required to charge for that. So the Norwegian student is required to pay another $60 for the form filling and all the processing. The agent also has costs involved in the shipment of material backwards and forwards to Bonn, as well as those involved in actually dealing with the student.The agents in Scandinavia wrote a letter to the embassy back in March, addressed to Ms Steen, pointing out a number of problems. There are two kinds of problems: one kind is a government policy problem; one kind is operational. The letter says:Overall we are pleased with the follow up and contacts we have at DIMA, and appreciate the working relationship we have with the individual staff members.So clearly the agents are saying that their work with the Immigration officers and DETYA officers in Bonn are very successful at a personal level. The problem is that the system stinks. It stinks for a number of reasons. The first is that this has become a money exercise. If you look at the changes in the visa fees, in October 1996 the visa fee was increased from $145 to $250—nothing to do with extra costs or cost recovery; simply as a revenue measure. It was later increased by another $30, which is some kind of levy for DETYA that is somehow supposed to provide students with something about education in Australia. I was in the centre. The material I saw was invariably from the univer sities themselves and from the agents. I saw no sign of DETYA being in any way active and certainly nothing to justify the $30 extra that students are paying. This is a government that is against compulsory unionism at universities, but there is a compulsory levy on the students to pay DETYA $30 per visa for doing nothing. I find that a bit rich. Of course, the fees went up in July of last year by $5, and they will go up by another $5 in July of this year.Another aspect of the problem that students from Norway who want to come to Australia have is that we have a limited panel of doctors. A government that is against restrictive trade practices allows only three doctors to do medical clearances for students coming to Australia. We must remember that it is a very tight cycle from the time a student makes up their mind which country to go to, to the time things actually happen. The agents have asked for one of the doctors in Norway to be removed because they are inaccessible—they do not like seeing students—so actually there will be only two. Currently, 1,000 students a year apply, which means that there is a very large volume across a very short time frame and only two doctors.As I said, this is a government that is against restrictive trade practices but it operates a closed shop with doctors in Oslo. It is even more of a closed shop than it pretends it is. The agents have asked for an increase in the number of doctors on that panel who can actually do medical assessments for these students—and rightly so. Why wouldn't the number be increased? The other thing is that our medicals are very expensive. The total cost to students for all the medical charges that are involved is about $200. That is not a government levy; the charge is so high because of the way the government handles it.Like most members, I am a bit surprised by the fact that Europeans see Australia as a place to be educated, but it is increasingly the norm. Our source markets for education are traditionally Asia, the Pacific, and parts of Africa perhaps—particularly through AusAID programs and the like.The Norwegian government pay their students to come here. The fact that the Norwegian government are currently discussing the possibility of increasing the payment to students who come to Australia was not known to the Australian government. When I raised this with our officials they were not aware of it.This takes on a significance when you realise that our exports to Norway are about $140 million a year. It is reasonable to assume that the 1,000 students who are here at the moment spend about $20,000 on their student fees, their rent and their living costs. That is the equivalent of $20 million, which is about one-seventh of our total exports to Norway. But we have no measurement of it—certainly a figure was not available when we were in Oslo. Education is probably our single biggest trade item. The ferries that we have just sold may be bigger, but as a single trade item in our ongoing trade with, and exports to, Norway education is one of the biggest items. It has the potential to grow enormously. It has the potential to double, treble and quadruple if we make it a bit more straightforward, get rid of some of the log jams or the bottlenecks in the processing system and make the fees a bit more in tune.If the government has given the responsibility for the processing work to the agents, then why not let the agents collect part of the fees? Why does the government charge the same fees as if it were doing the work itself? Norwegian students are generating hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in visa fees for very little work. Effectively, the work consists of rubber-stamping in Bonn—work that is paid for by the students.The students do not simply provide a source of revenue—they do provide a source of revenue, and a very important source—they also provide a source of ongoing trade. We know from the British experience and the American experience that those who educate the youth of a country, particularly at the higher education levels, maintain a commercial relationship with that country for decades ahead. We have had a similar experience ourselves with Malaysia and with Singapore: when the students go back to their countries they maintain a relationship with Australia, and it builds a bridge for future trade.For the first time we are exporting back to Europe students who know Australia, think well of it and want to come back here. I met a number of people who had actually graduated in Australia. In fact, our last meeting in Norway was with the Minister for Industry, and one of her staff had been a student at Griffith University. The staff member wanted to come back to do some postgraduate work here, and was one of the ones who were campaigning for an increase in fees because the cost differential between fares and other things between Europe and Australia makes it harder to do that.The ongoing trade relationship between our countries is vastly augmented when our trading partner includes a body of graduates of Australian universities. They speak the language, they know our culture, they know that we do things properly and they know that we are a non-corrupt, law-abiding community. All the patterns we need for building good trade relationships are based on those things, and we are making it more difficult. What a short-sighted view: rip them off now, rip the dollars off them, at a long-term cost. Our competitors in this market are doing the opposite. Their fees are lower, their services are faster and they are campaigning and attracting students.Our ambassador did not even know it was happening because it is no longer his responsibility. The embassy in Germany now looks after the visas for all Scandinavian students. If there were only 40 or 50 it would be fine, but the Norwegians have been trumpeting for years that they want to source their education around the world. We have not responded to that, other than increase our fees. We are increasing them yet again. We are going to have a new fee. If, when they come here, students want to change their institution it will cost $120 and require a new application fee. When students apply to do part-time or casual work it will cost them $50. We simply see them as a source of government revenue, not as a source of national wealth—and there is a big difference.As I said earlier, in a budget a government outlays its visions and its understanding of where it thinks the country is going. In this current budget we see an increase in revenue to government from student visas of $4.1 million. The amount is highlighted as extra revenue. What it does not say is that that is $4.1 million worth of barriers to accessing our markets. Our universities are crying out for government understanding and support in attracting and servicing students. The government sees a simple short-term revenue gain.I understand that there has been a meeting between officials and the agents, probably in May. It was asked for back in March, mind you, and May is the time when the students have virtually all finished. But I do not see that there is much joy coming out of it, because the officials really have no choice. They are simply putting into operation government policy.It is the government that is wrong and not the department. This department has been downsized and chopped to pieces in the last three years. We have had offices closed all over the country here, we have had staff withdrawn from all over the world, and yet the volumes and workloads in many areas are going up. Our officials are being driven mad trying to cope with the demand with insufficient resources. In this area, firstly the cutting-back in staff has caused part of the problem, but so also has the outsourcing to people to transfer the costs back to the students, yet again. They are already paying the $300. You would think that would cover the processing costs, but nor is it going to the agent, who has to charge again because they are out of pocket substantially. You would think that in a trade situation, when a delegation goes to a country of this nature where students are a major part of our trade pattern, we would actually be talking about it and discussing it, but no: because we have pulled the resources out of Stockholm and because the ambassador who services Norway is not part of the loop, it is not on any agendas.I had a phone call this week from a student at Newcastle whose father is a parliamentarian in Norway. I have met him at a function. I will be seeing her in the next few weeks. I think this is a tremendous thing. He was very proud of her. He wanted to talk about the fact that his daughter was at Newcastle University and about how happy she was, how successful that was, and how many of her friends wanted to go to Australia. In other words, here we have people crying out for encouragement to actually come here, spend their money here and become part of our future trading and ongoing communication network, and yet we are making it more and more difficult—for a short-term dollar.Universities have had a pretty tough time with this government, and it is even tougher than it needs to be. There is no need for the obstacles that I found in Oslo. There is no future in having it that way. We are turning students away in droves because the process is too uncertain. It takes quite a while, it is expensive and it is uncertain. In the end they might not get through it all in time, and so they go somewhere cheaper and safer. Even though they want come here, they are ending up in America, Canada or Germany because they know that they will get their processes through within their own time frame.The simple matter of the role of agents we can all understand and agree with. The universities are out there doing what they can. Looking at the material available in Oslo for intending students, I was extremely impressed. I was impressed with the enthusiasm and the support from the Norwegian staff. As I indicated earlier, one of the staff was actually a Newcastle graduate, an Australian citizen who is working in Oslo.Their enthusiasm and support for Australia as a destination was enormous. I do not doubt that they persuade a lot of students to actually come here. But I tell you what: their frustration with what they have to administer was equally enormous. They found it incredibly difficult to be positive about a country that they felt so supportive of.This budget surplus, the increases in revenue generated, is being generated partly by things like this. It might be quick, easy money now but it is awfully bad policy. The government should rethink how it treats students, particularly those from European countries, because they are a source of future revenue and future trade, much more than are student visas fees. (Time expired)17:03:006025Somlyay, Alex, MPMr SOMLYAYZT4FairfaxLP10—It is my pleasure to rise on the appropriation bills. This is the 10th budget I have had the privilege of examining since my election in 1990. It is by far the best budget in my time in parliament. It has many more initiatives than I can recall in any other budget. I congratulate the Prime Minister and the Treasurer on this milestone achievement. The Treasurer was able to produce this budget because of his single-minded discipline of the nation's finances and his determination to do what all Australians know is right for Australia.I know that members opposite have a secret admiration for the Treasurer and this government for having the determination and the dedication to deliver this result at a time when the rest of the world is not performing. When Asia was growing at rates of up to 12 per cent, Treasurer Keating put Australia into recession. In contrast, at a time when Asia went into recession, Treasurer Costello and the Howard government produced the best growth rates in the OECD.This budget builds on the hard work of the three previous years and the three previous Howard-Costello budgets. It is necessary to remind everyone of the difficult task this government faced three short years ago and of our difficult starting position. We on this side of the House will never let the Australian people forget the Beazley black hole—the $10.3 billion deficit that the Treasurer was left with—and, on top of that, the legacy of $70 billion of public debt that was left behind by Labor.To the ordinary person in the street we may ask, `What is the significance of the budget? In fact, what is the budget?' The budget sets out the government's plans and intentions for both expenditure and revenue for the following year. The government puts on the table its economic predictions and its subsequent credibility.I have never been a union official like members on the other side, so I cannot comment on how they run their financial affairs. I will leave that to members opposite. But I can comment on what the books mean in the private sector and in government. The Commonwealth budget is very similar to the accounts in the corporate sector. Companies produce accounts of their performance at the annual general meeting of shareholders. The directors and executives of companies are judged on the performance of the company by the shareholders. Shareholders must be told, by law, of the performance of the company.A significant issue which has been largely ignored by public commentators and members opposite—although I think the Treasurer referred to it today—is that for the first time the federal budget and the accounts of the Commonwealth have been presented on an accrual basis. I intend to say a few words about that because it is a milestone in Commonwealth budgeting. Each agency must take into account, under accrual accounting, assets and liabilities. The Commonwealth's accounting system used to be cash based, and therefore there were two golden rules in agencies and departments in the budget process. Rule No. 1 was to always inflate your budget bids, because Treasury and the Department of Finance never gave you what you asked for and they expected you to inflate your bid. Rule No. 2 was to make sure you spent every cent before 30 June—the `use it before you lose it' principle. The move to accrual accounting will abolish that perception and syndrome, and bring with it to the public sector many of the efficiencies of the private sector, whose accounts are accrual based.Much of next year's budget is decided in this year's budget through the forward estimates, which allow programs to have continuity of funding and certainty and allows agencies to plan their resource allocation on a medium- to long-term basis. The Treasurer said in his budget speech—I think, with far too much modesty:This budget is presented on an accrual basis for the first time. It allows us to properly budget for future expenditures.He went on to say:This puts Australia at the forefront of transparency in the conduct of fiscal policy.He also said, justifiably and proudly, that Australia's public finances are reported and presented on a world-class basis and that our Charter of Budget Honesty is now advocated internationally as a model for other countries.Many of the public sector reforms came about through the work of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts of which I was a member from 1990 through to 1997, and I chaired that committee in 1996 and 1997. These reforms give managers the tools to get the job done. The JCPA examined—and made recommendations for change to—the legislative, policy and administrative frameworks which have guided the commercialisation of many Commonwealth activities. It examined and reported on the Commonwealth's new financial management and accountability legislation. It examined the introduction of accrual reporting in Commonwealth agencies and recommended the adoption of a fully integrated accrual reporting, management and budgeting framework, including the preparation of whole of government financial reports. It developed a new legislative framework to enhance the independence of the Commonwealth Auditor-General.In deliberating on all of these matters we on that committee were not driven by a desire to keep up with national or international developments in accounting principles or practices, or by a wish to be at the forefront of public sector management theorising, but by more pragmatic considerations, such as: how can these tools be used to help produce better government—that is, more effective, more efficient and a more accountable government?Our conclusions and recommendations were formed in each case by consideration of what would be the most useful result for the Commonwealth, for its agencies and ultimately for the community. In the case of accrual based financial reporting, I must say that it did not take long for the JCPA—and I notice the parliamentary secretary at the table, who was also a member of that committee—to become a strong advocate for reform. It became clear to us in our examination of public sector commercialisation that ready access to relevant and complete financial information was crucial for public sector managers if they were to successfully adopt some of the best practices of the commercial world in the public sector environment.It was said to the committee on many occasions that no-one can compete without knowing where they have come from, where they are now and where they are headed. In a financial sense, this means that access to reliable, timely and complete information about the use being made of all resources, not just cash, is essential.I will not spend a lot of time recounting what I see as the advantages of accrual based financial information over the sort of information available under a cash focused system. But I would like to make the point that, potentially, the advantages are available to all interested parties: to governments, ministers and public sector managers seeking to systematically plan, monitor and report the full costs of outcomes and outputs; and to parliament, commentators and the community seeking a more complete understanding of how public resources are being used.In August 1995, prompted by a report from the Commonwealth Auditor-General entitled Accrual reporting: are agencies ready?, the JCPA presented a report to parliament which contained an assessment of what further action was needed to embed an accrual culture in the Australian Public Service. The report, called Accrual accounting—a culture change, concluded that the government needed to set new targets beyond accrual reporting and that it should `articulate a clear vision for the future of financial reporting in the Commonwealth, incorporating whole of government reporting, accrual management and, possibly, accrual based budgeting.' The JCPA sought to maintain the reform momentum in a follow-up report entitled Financial reporting for the Commonwealth—towards greater transparency and accountability, which was tabled in November 1995.The next step occurred in March 1996, when the Howard government established the National Commission of Audit, which was charged with various responsibilities, including: to prepare a whole of government balance sheet for the Commonwealth on an accruals basis; and to advise on matters which might be included in a new financial reporting regime—which by then had become known as the Charter of Budget Honesty. The Commission of Audit report was presented in June 1996, and cabinet resolved that the Minister for Finance and Administration should prepare a scoping study to analyse the costs, risks and opportunities associated with the implementation of a full accrual framework by the financial year 1999 to 2000. That was a recommendation of the Commission of Audit—and here we see in the budget for that financial year that it was achieved.The reason I have paid tribute to the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance and Administration, by outlining the government's willingness and, I dare say, passion to be professional, is to show that our financial outcomes are now excellent. As we heard the Treasurer and the Prime Minister say today, we have our Charter of Budget Honesty, and the Financial Management and Accountability Act and the new audit Act are in place. The Commission of Audit said that we should do many things which were politically unpalatable on the outlays side of the budget in 1996. It said we should have an accrual based budget by 1999-2000—and we have. These tools have been put in place and have played no small role in the achievements that this budget has delivered for the Australian people. These reforms gave us the tools to build the solid foundation on which the Australian economy is based and which allowed Australia to have a current growth rate of 4.8 per cent, at a time when our trading partners are in crisis. We have enjoyed the lowest inflation and lowest interest rates for two generations. Unemployment is coming down. Consumer confidence is high. Business confidence is high. We have a budget surplus.To put this budget in perspective, I cannot remember the last time when a post-election budget was not described by the media as a `horror budget', until this one. This budget speaks wonders for the economic management of the Treasurer. I really think it can be described as a `miracle budget'—from a $10.3 billion Labor deficit to a $5.4 billion surplus next year, with surpluses last year and the year before. Labor ran up Commonwealth debt of $70 billion from 1990 to 1995. Yet this government has achieved the surplus—eliminated the deficit—without borrowing one cent. Crucial to the budget in the out years is the sale of Telstra. The opposition continues to block the sale of Telstra in the Senate. I remind honourable members opposite that they undertook a privatisation program as well. We believe that, when they sold Qantas, it was the right thing to do. We did not oppose the sale of the Commonwealth Bank because we believed it was the right thing to do at the time. But I have to ask now: what did Labor do with the money? We propose to sell Telstra and we have outlined for the Australian people exactly what we intend to do with the proceeds of Telstra. There will be debt reduction and infrastructure investment as a result. But I say again: with the sale of the Commonwealth Bank and the sale of Qantas, where did the money go? Very silent on the other side. You managed to sell the Commonwealth Bank and Qantas and still racked up $70 billion of Commonwealth debt in five years. The Leader of the Opposition owes it to the Australian people to tell us exactly where that money went.17:18:006028Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—I rise to speak in the second reading debate of Appropriation Bill (No. 1). I think we can all agree that the central piece of this budget is quite clearly—certainly from the government's point of view—tax reform. When any government talks about tax reform, they are usually talking about raising more finance for the purposes of providing services for the Australian people. I have no trouble with this, as governments must have funds if they are to provide adequate aged care and child-care facilities, social services for the unemployed and low income people, health and education services, infrastructure items such as road, rail, sea ports and other items that I might address later in this speech.All of these important services need to be financed by the taxpayer, either by PAYE or business tax or taxes on wealth of all kinds. But what this government has done with its GST package is to raise more revenue from indirect taxes and less from income tax. By this means they are forcing low income people in our community to pay increased indirect taxes and reducing the taxes paid by the higher income earners. Therefore this GST package is clearly unfair. Nobody believes that the compensation for pensioners or low income people is adequate to cover the increased cost of living that will arise out of the government's tax package. The argument that the Prime Minister has put up is that this GST package will mean that 80 per cent of taxpayers will pay a marginal tax rate of no higher than 30 per cent. This argument does not hold up, as a large number of taxpayers—at least a third—already pay a marginal tax rate of less than 30 per cent. These people gain nothing from this new tax system other than increases in indirect taxes.One of the disappointments in the 1999 federal budget for residents and industry in Western Sydney is that there is no funding for the Western Sydney orbital road system. In spite of a budget surplus of $5.4 billion and $644.9 million committed in the budget for the national highway, this vital piece of infrastructure for Western Sydney has been ignored. In 1993 the then federal Labor government announced its intention to connect the national highway at points north and south of Sydney. The Western Sydney orbital would be part of the national highway scheme as well as being part of Sydney's major road network. It would connect all of Sydney's existing motorways—the M5, M3 and M2—to form the orbital. The completed orbital system would supply a high-grade highway link between the Liverpool area in the south and existing freeway connections at Hornsby. This would cover the local government areas of Baulkham Hills, Camden, Campbelltown, Fairfield, Liverpool, Penrith and Blacktown. The advantages of the Western Sydney orbital would be that it would remove interstate traffic from the majority of the already congested and polluted local road systems, which are also acting as industrial road systems.Many local roads in Western Sydney have been badly affected by regional traffic and the large number of interstate trucks. The New South Wales Road and Traffic Authority has estimated that freight movements on major roads in Western Sydney comprise between 14 per cent and 19 per cent of daily traffic. In a north-south direction there are few roads of an appropriate standard for this traffic.The RTA, in its excellent report on the Western Sydney orbital, refers to the reduced traffic volumes on arterial roads. I seek to incorporate a table produced by the Road and Traffic Authority called `Reduced traffic volumes on arterial roads', which highlights the reduced traffic in a number of local roads in Western Sydney with the construction of the Western Sydney orbital. I have sought permission from the minister at the table.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—I seek clarification from the honourable member for Greenway. Is he seeking to table it or incorporate it?MK6Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELD—I seek to incorporate it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Leave is granted, subject to it conforming to the Speaker's guidelines for incorporation.The table read as follows—Reduced Traffic Volumes on Arterial RoadsRoads likely to benefit most from reduced traffic volumes and the extent of the reduction*. Cumberland Highway in Wentworthville10—20%. Abbott Road in Seven Hills35—45%. Cowpastures Road in Bossley Park30—35%. Elizabeth Drive in Cecil Park30—50%. Prospect Highway in Seven Hills20—35%. Richmond Road in Marayong40—45% * Depending on level of use of public transport10000Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELD—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The report I have already referred to refers to the fact that the Western Sydney orbital would take regional traffic off a number of roads fronted by homes and schools. Roads likely to benefit would be Quakers Road and Vardys Road in Quakers Hill, Kings Park and Kings Langley, Sackville Road and Lucas Road in Lalor Park, Knox Road, Doonside Road and Ferrers Road in Glendenning, Rooty Hill and Eastern Creek, Greystanes Roads at Greystanes, Mimosa Road in Bossley Park, Heckenburg Avenue in Heckenburg and Smithfield Road in Greenfield Park. The RTA refers to environmental improvements in suburban areas. I quote from its report:Reduced traffic levels on roads currently used as regional routes would provide opportunities for environmental improvements in local areas. This would include traffic calming, traffic diversion or closed streets. Pedestrian and cyclist safety in these areas would improve as would local air quality.The Western Sydney orbital would also link several major industrial areas including Preston, Rooty Hill and Kings Park. The globalisation of the Western Sydney economy has increased the need for transport efficiency. The Western Sydney orbital connection with Port Botany and Kingsford Smith airport would make a huge difference to industry in this region. Production activities are becoming increasingly specialised with one section of a production process relying on products being delivered from another location. The efficiency by which goods and services from one location are able to be transported to another location will become a major consideration in business relocating to Western Sydney.In October 1995 the then federal Minister for Transport, the member for Kingsford-Smith, released a study which estimated that the full orbital link would cut transport costs in Western Sydney by $870 million a year. This would stimulate an additional $1.2 billion in economic activities annually and create 2,400 jobs in industry served by the orbital. The road system would require an investment of around $800 million from the federal government.The recent federal Minister for Transport and Regional Development, Mr Sharp, announced in November 1996 that the Commonwealth government had set aside $109 million over the following four years for the Western Sydney orbital, but no additional funding for this project has appeared in subsequent budgets. In reply to a question placed on the Notice Paper on 16 June 1999 by me concerning the Western Sydney orbital, the Minister for Transport and Regional Services replied in part:. . . benefit cost analysis shows that the construction of the WSO would be economically justified, which is why the Commonwealth proposes to construct the road when funds are available.It would be my view, with the current budget surplus, that funds are now available and this vital road network should be funded immediately. I also draw the attention of the House to the fact that a number of prominent local Liberal councillors on Blacktown Council have supported the immediate funding of this project. So the government is not only ignoring people on this side of the parliament but also ignoring its own people. I call on the Liberal members in Western Sydney, the members for Macarthur, Lindsay, Parramatta and Mitchell, to support this project.I would now like to turn to a number of education issues which are causing concerns in my electorate of Greenway. I am very pleased that I have a campus of the University of Western Sydney in my electorate at Nirimba. It is in this context that I raise a number of issues concerning university education, particularly the availability of this form of education for disadvantaged groups. The first issue I raise is the need to index the Australian postgraduate awards to compensate for the impact of the GST and to provide similar compensation for university and privately funded scholarships. There appears to be some confusion in the government's response on this issue. I understand that representations have been made to the federal government and the minister's office has indicated that APAs will be indexed by the four per cent compensation to be paid to pensioners and beneficiaries. However, in response to a question in the Senate on 22 April, Senator Kemp gave no indication that the government was intending to compensate award holders. As universities will need to raise the level of funding for their postgraduate awards to maintain their real value, universities therefore need compensation for this additional cost that they face as a result of the GST tax package.Another decision contained in this budget that will hit low income people in Western Sydney is the withdrawal of funding for the Merit and Equity Scholarship Scheme. This scheme was set up surprisingly enough by this government in 1996 and it was a good scheme. It provided exemption from HECS fees for financially disadvantaged students who were desirous of continuing their education which may have been interrupted by illness or lack of finance. There were some 146 students studying under this scholarship at the University of Western Sydney, which is the second highest number in Australia. The equity category under which students could apply for this scholarship were Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, lower socioeconomic status, language other than English, women in non-trade studies, rural and isolated, and disability. In 1997 there were 63 applicants for this scholarship at the University of Western Sydney, in 1998 there were 120 and this year there were 85.The government expects to save $39 million over the next four years by phasing out this system. This decision will close the door to hundreds of low income people from pursuing a university education—they have academic potential but financial limitations. One such case was reported in the Sydney Morning Herald of a young lady who was starting a university degree at the University of Western Sydney. This lady was a 28-year-old mother of three who was unable to complete her HSC because of illness.Debate interrupted.Adjournment603010000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 5.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn. 603117:30:006031Gibbons, Steve, MPMr GIBBONS83XBendigoALP00—I rise in this adjournment debate to highlight the complete unfairness of the government's GST package especially for those people who happen to live in central and northern Victoria. People in that area are going to get slugged when they are driving to Melbourne by having to pay a toll on the Tullamarine Tollway and then having a substantial GST imposed on them.Honourable member interjecting—83XGibbons, Steve, MPMr GIBBONS—That is right. If you are a high roller and you derive your income from gaming, you will get significant GST tax benefits. Where is the fairness in that?Government members interjecting—83XGibbons, Steve, MPMr GIBBONS—It is not absolute nonsense.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Bendigo will address his remarks through the chair.83XGibbons, Steve, MPMr GIBBONS—The City Link tolls on the Tullamarine Tollway will cost motorists about $150,000 a day. This calculation is based on figures of the projected use of the Tullamarine Tollway as given in City Link's prospectus. This projects a weekday use on the Tullamarine Tollway of 104,000 cars, 21,000 light commercial vehicles and 7,000 heavy commercial vehicles. When City Link tolls are in full force, the toll for cars will be $2.02 for the return trip, light commercial vehicles will pay $2.32 and heavy commercial vehicles will pay $3.82—this, I might add, on a road they already own.Over one year, the total payout of tolls on the Tullamarine Tollway will be about $50 million. The figures for weekend use of the Tullamarine Tollway have not been given, but I calculate that the total City Link toll grab over one year will add up to in excess of $50 million. The GST tax grab will add another $15,000 to the amount paid out per day on the Tullamarine Tollway and $5 million for a year. This is a huge financial drain on motorists from central Victoria and others using the Tullamarine Freeway. The GST raises the cost of a day pass from $7 to $7.70 and a $50 electronic tag to $5.50.Our region is being especially victimised because we are being funnelled into the western link toll complex which opens in June—nearly three months ahead of the southern link. So Bendigo region motorists and others using the Tullamarine and the western link are being bled with City Link tolls for nearly three months ahead of other regions. This situation adds insult to injury. Tullamarine is the only country access into the city where City Link tolls are being imposed, and so motorists from central Victoria are the only ones being taxed to drive into their own city. If you live in Geelong, when you drive to Melbourne you do not pay a toll; if you live in Shepparton, when you drive to Melbourne you do not pay a toll; but, if you live in Bendigo or northern Victoria, you get slugged.Transurban, the company which will operates the tolls can increase these tolls every three months for the next 34 years, under the agreement with the Melbourne City Link Authority. So central Victorians who travel on the Calder Highway may have an ever increasing penalty plus a GST simply by living in central Victoria. This shows how unfair this goods and service tax is—on the one hand, if you live in central Victoria you get slugged for visiting your capital city but, if you live elsewhere in Victoria, you get there free of charge. People in central Victoria get slugged for using a road that most people have already paid for. We have seen for so long government ministers singing the praises of the GST, how it is going to cure just about every aspect of Australian life ranging from our overseas debt to even the common cold. This a prime example of just how unfair this tax is and how it penalises country people.603117:34:006031Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—In the House yesterday the member for Reid, in his speech on the appropriation bill, questioned the validity and basis of a number of key aspects of the Defence Reform Program and the measures included in the 1999-2000 budget. His comments, which I read today, lack either a factual or an analytical basis. It is a problem when we see a member in the House making comments that are basically wrong. I would like to take his comments point by point.The first issue is the reduction in the ADF from 58,000 to 50,000 under the defence reforms. The concern with the overall size of the Defence Force by the member for Reid completely misses the point. What is critical for the government and what is critical for the ADF is what proportion of that force is available for combat and combat support tasks. The defence reform process will result in a real increase in these numbers—32,500 compared with 25,000 under Labor. The government is moving the people in the ADF to the sharp end. I certainly know that with Australia's largest defence base in my electorate. We can see the benefits of that happening.I draw the House's attention to the 2,900 reduction in Defence Force numbers set out in the budget documents which relate to support and administrative functions. Those support and administrative functions are still there but of course they are being done much more economically by civilians or contractors. That is allowing members of the ADF to get on with what members of the ADF should be doing—being in combat ready or combat support roles.The second issue was that of the alleged lack of funding for budget initiatives. I respond to the member for Reid by simply saying that the enhancement of Jindalee and the Collins class submarine, which he referred to, will be funded from within the over $2.7 billion which is provided in the defence budget for major capital projects. The honourable member may be unaware that defence has a global budget which provides the necessary flexibility to manage and program such costs. The increase in preparedness levels—a major initiative which has enjoyed bipartisan support—again will be met from the global defence budget, making direct use of the additional resources being made available under the so-called underperforming Defence Reform Program. I would also like to say that the development of a competitive remuneration structure is an example of welcome innovation in industrial relations. Pay scales will be adjusted in the ADF to much better match a position's salary to its work value—and, after all, that is what is happening in the wider world. The cost of transition to the new structure including non-reduction provisions—$13 million in this year's budget—is being funded from the overall Defence budget. The third issue is that Defence personnel will receive only a 1.5 per cent pay increase. The ADF is committed to ensuring that members of the Defence Force and the Department of Defence receive a competitive remuneration. The figures referred to by the honourable member for Reid relate only to the expected supplementation for economic factors. The balance of the increase will be found from additional productive gains across the defence forces. This is consistent with the approach that has been adopted across the government.The fourth issue, a very important one, is that the defence review process savings are not being achieved. I would say to the member for Reid that the defence reform program is well on track to achieve its targeted savings. By the end of 1998-99 the reforms will have achieved $280 million in ongoing savings and this is $30 million already ahead of plan; it is reality, not supposition. As has been made clear in the budget papers, these realised savings will increase to over $450 million in the coming year and to over $860 million by the end of the forward estimates period. The ADF reform program is on track and there is no doubt that the ADF is moving to the sharp end and that in my electorate it is doing wonderfully well for the defence of Australia.603217:39:006032Danby, Michael, MPMr DANBYWF6Melbourne PortsALP00—Tomorrow is the 10th anniversary of the cruel repression of democrats in Tiananmen Square. Although Australians favour maintaining good relations with the PRC and I, as most parliamentarians do, support China joining the World Trade Organisation, we must never put aside our country's support for human rights. Even the size of the PRC or the size of its economic market should not deter Australia from speak ing out when we see injustices. When Australia has been involved in an apparent breach of human rights, it behoves us to indulge in some constructive self-criticism. Any country's reputation is sullied, its name diminished and its ability to protect its citizens weakened when its name is used as a guarantee and that guarantee is then dishonoured.In every Australian loungeroom recently we saw on TV that pathetic video of a Chinese woman deported from Port Hedland back to China. She claimed that, despite the Australian government's assurance of protection for her unborn second child and her own physical safety, she was forcibly aborted on returning to China at Behei City Hospital. Senator Quirke and Senator Harradine have raised other aspects of this affair in the Senate. The basis of my concern is what has happened—or perhaps more accurately what has not happened—since the inquiry was announced by the minister.Like the shadow minister for immigration and the shadow minister for foreign affairs, the opposition joins the government and the minister in opposing queue-jumping, people traffickers and the modern day slave traders who think Australia is an easy target and a soft touch. I know the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and, although I do not agree with all of his policies, I know him to be diligent and a person who seeks to apply non-discriminatory criteria to our immigration policy, although he does not always do this to my or the opposition's taste. What I fear is that nothing effective has been done, since the woman's appearance on national television, to give effect to her understanding of assurances of her safety.I have tabled some detailed questions to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs about their inaction or action. I have alerted the minister's office to these questions. Understandably, he may not be able to answer them all at this stage. Some of the questions include the following. Is the minister aware of the woman's current whereabouts? Is the minister aware of her condition? Has the woman had any contact with officers of his department since her deportation? What contact has the minister or his department had with relevant officials of the PRC concerning this matter, both before and since her deportation? What measures has his department taken, since this woman's appearance on national television, to fulfil this alleged promise by the Australian government to protect and preserve her physical safety? Was the woman sedated on or about the time of her deportation? If so, by whom and what medication was administered and how much? If so, did the officers of the department or anyone else forcibly restrain her when they administered the sedation? Was there a medical team on board the aircraft when she was returned?Minister, the essence of the problem is what you or your office has done to effectively preserve the wellbeing of Mrs Zhu Quing Ping. I ask this not as some soft-headed immigration advocate but as an Australian parliamentarian who fears that the obfuscations of the Sir Humphreys and other mandarins will bamboozle the Australian government and public. We apparently gave her a guarantee. We are a great and powerful country and I ask that we put into effect our apparent promise to her. Every Australian has seen how the understanding about this woman's second child has apparently been dishonoured by her forced, ugly and barbaric deportation from Australia. The Australian government's inquiry will perhaps tell us the reasons for this blight on Australia's human rights reputation.I feel our country, our reputation and our name also stand or fall, Minister, on what happens since you announced the inquiry. If and when Australia moves heaven and earth to safeguard this person's wellbeing—and I note in the meantime that her husband has been arrested—I hope we will do it not simply because of some forthcoming embarrassment on 60 Minutes or in the Bulletin this week, but because it is the right thing to do. It is nothing short of preserving Australia's reputation and credibility. Yes, Mrs Zhu is a foreigner and, yes, few other countries would go to the trouble suggested here, but we must judge ourselves by our own human rights criteria.603417:43:006034Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—In 1980 the Australian government passed the Whale Protection Act, which banned all whaling in Australian waters. This legislation marked the recognition of the international responsibility needed to create a total ban on all whaling. However, some 19 years later—and 53 years after the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling in 1946—we are still fighting to gain that recognition amongst some nations around the world. Recently I was horrified to read in the Australian an article by a person called Sue Arnold from Australians For Animals Incorporated about a number of issues to do with whaling in the United States. Apparently, in the United States judicial system an Australian group, Australians for Animals, is fighting the United States government to stop the Makah tribe from whaling under the guise of indigenous rights.The Makah tribe are relying on their rights under an 1855 treaty to allow them to undertake whaling activity. Australians for Animals allege that the Endangered Species Act, the Whaling Convention Act, the National Environmental Policy Act and the Marine Mammal Protection and National Marine Sanctuary Act have all been breached by the Clinton administration in allowing the Makah tribe to begin whaling. This case is currently on appeal before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal. In spite of pending legal proceedings, the Makah announced their rights and began their whaling activities. This tribe have not partaken in whaling for more than 70 years and cite the reason of cultural restoration to justify their sudden interest in participating in this activity.Recent reports are that last week in National Marine Sanctuary waters off the coast of the United States the Makah harpooned to death a baby female grey whale that had approached their boat having grown to trust human beings after years of protection from slaughter. How brave of the Makah tribe. The United States Coast Guard plays havoc with protesters' attempts to patrol the barbaric whaling practices, frequently seizing and confiscating protest boats. One week before the killing just mentioned the Coast Guard stormed a protest boat armed with machine guns. They seized the boat and imprisoned the unarmed crew.Over the next four years, the Makah have claimed the right to kill a further 33 whales. They have denied claims that they plan to sell the meat commercially. However, reports are to the contrary. Already attempts have been made by the Makah to sell whale meat as whale hamburgers to local restaurants. Furthermore, the National Marine and Fisheries Service is `unable to guarantee the Makah will not sell the whale meat commercially'.Should the appeal in the lawsuit between Australians for Animals and the United States government be unsuccessful, the door is wide open for indigenous claims for whaling rights around the world. Of real concern is the potential for claims from the coasts of Japan and Norway, two well-known whaling countries who desire to whale further. The United States has ignored and defied the International Whaling Commission definition of aboriginal subsistence whaling. Consequently, the potential global ramifications for allowing indigenous rights to override significant environmental laws are obvious to us all and tremendous.Australia's ultimate goal of a global sanctuary for whales suffers immensely with every incidence of whaling that occurs. The Clinton administration's massive financial and logistical support of the Makah tribe has resulted in a giant step backwards for pro-whale lobby groups and the status of international agreements. The United States were the most powerful pro-whale ally in the world. By endorsing this activity, the US is heading towards the killer nation status of Japan and Norway.0K6BARTLETTMr Bartlett—Shame on them!9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE—Yes, shame on them! 1998 was the 50th anniversary of the International Whaling Commission. Today, 51 years after it was officially recognised that a ban on whaling was an issue of significant international importance, we have just seen another incidence of it. The Australian government must continue to hold strong to our fervent stand against whaling. We have come a long way in the past 50 years. Recent evidence suggests that we have a long way to go.The United States government has not only failed to adhere to much needed international agreements and conventions but also supported claims by indigenous people which are in direct contradiction to their own critical environmental legislation. The United States government sends a very powerful message to the rest of the world in allowing whaling to occur within their waters under any guise. Environmental protection is a concern which needs a continuing fight to ensure that we do not abrogate our responsibilities. Australia leads the world in much of our environmental legislation and for that we can be proud. There is still, however, a long journey ahead of us.603517:48:006035Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS5K6NamadgiALP00—This evening I want to talk about this government, Centrelink and some of the truly confusing, unfair and discriminatory aspects of the decisions of this government within the Centrelink area. I conducted a hotline phone-in on Centrelink some weeks ago in my electorate office following an overwhelming number of calls and contacts to my office by members of the public concerned about decisions, level of service, waiting time for appointments and so on. The Minister for Community Services and the head of Centrelink resorted to writing letters to the editor of the Canberra Times in an attempt not only to blame the victim but also to insinuate that I was basically making all this up. I sent all the details of the calls we received for that isolated period of the phone-in to the minister—I did not send them to the media—in an attempt to convince him of the genuineness of the process and of the honesty of the people calling in.Then this week we had another extraordinary performance by a minister—this time the Minister for Family and Community Services, Senator Newman—basically accusing the ABC of being prepared to be manipulated by stooge callers set up by the ALP and others. This was the morning after a radio phone-in conducted by the local ABC radio station here in Canberra seeking the views of listeners on the effects of the new Liberal-Democrat GST package. Both these instances distressed me, particularly for this reason: it is no good when a government makes decisions on policies that affect people so directly that the only defence or manner in which they believe they can handle this situation is to blame the victim and to accuse people of lying or misleading the public in transmitting those actions.I want to give a couple of examples of two particular problems that came to the attention of my office recently. These are the sorts of situations the staff of Centrelink are attempting to deal with. The first one is the case of a young 20-year-old woman who was working full time for just on 12 months and living independently from her family when she fell ill. Unfortunately, and most unusual at 20, she had a stroke. She obviously needed time off work. She applied for sickness allowance to tide her over that period but was told she did not qualify because she was 20 and not 21. If she had been unemployed or a student in receipt of youth allowance, I understand those payments would have continued. But because she had a job—not a high paying job, I might add—no assistance was available. To the credit of both her employer and her family, appropriate support was offered where possible. I particularly commend her employers because they were very sensitive and compassionate. This young woman, who was a very high achiever at school, is now working out what she might do in her future career. In the meantime she is working in this job. Thankfully, I can report to the House that her health is improving.Rent assistance is another example. As I understand it, rent assistance is payable if you are a full-time student on youth allowance and aged under 25, but if you happen to be a full-time student aged 25 receiving Austudy payments no rent assistance is available. The constituent I am referring to was a young woman who left school, found your average sort of job, was doing the right thing in trying to decide where to go for her future and, at the age of 25, decided she would attempt to get a degree in veterinary science. This meant, in the ACT, that she had to go to Sydney and, of course, rental levels are such that it became an enormous financial burden for her and her family—all because she wanted to better herself and gain a professional career, and the decisions of this government precluded her from any rental assistance. If, however, she had done this at an earlier age, say 23 or even 24, she would have gained rent assistance.It is the arbitrary way of applying barriers based on age, not true circumstances, that makes this all very unfair. These are only two examples but, given the time, I could trot out—and I know my colleagues could also—many more examples. But what do these two ministers do when people have the temerity to ring their local member or call their local radio station? They accuse us all of making it up. I can assure you, Mr Speaker, I have not made these stories up and neither have my constituents. I know we must have been having some effect on these so-called non-existent appointment waiting times and so on when staff in the local Centrelink office are told to keep waiting times for appointments as tight as possible to avoid situations where Annette Ellis does not have the ammunition to attack the government again. I will continue to do so where necessary. (Time expired)603617:53:006036Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—A little over a year ago, I stood in this place to pay tribute to the extraordinary men and women who selflessly give of themselves to care for a family member or a loved one with a disability. For my interest in their plight, I earned the unenviable task of convening the Unmet Needs Reference Group formed to provide advice to the federal minister. The Unmet Needs Reference Group was activated by the former Minister for Family Services, Warwick Smith, and carried forward by the Minister for Family and Community Services, Senator Jocelyn Newman. The group comprised Michael Sumner, ACROD President; Kevin Stone, President of NCID; Senator John Tierney; and me as convenor.Tonight I rise to reflect on the insights I gained as convenor of the reference group and put on the record some personal observations contained in my recent keynote address to the Council of Intellectual Disability Agencies 1999 conference. In 1996, the Australian Health and Welfare Institute estimated that the annual cost of meeting the unmet need for accommodation and support services and respite care and day programs is around $294 million. It is a known, huge and compelling public policy challenge for our nation, more than a generation in the making. A partnership—built on a greater funding commitment from governments, a more constructive approach from peak organisations to finding a way forward and a renovation of disability policy—is required to tackle the unmet need for people with a disability and their carers.The willingness of the federal government to contribute more resources to help the states and territories meet their obligations under the Commonwealth-state disability agreement is welcome leadership that must activate real commitments from other parties. The Commonwealth's additional funding must leverage additional resources from the states and territories so that they demonstrate a genuine commitment to meeting their own obligations under the CSDA. The key and most pressing areas of unmet need did not appear overnight. They happened, principally in services of state and territory jurisdiction, over decades and within program service areas sought and signed up for by the states and territories under the CSDAs. Real partnerships involve real commitments. On the strength of the budget information released to date from states and territories, I am not sure whether we have seen a real commitment from the state and territory governments.It is for the states and territories to resolve their priorities and not for the Commonwealth to reward underperformance in service areas which have been the long-term responsibility of the states. Given the anticipated differing responses of the states and territories, I expect that a series of bilateral agreements will need to be negotiated with the Commonwealth. These agreements should provide the flexibility to reflect the extent of the challenge in each jurisdiction, current effort and efficiency performances, the priority assigned to the task by the state and territory governments, and the forward budgeting and policy considerations of each government.Beyond expanded and targeted service commitments negotiated between the partners, all agreements should include core elements such as committing governments to a joint approach to future planning of services; a review of current service delivery models; performance indicators, benchmarking and reporting; quality standards and information sharing; and the cooperative trialling of new service models. The reference group called for decisive action to implement a response plan or action agenda to address the significant extent of unmet needs of people with disabilities and their families. An action agenda for unmet needs should embrace the concept of planned and strategic intervention, where services are available when and where they are needed rather than in response to a crisis emerging.The reference group suggested priorities for action commencing with unmet accommodation needs and support services for people currently looked after by an ageing carer and retirement style accommodation for ageing people with disabilities. I will not go through the other priority areas, given the time available. The disability sector peak organisations need to play a more constructive role in shaping agreed pathways to addressing unmet needs, show a greater willingness to embrace innovation and undertake a re-examination of disability policies which stand in the way of cost-effective service models being implemented.As a personal commitment, I have undertaken to pursue the formation of an All-Party Disability Group as a way of building a parliamentary constituency for the necessary political will required to tackle the significant challenges of unmet needs. I invite colleagues in this place and the Senate to join in this non-partisan endeavour to bring about meaningful progress in the challenge of meeting the unmet need for disability services for people with disabilities and the national heroes who are their carers.603717:58:006037Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—I wish to add to my adjournment speech made earlier in the Main Committee with respect to Chris Corrigan, the DPP and allegations of perjury. I neglected to mention that, after the DPP decided to take no action with respect to the matters referred to him and, indeed, to take no further action to seek further investigation of these matters by referring them to the Australian Federal Police, the matter has subsequently been referred to the Australian Federal Police by Mr John Coombs. He has done what the DPP should have done.The DPP's pre-emptory decision now creates a real problem. Having previously decided not only not to prosecute but also not to take any further steps to have the matter investigated, it is going to be rather difficult for the DPP to respond to any recommendation by the AFP that there should be action taken. I reiterate my call for the government to explain how this extraordinary behaviour by the DPP occurred and to guarantee that no political interference has occurred because of the involvement of Mr Corrigan and the political nature of this issue.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—It being 6 p.m., the debate is interrupted.18:00:006037House adjourned at 6.00 p.m.Notices6037The following notices were given:Mr Lindsay to move:That this House:(1) recognises the vital and growing role electronic information transmission plays in education, research and business activity throughout Australia;(2) further recognises that the availability of adequate capacity, high quality and appropriately priced bandwidth—for the electronic transmission of information—is an important strategic issue for the development of the information economy in Australia;(3) notes that regional areas throughout Australia have a poorer electronic information infrastructure than metropolitan areas, and the gap is widening; and(4) acknowledges the urgent need to provide affordable broadband electronic communica tions to Australia's regional centres and, in particular, to our regional universities.Mr Beazley to move:That this House notes:(1) that the national taxation debate is not longer about `tax reform' but merely about `tax change'—and not change for the better;(2) the Coalition-Democrat tax deal will, in the official estimate of the Treasurer, cost at the very least $20 billion over the first three years of the next century—in terms of the erosion of the Commonwealth budget surplus caused by the ANTS package, as modified by the Australian Democrats;(3) the GST fiasco on food alone will create enormous compliance burdens for 370 000 small businesses, in the estimate of the Tax Commissioner, and will, in the words of the Premier of Victoria, be `just diabolical' for businesses such as milkbars and small family-run supermarkets; and(4) as a result of the GST food fiasco, the States will be required to keep indefinitely a range of state taxes and duties amounting to $2.5 billion which the Government promised prior to the last election would be abolished.1999-06-03Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Jenkins) took the chair at 9.40 a.m.Statements by Members603960396039Cox, David, MPMr COX83UKingstonALP00—Having been a member of parliament for eight months now, one of the most disturbing trends I have noticed is the increase in the number of my constituents coming to see me at the electorate office to talk about how they can no longer cope financially. These are not people who are in need of a financial counsellor; they are people who are good managers of their household budgets and who make the most of their limited financial resources. What they need are changes in government policies which will restore their standard of living that is gradually being eaten away. They are pensioners, widows, self-funded retirees, young families, retrenched workers in their late 40s and 50s, people with small businesses trying to make a go of it on little more than the dole, people with chronic illnesses, and non-custodial parents whose financial circumstances have diminished or who have started a second relationship.This is probably not an exhaustive list of the groups in our community who are in real financial trouble, but look at the problems people in these groups face. Pensioners' living standards have been gradually eroded because the CPI does not reflect the basket of goods that they buy. Inflation has been low, but that is in large part because mortgage interest rates have been historically low. Relatively few pensioners have mortgages. The essential things that they buy have been going up by more than inflation. If they are in public housing, the state government takes 25 per cent of any pension increase they happen to receive. Similar financial pressures apply to widows.Self-funded retirees are feeling the pinch, ironically because of low interest rates; their assets are no longer generating the kind of income they generated a few years ago, and these people are being forced onto part-pensions. Many are concerned that they are gradually being forced to run down their assets to make ends meet. Young families on low incomes always have a hard battle, and the Howard government has made that battle that much harder by increasing the cost to those families of child care, often to the point where it removes the option for young mothers to do at least some part-time work.Retrenched workers over 55 have been specifically targeted by this government. They have been prematurely deemed to have retired if they cannot find a job so that the government can count the superannuation of these retrenched workers in the assets test for social security benefits. The period after the kids leave home and prior to retirement is when most Australians have done that extra bit of saving to build up a nest egg for their retirement. Without a job they cannot do that. But this government is compounding the problem by forcing them to run down their superannuation assets, so they will have a reduced standard of living both now and after they reach retiring age.Administratively the social security system is not user friendly to those many Australians who are trying to stand on their own financial feet by running a small business which, when it is getting started, means long periods of fluctuating income, often at levels which are just above or just below what they would be getting on the dole. With the Howard government's changes to the pharmaceutical schedule and benefits, chronic illness also means real financial hardship. (Time expired)60406040Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—One of the means by which I keep across the range of views and concerns in my electorate of Moreton is the Moreton Youth Advisory Group. I would encourage other members in this place to use a similar approach. By deliberately seeking representatives from each of the high schools in my electorate, I have been able to access the views of young citizens, those who will be the citizens running this country tomorrow, in order to try to keep me across their views and concerns and their aspirations for the nation that they will inherit. I think it is an important process because, after all, everything we do in this place these days could be easily undone by those who follow us.The students from Clairvaux MacKillop College; Sunnybank State High School; MacGregor High School, my old high school; Redeemer College; and also the Southside Education Centre—which is an independent learning facility giving a second chance to students who perhaps have fallen foul of the law or who, because of domestic circumstances, find themselves in difficult situations—have all contributed representatives to the most recent meeting of the Moreton Youth Advisory Group. Students from Yeronga and Nyanda are also regular attendees at this forum.At the most recent meeting a number of, I think, very interesting observations were made in particular about how we treat Aboriginal Australians in this country and about the general understanding that most people in this nation have towards Australia's first residents. There is a need, I was told by Kylie from Sunnybank, to respect, acknowledge and have an awareness of various cultural days within our communities. Malcolm from Clairvaux MacKillop said that he felt that, in multicultural Australia and the rush towards understanding cultures from other nations, perhaps Aboriginals have been left behind. Kylie from Sunnybank also said that just giving money to Aboriginal causes is not really the answer.Jessica from MacGregor made the observation that, whilst many people say an apology for the stolen generations is a good thing to do, we do not really fully understand exactly what it is we are apologising for. I think Penny from Redeemer made the comment that there needs to be more education about Aboriginal Australians, their culture and their history in this nation and an understanding of where they are these days. A couple of young ladies, who themselves are of Aboriginal heritage, from the Southside Education Centre made the point that, `You have to live on our side of the fence to understand that often police judge you because of the colour of your skin.'I think all of these are very real and telling observations from young Australians. I guess what I get out of them is the need to encourage good and proper education that is well rounded and a good understanding of Aboriginal culture to help all Australians live together in harmony.60406040Danby, Michael, MPMr DANBYWF6Melbourne PortsALP00—I rise today to pay tribute to the valuable work performed in my electorate by St Francis Xavier Cabrini Hospital and in particular the hospital's extensive outreach program. In 1999 Cabrini funded approximately $1 million worth of community service projects. Such work includes the Sacred Heart Mission, where Cabrini provides 1,000 meals per week for homeless people; the Cabrini Lighthouse for youth at high risk; the Cabrini CentreCare Counselling Service; projects in Swaziland and the Philippines; and the Santa Teresa Aboriginal Mission in the Northern Territory. Cabrini also offers employment for socially disadvantaged youth.Cabrini supports the Open Family/Cabrini bus. This bus goes to inner city and suburban areas known to be frequented by street people, offering them food, friendship and medical and material aid. It is also an important counselling or resource referral point for many people.I have spoken in the House previously of the activities of the Sacred Heart Mission, located in Grey Street, St Kilda, which is around the corner from my office. Cabrini, through the mission, provides over 60,000 meals per annum for the clients of the mission, and Cabrini food service staff provide the labour to produce the meals. Support is also given for all their fundraising functions. Cabrini staff volunteer their help on Christmas Day to serve the clients of the Sacred Heart Mission, and Cabrini also funds the laundry and general maintenance of the Sacred Heart Mission.Cabrini's Lighthouse Project provides long-term family rehabilitation for young people who are homeless, who have drug problems or who have been abused. Lighthouse is running at full capacity. Volunteers from the hospital are providing friendship, cooking meals and offering general support to the residents. Two residents from the house are currently employed at the hospital. I take this opportunity to record my admiration for the work of Sue Barton, who provides a family atmosphere at the mother house, and Warren Holland, who runs the Albert Park house in my electorate.Michael, a young man who has benefited from the deep care shown by Lighthouse, described his journey back from heroin addiction. `Heroin,' he told me, `provided a world to which those who already had problems could retreat.' Michael gave me the most profound insight I have had to date into the reasons for addiction. `Heroin often gave addicted young people some structure,' he said. `Heroin', he said, `was like an evil parent, but a parent nonetheless'.Cabrini Hospital is a not-for-profit hospital; it is not in receipt of government funding. It provides core medical services, as I can testify. The care that the nursing staff gave me and my brother during the two weeks prior to my father's death in the oncology department was greatly comforting. The hospital's profits are spent on improving the lot of those in need in my electorate and in the wider community—indeed, as far as away as Swaziland.Cabrini Outreach Program and the Lighthouse Project are deserving of far more recognition than I am capable of giving them. They are an excellent example of the way humanity and human decency can survive and thrive in a free market economy. Their activities distil the key difference in the world view of Labor from the current government's. Whilst we are for a market economy, we are not for a market society.60416041Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—Mr Deputy Speaker, I quote from an article by Dick Tombs entitled `The magic of angling becomes therapy', in the Sunday Mail `Sport Extra' of 25 May:One very special moment about 18 months ago led Graham Plummer to form the Sunshine Coast's own recreational angling support group for the disabled."I was in Kmart Maroochydore when I walked into the fishing section and saw a young fellow, probably 8 or 10 years old, sitting in a wheelchair holding a rod. The look on his face was pure joy and there wasn't any water or fish in sight. I said to my wife, Yvonne, `I'd love to take that kid fishing, see the look on his face.'"That was when the seed was sown which has now germinated into an incorporated association dealing with leisure and fishing outings for the disabled.I want to use this forum to pay tribute to Graham Plummer and to the Sport and Leisure for the Handicapped Association on the Sunshine Coast, which trades as the Recreational Association for the Disabled. It is a non-profit organisation dedicated to improving recreational activities for physically handicapped children. The president, Mr Plummer, is a master fisherman and an outstanding individual. He is a very fine citizen in our Sunshine Coast community. He conducts these recreational boat trips for handicapped children, giving the kids the opportunity to do some fishing—an opportunity which would be denied them if it was not for this wonderful association.Not only does this service provide a memorable and incredibly fulfilling experience for some special kids; it also provides valuable respite care for the families of these incredible children when carers take the children out on the water for a trip. Mr Plummer's service helps lighten the load of families of children with disabilities by offering a service which is both recreational and educational for their children. Without this service, many of these families would not otherwise have these opportunities available to them. I wish to in this place pay tribute to Mr Graham Plummer and to his colleagues who are providing this service to a large extent at their own personal expense. All carers are involved in this project in a totally honorary capacity. Various local businesses have assisted the association with in-kind contributions and, in an attempt to promote this venture, I participated in an interview on ABC Radio on the Sunshine Coast this week. This is a wonderful project. I commend it and I would like to pay tribute to Mr Graham Plummer and those who assist him.60426042Ripoll, Bernie, MPMr RIPOLL83EOxleyALP00—While I would like to leave it to others to work out whether the Australian Democrats and the government have taxed chickens, whole or in parts, I would like to comment on what we know for certain the Democrats have taxed. In particular, I would like to focus on the Democrats and their broken promise of no GST on public transport. This is of particular importance to the people of my electorate in Oxley and to anybody else living in regional Australia. A GST on public transport highlights the regressive nature of this tax. It is regressive because it taxes the poor harder than it taxes the rich. Every day thousands of people catch the train from Ipswich in the electorate of Oxley to commute to work in Brisbane. Of course, the cost of a ticket depends on the length of the journey, and the electorate of Oxley is quite some distance from the centre of Brisbane, therefore people who live in the electorate of Oxley, who already pay more for their train tickets than inner city folk, will now pay even more again under the GST.Like other parts of Australia, those living in the regions and outer suburbs are the ones generally doing it a little tougher than their city cousins. Now we are asked to contribute an unfair share of GST just because we live outside the big cities, whether by choice or for economic or social reasons. As an example, a worker travelling from Ipswich train station to Brisbane is faced with a 10 per cent GST on their travel every day. At current ticket prices, they will be over $7 a fortnight worse off. On the other hand, a lawyer from Toowong will pay GST on the $3 cost of their journey and pay only half the tax of people from the outer suburbs. This is Robin Hood in reverse: the government is taking from the poor in the outer suburbs and giving to the rich at the top end of town. The Democrats once opposed this, but now they are equally responsible for imposing this burden on the community.I also wish to highlight the financial stress this tax imposes on the many people in my electorate with mobility problems. There are many facilities in my electorate that care for the profoundly disabled and I have been made acutely aware of their concerns with the GST. The disability pension is not a lot of money and taxis are not cheap. A 10 per cent GST increase on taxi fares will once again hit hardest those who are worst off. The government's compensation for those on the disability pension could be wiped out by the tax paid on the cost of just one taxi ride. The Democrats should recommit themselves to GST-free health care and incorporate the needs of the many disabled persons who rely on taxis to get around. The commitment made by the Democrats of no GST on public transport was based on reasonable and compassionate social policy. It now seems that this baby, like `keeping the bastards honest', has been thrown out with the bathwater.60436043Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—Lying about eight kilometres off Townsville is a delightful island called Magnetic Island. It has about 25 kilometres of roads, and most of it is national park. It is a jewel in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park in North Queensland, but it is a jewel that has remained largely undeveloped. In 1983 there was a suggestion in the Magnetic Island community that it was time to have a new safe harbour. We still do not have a safe harbour some 17 years or so later. It has been a terribly long, drawn-out process where everything has been frustrated at every step of the way. But I am pleased to tell this forum that, finally, the federal government last week issued an environmental clearance for Nelly Bay harbour, which is the latest step in the project to get the thing under way.But there are still some concerns in that the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority will have to issue the necessary permits. They are at arms length with the government, as everybody understands. Once they issue those permits they are then challengeable in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The concern our community has is that those who wish to frustrate the project, and those who have frustrated the project over so many years, are now going to use this final appeal process to continue to frustrate the project. Here we have on Magnetic Island more than 95 per cent of the residents wanting this safe harbour, and we get this frustration from a handful of people who, year after year, have been denying this particular magic project for Magnetic Island, denying it to the residents of the island and of Townsville. Indeed, on the mainland the demand for the safe harbour is even higher: it runs at about 97 per cent.So my message to that particular handful of 20 or so people is: `It is time to stand aside. It is time to get out of the way. It is time to recognise the will of the people. It is time to understand that we do need a safe harbour on Magnetic Island.' I would appeal to them not to continue to frustrate the process, not to use this last technical appeal process, because it will simply further delay the project for another three months. I believe the project will now go ahead, and I am hopeful that we will see it finished by the end of this year. It has remained a blight on the beach at Magnetic Island, because it is half-built. I am very hopeful that we will see it completed by the end of the year. It will be a magic new amenity for the island, and one that the island will certainly welcome.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! In accordance with standing order 275A, the time for members' statements has concluded.Bills6044s201Consideration resumed from 31 May.604409:58:006044Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The purpose of the bill is to amend the Criminal Code Act 1995 to provide for new offences prohibiting the bribery of foreign officials within and outside Australia by Australians or companies incorporated in Australia. The offences are designed to implement the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Officials in International Business Transactions, which is a very significant response by the international community to the problem of transnational corruption.The provisions of the proposed bill would enable Australia to ratify the convention.The bill now before the House was passed by the Senate on 13 May 1999 with several amendments which were moved by the opposition and accepted by the government and others in the Senate.I am very pleased that the bill was passed by the Senate with the support of all groupings in the Senate.The message that is sent to the international community about our attitude to corruption is very important in a world where trade between different countries is increasingly influencing domestic policy.The government certainly looks forward to being able to report to the OECD that Australia has passed the implementing legislation with the support of all groupings in our parliament.The bill is very much one of the consequences of globalisation. We live in a time of unparalleled social and cultural interactions which demand that we have an international perspective in relation to our ethical and value systems as well as the conduct of business. I believe the bill and subsequent ratification of the convention will convey a message to the world and the Australian community that the parliament takes the problem of bribery seriously. There are those who believe official corruption is part of the way of life in some countries. However, it is almost always illegal and I doubt that it really reflects the true community values of the country concerned. However, where laws are not enforced for any reason, corruption will thrive.While an organised international response has taken some time to materialise, the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions is a very significant initiative. OECD countries account for approximately 80 per cent of global GDP. The OECD includes the world's three largest trading nations—the United States, Germany and Japan—and includes all major European countries, South Korea, Canada, Mexico, New Zealand and Australia.In December 1996 the United Nations General Assembly adopted a Declaration Against Corruption and Bribery in International Business Transactions. Indeed, the United Nations Economic and Social Council Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice continues to monitor progress on implementation of the declaration. The effort to combat international corruption is not limited to the OECD. Indeed, five countries that are not members of the OECD—Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Bulgaria and the Slovak Republic—have signed the convention. So there is scope for many more countries to join the international effort to stamp out corruption.It is important that Australia should support the OECD's initiative to combat the bribery of foreign public officials and take a principled stand against corruption. While I am sure we would all agree it will not completely solve the problem of corruption, implementation of the convention will reduce it and provide a strong statement about Australia's values and our confidence in the soundness of those values.There is good business sense, as much as morality, in introducing this legislation. Bribery distorts attempts at international competitive bidding, bribes themselves are non-productive and are therefore paid from profits and bribes distort trade in that contracts are not based on merit and can lead to production of poor quality goods and services. In the aid context, bribery can lead to a very poor selection of projects, and this can in turn lead to diversion of resources away from areas of greatest need.Australia considers this to be a serious international issue which is best tackled by multilateral action, and Australia considers it important that it be in a position to be part of that multilateral effort. The bill therefore follows the requirements of the OECD convention on these matters and, as such, keeps our standards in line with those proposed for other highly industrialised countries.The great majority of the other OECD countries either have passed the necessary legislation or are in the process of doing so. Indeed the convention was able to come into force on 15 February 1999 because sufficient countries have passed the implementing legislation and ratified the convention. These include Germany, Japan, the USA, Korea and Canada.As honourable members may be aware, an earlier version of the bill and the convention was examined in detail by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties whose report was tabled on 2 July 1998. The government is very appreciative of the contribution that the committee's report has made to this issue and believes that the bill introduced is consistent with the report's recommendations.I particularly thank the now retired chairman of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, Mr Bill Taylor, the former member for Groom, and other members for giving consideration of the convention priority and for their comprehensive public consultations. I also thank Senator Helen Coonan for her important work as chair of the OECD bribery subcommittee.I believe that the government's establishment of a process for careful examination of and consultation on treaties prior to their signature is working well and ensures there is a full and wide appreciation of what is involved in the obligations before Australia is bound by them. The consideration of this particular convention is an example of how well that process works.The bill proposes that the Criminal Code Act 1995 be amended by inserting part of a new chapter 4 into the Criminal Code which prohibits the bribing of a foreign public official. The main provision is clause 70.2. Subclause 70.2(1) prohibits providing or offering a benefit which is not legitimately due to another person with the intention of influencing a foreign public official in the exercise of his or her duties.For it to be an offence, the benefit must also be provided or offered in order to obtain or retain business or obtain or retain a business advantage that is not legitimately due to the recipient or intended recipient. The maximum penalty is 10 years imprisonment, which is consistent with the penalty recommended for the same type of offence in the Model Criminal Code.Subclauses 70.2(2) and 70.2(3) make it clear that something is not legitimately due just because the benefit or business advantage may be customary or because of its value or official tolerance of corruption. Clause 70.3 provides for a defence. A person cannot be guilty of the offence if the activity is lawful in the country of the foreign public official. I would doubt whether corrupt activities would be lawful in many countries; however, it follows that there should be a defence in those circumstances.Clause 70.4 provides for another defence. It provides that a person is not guilty if the person's conduct was engaged in for the sole or dominant purpose of expediting or securing a routine government action of a minor nature and the value of the benefit was of a minor nature. The bill concerns large scale bribes which warrant special offences which reach beyond the usual jurisdictional reach of governments. Small payments are something left for local officials to stamp out, and it is not appropriate or practical for foreign governments to be concerning themselves with expensive international prosecutions. This approach reflects what is provided for in the convention and is similar to legislation in the United States and Canada.Clause 70.4 also requires those wishing to rely on the defence to produce a contemporaneous record of the payment to establish their bona fides. I agree with the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties that there should be strict recording requirements, and the bill requires compliance with these before the defence can be utilised.Clause 70.5 deals with the extraterritorial reach of the proposed bill. Consistent with the recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, the bill has been adjusted to reflect the overwhelming majority view of submissions that jurisdiction should be based not only on there being some territorial connection to Australia but on whether the accused is an Australian citizen or a body corporate incorporated by, or under, an Australian law.The bill was amended in the Senate to also cover conduct outside Australia by residents of Australia who are not citizens of Australia because there was concern that some people who are long-term residents of Australia could not be prosecuted. I expect that the same practice will be adopted in relation to residency jurisdiction as has been adopted in relation to the similar residency jurisdiction provision in the child sex tourism legislation—namely, that proceedings will be commenced only where the person has been resident in Australia for at least two years.It is the government's view that persons who are residents of Australia but not citizens of Australia at the time of the conduct should primarily be the responsibility of their home jurisdiction where the conduct is outside Australia. Accordingly, where the home jurisdiction has its own legislation in place, it would be the preference of the Australian government that proceedings be commenced against the person by their home jurisdiction.Clause 70.6 is a savings clause in relation to other relevant laws, including state and territory laws. In some circumstances there will be an overlap with state and territory secret commissions offences. The government would not want to disturb any prosecution which is initiated under state or territory legislation. I expect in the vast majority of cases the prosecutions will be initiated under the proposed legislation because it has a higher penalty.I believe this bill will make a significant contribution to Australia's ability to influence the conduct of international business transactions to ensure that decisions are made on the basis of the merits of the product or service and not on the basis of extraneous matters which have no place in development of trading and business relationships. In any case, the bill is also morally right and should be enacted on that basis alone. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.10:09:006047Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—The Australian Labor Party strongly supports the Criminal Code Amendment (Bribery of Foreign Public Officials) Bill 1999 . Corruption has been a scourge on many countries throughout the world. Research carried out by the International Monetary Fund has shown that corruption gives bureaucrats an incentive to increase needless red tape, that it saps the confidence of investors and that countries in which corruption flourishes are those frequently which invest least in education and have fallen behind economically.Before I speak further on this bill, I want to acknowledge the cooperation that has happened in relation to the development of this legislation. The Attorney-General has, quite properly, recognised the work of the Joint Committee on Treaties, but I would also like to acknowledge the work of his own advisers, particularly Geoff McDonald in the Attorney-General's Department and the team that have worked with him. They met and briefed the opposition through this process, and those discussions were cooperative and fruitful. I should acknowledge Senator Vanstone's office and her staff, who were equally cooperative in relation to this issue.On our side, I make note particularly of the contribution of Andrew Leigh in the office of Senator Peter Cook. He has been one of the key agitators, if I can put it that way, for the opposition, pressing the government on some key amendments which the government has ultimately accepted. This has been an exercise which has brought out the best in the parliamentary process and the executive government. Of course, that is frequently the way in which legislation emerges. Public attention naturally focuses on those occasions when we lock horns but, in instances such as this, it is very pleasing to be able to acknowledge the cooperation that has been extended to the benefit of the legislation that has emerged.In the Senate, we made mention of the fact that bribery has come under the microscope as never before. Corruption has played a part in the dismissal of governments from Zaire to Brazil, in the Philippines and in Indonesia and there have been serious allegations of bribery and corruption even in the United Kingdom. From those experiences and others, the OECD convention on bribery was born, and thus this bill.The explanatory memorandum refers to assessments of costs and benefits and trade impacts. It notes that there is a view, which has been quite properly rejected, that Australia will be disadvantaged by the adoption of this legislation. The fact is that I think Australia has been disadvantaged in international trade and commerce by the prevalence of corruption. Sometimes we do have amongst our business establishment people who are crooks, and few would deny it. They come before the courts too infrequently but, nonetheless, we could all repeat lists of those of great prominence serving time behind bars, some of whom have been at the heights of the Australian business establishment and have not been unprepared to stoop to low conduct to achieve their ends.On the whole however, Australian business operating overseas tends to act within a more ethical framework than is the case with many other nations trading internationally. Australians tend to resent the request for financial inducements or bribery. They operate in a framework which is scrutinised by the ASC. They operate in a framework where we seek to encourage transparency in the corporate law, and it is not quite so easy to disguise illicit payments for corrupt objectives. When they do business in countries where corruption has become endemic, Australians often find themselves less able to close business deals simply because there is an implicit or explicit expectation on those with whom business is to be done that there will be a quid pro quo in a monetary or some other form going to that official before a contract can be let.As I say, that is not completely unknown even in our own country. The newspapers have recently been highlighting the alleged exploits of someone in Sydney who goes under the sobriquet of Mr Ten Per Cent and his alleged association with a former police officer. So we should not pretend that we are coming into this debate all naive and innocent and all that do trade for and on behalf of Australian companies overseas have been entirely untouched by corruption. But that is all the more reason to have this legislation. That is a reason to say that we will not condone practices of this nature and that we think that international norms should be built to try to restrict the corrosive effect of bribery and corruption that occurs.In mentioning those who should take some credit in relation to this legislation, I note the work of Transparency International. They have carried the public debate on this issue for a very long time and their work should be acknowledged. The opposition will also claim some credit for some specifics of this legislation, and we should. We proposed a number of amendments.The first amendment which the government accepted was one to clause 70.2 to insert words relating to the value of the business advantage. We did that because we felt that there was a risk that a court in interpreting the legislation might take the legislation to mean that, by omission, the value of the business advantage was a relevant factor in deciding whether the business advantage was legitimately due. That was not the intention of the explanatory memorandum, and the amendment fixed that matter.The second amendment was to address what was essentially a minor oversight in the drafting. The bill is intended to cover large payments to foreign officials to secure their cooperation; it is not intended to cover minor matters which might more appropriately be dealt with by the local jurisdiction. It accepts that, in some parts of the world, whether it is right or wrong, there is a practice of small transfers of money to facilitate the speedy issue of licences—drivers licences and minor permits of that nature. We might not like it but, if that is the way business is done, we have accepted that that is a matter for those local jurisdictions.But the legislation, as proposed, referred to the payment being of a minor nature, so it left unaddressed the possibility of making a series of minor payments to secure a very large benefit. The amendments that have been now introduced into the legislation make it plain that minor payments are only possible as an exception to the general rule if they are also designed to secure minor benefits. So you cannot backdoor the legislation by washing through a series of minor payments with the aim of securing large benefits to the individual or corporation that is making the payments.Finally, we have prevailed upon the government to accept that the legislation should apply not only to Australian citizens and corporations which have an Australian domicile but also to Australian residents. The Attorney has, quite properly, referred to the child sex legislation, which is the precedent upon which this proposal was modelled.The reason we put this forward was that it seemed to be hypothetically possible at least that, for example, of two individuals in almost the same situation, living side by side in the same street in a Sydney suburb, one being an Australian citizen and one not but perhaps having been a resident here for 20 years and doing business overseas, the Australian citizen would be the subject of these laws and subject to quite strong criminal penalties, fines and imprisonment but his next-door neighbour could undertake that activity with impunity. That seemed a very odd and unconscionable outcome and not consistent with applying the same legal framework to all those who have Australia as their place of residence.The Attorney quite properly points out that there is a discretion, as there is in the child sex legislation. Consent to a prosecution of a resident, as opposed to an Australian citizen, will require the Attorney's written consent, and the Attorney has indicated his preference that, where there is a concurrent jurisdiction from that person's country of citizenship, it might best be pursued in that jurisdiction. That may be so, but of course not all persons who are resident in Australia without Australian citizenship come from countries which will have adopted the OECD treaty and, of those that have adopted the OECD treaty, not all will have proposed similar legislative provisions. This gap needs to be closed. Furthermore, where a person has been a long-term resident of Australia and has, in a sense, treated this country as their country of domicile, where they have long connections and are part of our community, there seems to be no reason whatsoever in my view that we should not expect of them the same ethical and commercial standards as we expect of every other Australian citizen.These changes were made in the Senate after negotiation with the government's advisers, Senator Vanstone and her office. I think the legislation has been improved as a result. It leaves us in a position where we are very pleased to be able to join with the Attorney. This allows Australia to feel confident that we have joined an international process which will be important in changing the way in which business is done by international companies operating in other jurisdictions. Transparency International, particularly Peter Willis and Peter Rooke, will be pleased with this outcome.Of course all great hopes have to be tempered by realism. Prosecutions under this act will not be frequent. Offences will be hard to identify and hard to prosecute. If it is hard to identify and prosecute corporate misbehaviour in Australia, it will be more so when it is the subject of investigation by Australian citizens or residents in other jurisdictions where the legal framework may not be conducive to all the requirements that we may need to establish a case beyond reasonable doubt. We should not pretend that this will be an act which, by its overnight passage, produces simple and quick solutions and a reduction of bribery and corruption, but it does send a very strong message. It also needs to be matched with pressure from the Australian government at the international level to ensure that all those countries which have endorsed the OECD treaty pass similar legislation, because this needs to be a comprehensive network.If you do not have a level playing field, then unfortunately it gives advantage to those who are willing to make the bribe, willing to make the payment, willing to corrupt and willing to keep in place corrupt systems in states where without that pressure and the willingness of the rich outsiders to come in and make those payments corruption would be lessened. If you do not have a level playing field, those who are immune from measures of this nature will be trading on an unfair plane. To the extent that any Australian company would lose business as a result of that, I am certain they would feel legitimately aggrieved. So there is a continuing international task for the Australian government to ensure that all those countries which have adopted the OECD charter do pass similar legislation and then move to ensure that there is an appropriate framework for enforcement.That said, I should conclude and congratulate the Attorney, the Minister for Justice and Customs and all those who served on the joint committees and worked together towards facilitating this legislation. I think it reflects well on the parliament.22:25:006050Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—The Criminal Code Amendment (Bribery of Foreign Public Officials) Bill 1999 is a good bill and, as the member for Denison rightly said, it does reflect extremely well on the parliament and the processes. The locking of horns that is always the focus of the media is certainly not the case in this. I would also like to congratulate the Attorney-General and, in particular, the Minister for Justice and Customs on her processes in bringing this bill towards its complete assent and passing into law. I do so from a position as a non-lawyer, as a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties—one of the pioneer members of that committee—which was I think one of the very real and telling initiatives of the Howard government.This bill is a landmark in another way—that is, it is the first time a piece of draft legislation was referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties for discussion, for inquiry, for public debate, for input from all of those involved, including Transparency International, and for the process of finetuning that produced the final document we have before us today. So in that regard, all of those involved—the Attorney-General and the justice minister in particular—should be commended by the public of Australia for opening this bill up to discussion. In particular, as people get paranoid day in and day out about Australia's international linkages through treaties, the work of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties on flushing out views and concerns about matters such as this legislation plays a vital role, I think, in the ongoing education of the broad populace as well as the specific section of our community who are affected by matters such as corruption and bribery in this case.Australian business does pay a penalty for not being active participants in bribing public officials offshore. There are some very well-founded and well-documented examples of corrupt practices by bigger players in the world economy. The US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act 1977 grew out of some of the more famous ones that took place, I think it was in Japan, as a result of US companies attempting to influence officials there to gain access to market possibilities. These sorts of scandals are scandals that fortunately Australian companies have not been involved in that we know of.The question of what a bribe was was an important thing to establish as we were involved in the inquiry. We were looking at whether a bribe really could come down to a basic simple thing like a gratuity or a tip. I guess in its purest form it probably does in one sense. As the member for Denison said, the idea of saying to a public official, `I want that particular thing off the ship fast and out of the container fast. Here is a bottle of scotch or here is $20 to make it happen,' is probably commercial reality, but in a purist sense I think that in itself is a bribe. But if we were going to, as a means of that definition of a bribe, try to transact proceedings against people, we would have the entire AFP and the legal system in the country tied up forever, I suspect.The idea of somebody wanting to get their passport visa stamped quickly was also brought up in the terms of this inquiry. We discovered on a number of occasions that Australian companies have had to pay a little premium to an official in another country in order to get priority treatment on a visa. In itself I think that is probably arguably a bribe or just simply a payment for priority treatment. We have talked about those matters in our discussions in the treaties committee. We decided that `bribe' would mean the following:. . . the offer, promise, or giving of any undue pecuniary or other advantage, whether directly or through intermediaries, to a foreign public official, for that official or for third party, in order that the official act or refrain from acting in relation to the performance of official duties, in order to obtain or retain business or other improper advantage in the conduct of international business.I hope everyone understands that completely!RH4KERRMr Kerr—Not bad considering you're not a lawyer. You have already got the mumbo jumbo.CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—Have I got the mumbo jumbo worked out? Well, I will apply in due course for a legal degree, following in the footsteps of the great Jim Killen perhaps. I think it is important to note that for many years in this country, and until quite recently, bribery in the form of gratuities and tips and so forth were in fact tax deductible until what was originally the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1998, which became Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1999, gained assent on 31 March. Until then, it was possible for payments of bribes to become tax deductible expenses in this country. These are all interesting matters that were brought out through the inquiry process of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. So the minister has done the right thing by submitting this for full inquiry to produce the 16th report tabled in July last year for further public discussion before the matter was then introduced in the Senate and now finally in the House of Representatives.I would like to particularly single out the work of Senator Helen Coonan, who is a lawyer. She and the member for Lyons assisted greatly the committee's direct deliberations in this matter. The member for Lyons, Senator Coonan and I became the three people who were involved in the subcommittee appointed by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties.With regard to the need for this convention, as I said, I think Australian businesses have probably paid an increasing penalty as companies from other nations have embarked upon potentially corrupt activities, both active and passive forms, ranging from the actual involvement in a direct payment to somebody in order to bring about a certain result or turning a blind eye to certain activities. We found important evidence that the World Bank estimates that bribes emanating from industrialised to developing countries amount to about $US80 billion per year—$US80 billion worth of distortion in the marketplace. The total net flow of direct investment and trade and development assistance to developing nations is about $US180 billion a year. In other words, there is a large component of bribe money, if you like, that is impacting on the direct development of underdeveloped nations in this world.The member for Denison, as well as the Attorney-General, highlighted a number of matters. The distortion to the development of those nations is a matter that concerned the treaties committee greatly. A nation where, if you are related to the ruling entity, you are having a better lifestyle than the average citizen is an anathema to all Australians. The idea of some sort of universal franchise of involvement in our community is something we attempt to uphold, and I think we live and breathe as a nation, perhaps more than most people realise, because most people are treated on an equal footing. Everyone has a right to vote. Everyone has an equal opportunity to participate, although some perhaps need more assistance to have that equality of opportunity to participate. Nevertheless, there is none of the distortion we see in a lot of developing countries where family relationships or mateships can impact upon just how well you are travelling in the overall scheme of things. Bribery plays a role in enhancing and entrenching, if you like, those sorts of activities. For a lot of good social reasons, not just pure economic reasons, the attack on bribery which the OECD has embarked upon and which this government and, I would say, all parties, all members and senators in this place, are now party to is important. This bill is important for a lot of human reasons as well as just dollars and cents reasons.It is also important to note that there is a real linkage in a contemporary sense between what we are trying to do with this bill and what has happened in Asia in recent years. One of the other issues that came out of the inquiry we held was that Brian Hurlock from the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry said that he regarded corruption in all its forms as a cancer in the global system of trade investment, requiring decisive and effective action to eradicate it completely. He noted that in fact there is a linkage between the current economic problems in Australia's region and endemic corruption, low level results of which he saw first-hand in refugee camps in Thailand in the 1980s and 1990s. So there is a fairly straightforward allegation that corruption in the form of bribery has in fact led to a lot of the lack of transparency and a lot of the poor systems that are at the heart of the Asian currency crisis. Again, I think for a lot of reasons this bill is very important.The concept of making bribery a criminal offence is seen as an important first step in addressing the overall incidence of international bribery. The reason why it is rightly with the OECD—and a lot of people say that the OECD is the rich club of the world—is exactly that. The 29 most economically powerful nations in the world are the keepers of international capital, so it does make a great deal of sense that that is the place to start if you want to try to battle the corrupt use of that capital and the impact it has especially on developing nations, the poor countries who are not part of the OECD.We have recently seen the first conviction under the child sex crimes legislation, which has the power to charge Australian citizens engaging in wrongful practices in other jurisdictions. Difficult as I believe it is to track down Australians who participate in scandalous activities such as having sex with children and difficult as it will probably be to track down Australian companies participating in disgraceful acts such as distorting economic activity through bribery, it is still important that we attempt to do just that. As the recent conviction under the Child Sex Crimes Act shows, it is possible to do.The committee was very determined that the draft legislation was broadened to include the jurisdiction which has now been outlined in the bill. Whether it was the opposition in the Senate that pursued the government over the matter or not, I still say the first statement of claim on that came directly out of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties.RH4KERRMr Kerr—Your views are very subjective.CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—Ultimately our views have prevailed. The other point we did make, which is always worth enforcing at any opportunity, concerns the resources involved in chasing these matters. It is important that we do provide adequate resources for that. I believe the government's ongoing efforts to focus AFP activities in other countries to try to, if you like, nip in the bud activities such as illegal migration to this country by having effective officers well placed in hot spots in our region and other jurisdictions around the world will also play a role in this particular legislation.Overall, I think a big tick has to go to the government and, I guess, the entire parliament. Without wanting to be too gratuitous and too self-congratulatory, I think one of the key things that does come out of this is that those who are very suspicious of the treaty making process need to know that the treaty making process in this country now is more transparent than it ever has been before. It is open to public discussion, debate and discovery. Australia's best interests are going to be served by ensuring Australian businesses participate fully in the activities of being transparent and open in their dealings in other countries to make sure they cannot have the charge of corruption levelled at them.You could withdraw from corrupt markets, you could have a capital strike and take your money and invest elsewhere, but the penalty to those sorts of countries would be too hard to imagine. I think you can rightly, as this bill suggests, demand that the owners of capital use that capital in the right way and not participate in corrupt activities for all the reasons that have been outlined in this debate thus far. I commend the bill to the House.10:39:006053Irwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN83ZFowlerALP00—The Labor Party supports the Criminal Code Amendment (Bribery of Foreign Public Officials) Bill 1999 to amend the criminal code in line with the United Nations Declaration Against Corruption and Bribery in International Business Transactions and in line with the OECD recommendation that countries should legislate for criminal sanctions against those bribing foreign officials. A tip of the iceberg figure for the cost of bribes, estimated by the World Bank, is about $US80 billion a year. The major trading countries are making most of that contribution to public officials in rotten systems.This bill makes it a criminal offence for an individual or a business incorporated in Australia to bribe foreign officials. The offence carries 10 years in gaol or severe financial penalties set by the court. There is some wisdom in prosecuting the payer and not the payee. It is rich countries, generally speaking, that make bribes to poor countries. For many multinationals it is a business overhead, but it is corrupting the administration of poorer nations. It is impeding honest trade. It is also a tax deduction for some entities.Corruption cannot assist developing countries. The evidence is that it cripples emerging economies by scaring off investment and trade. It taints all commercial activity. The Internet Centre for Corruption Research in Berlin has been examining the perception of corruption across the globe. Their corruption perception index puts Denmark, Finland, Sweden, New Zealand and Iceland as the top five cleanest countries. Those countries are considered by business people, risk analysts and the general public to be least corrupt in their importing practices. We must have some backhanders, because Australia comes in at 11th. Cameroon comes in last.It is one thing to pay bribes—business often claims it is merely adapting to local customs and ethic standards—but it is another to have a country where public officials expect, demand and receive bribes. And it is another thing again to seek advantage by offering bribes. It has more than one dimension. It will not be easy to fix, but it is leading to enough international concern for action to be taken.The OECD has mounted a comprehensive attack on corrupt practices among member and non-member countries. An extensive round of conferences and regional events has been undertaken, aimed at government officials as well as business leaders, journalists, non-government organisations and professional bodies. Two months ago, the OECD Anti-Corruption Unit conducted a global forum of 80 countries to look at ways of combating corruption. Its approach is sensible: integrity and transparency in government, political will and international cooperation are the principal means to reduce the spread of corruption and bribery. Realistically, corruption of public officials is likely to be with us always. Greed is not good.The problem is not simply an ethical one. Corruption and bribery distort commerce and retard development. As my colleague has pointed out, countries in which corruption flourishes are those which invest least in education. Corruption saps the confidence of investors. It brings political instability and collapse. It is an evil requiring global action and the political will to impose tough measures on companies and individuals who feed its appetite.The practice has become so entrenched that the OECD has also produced a related text to the convention, outlawing tax deductibility for bribe payments made to foreign officials. The convention commits 34 signatory countries, including the world's biggest economies, to adopt common rules to punish companies and individuals who engage in bribery. In the words of the OECD Anti-corruption Unit, 12 countries up to May have already changed their domestic laws. They include Belgium, Canada, Germany, Japan, Korea and the US.Now we are making that small step. Apart from the moral side of the argument, Australia cannot be left out from the commercial side of the issue. We rely on trade. This government seems unfazed by the fact that we have become great importers. Importing or exporting, our interests are not served by having to press additional consideration into the palms of shady officials.So it is that we have this bill, which is supported by the Labor Party but with some more rigorous commitment. Those amendments, I believe, have been dealt with by my colleagues in this place and the other place. The introduction of this bill is timely. The OECD has begun monitoring compliance and adoption. To drag our feet a little can be excused because of our good reputation; to drag our feet a lot suggests complacency. This legislation needed to be right in the detail, and I am pleased that some effort has been made to ensure this. Definition has been important: what is a company? What is a foreign public official? What is a benefit?Labor's amendment to extend penalties to Australian residents is a major refocus of definition—an essential one. The bill has been drawn up with US and other legislation in view. In that regard, we can expect consistency in this approach to stop the practice of palm greasing. We can hope that the practices outlawed by this legislation stop altogether. It is unlikely. But it is a major advantage for Australian interests to be able to say, `Sorry, but if we do as you ask, we would be breaking Australian law and could go to gaol.' If enough countries can put forward the same resistance, there is a good chance that free trade will serve us all better.10:46:006054Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON3K6ParramattaLP10—It is a pleasure to speak in support of a motion by which members on both sides are heartily endorsing both the substance of the bill and the process by which its contents were achieved. I join with previous speakers in congratulating both of the relevant ministers, particularly Senator Vanstone. The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties are entitled to an accolade as well, in that they have conducted a fairly exhaustive inquiry and their report is a most instructive piece of reading and has informed this debate in a very helpful way. It is also pleasing to see the executive drawing upon the expertise and resources of the parliament in such a meaningful and substantive way as took place in the engineering of this particular piece of legislation.The bill itself is an implementation of Australia's obligations as a signatory to the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions. The purpose of the bill is to amend the Criminal Code to prohibit providing or offering a benefit not legitimately due to another person with the intention of influencing a foreign public official in the exercise of his or her duties to obtain or retain a business advantage. It is a fairly big mouthful, but there are a number of elements that I would like to briefly refer to in terms of the precise scope of the bill.It is an amendment to the Criminal Code and therefore involves criminal sanctions. This behaviour will be treated by the Australian government as criminal activity, and the sanctions attaching are commensurately serious to offenders. It prohibits the providing or offering of benefits not legitimately due to another person. Interestingly, it does not require that the benefit be offered to the final beneficiary. The reference to `another person' means that, if you offer a benefit to an agent or to an intermediary between yourself and the person who will ultimately receive the bribe, that is an equally actionable offence. The act introduces a concept of reckless indifference whereby if, for example, you pay a very highly inflated commission to an agent or middleman or woman in the knowledge that it is likely that he or she will pass on a bribe to the foreign public official, then that conduct will be caught by the act.The idea of obtaining or retaining a business advantage refers to the fact that not only is it in relation to bidding for new business but it may be in the maintenance of an existing relationship, that a pattern of graft may be intended to ensure that other competition is locked out of the equation. The bill will catch behaviour by Australian citizens, whether it takes place within the geographical borders of Australia and its territories or in the foreign country itself. In that regard, the bill mirrors the sexual slavery and servitude legislation previously introduced by the minister. The focus of the bill is on major graft. It is not, as previous speakers have mentioned, directed towards payment of small gratuities. It is directed towards influencing the outcome of a major investment or trading decision, and that is probably as it should be.I lived in Papua New Guinea for almost a year or so and recall finding there a different set of cultural values and attitudes, some of which were quite positive but which would nonetheless be looked upon with a pretty dim view in Australia. For example, in developing countries more generally you find much tighter kinship relationships and high levels of obligation toward family expected, particularly among public officials. While I worked for a judge in Papua New Guinea, there would be a fairly constant procession of his, what were described as `wantoks'—those sharing his language, his dialect, family members or relatives—proceeding through his office seeking his assistance to repay a loan, to borrow some money, to borrow the car or whatever it might be. The understanding was that it was his obligation to look after his family. When he went to employ a driver, there was the unanimous expectation that he would employ a relative as his driver. There is this blurring of the lines: where does a discharge of family obligation end and nepotism begin?I do not get up with a great sense of moral unction in this debate. While I do wholeheartedly endorse the functional impact of the legislation, I recognise the dilemma faced by Australian companies in other parts of the world. For example, again in a former life, I acted for private sector participants in infrastructure projects—things like power stations, toll roads, water treatment plants, ports and airports—and often you would find Australian companies bidding in, for example, Asia and South-East Asia for major infrastructure projects that might be valued in the tens of millions or even hundreds of millions of dollars. The Australian consortium would be bidding against the French, German and the Americans in a country in which the gross domestic product would be some small fraction of Australia's and where the average standard of living might be $US400 or $US500 a year. You knew that the official you were dealing with was on a monthly income of about $US100, and you were writing a contract in hundreds of millions of dollars. That presents a very great dilemma for a company that wants to be competitive, particularly if you become aware, as a matter of virtual certainty, that your competitors are bribing the officials making the decision.I recollect having discussions with a couple of directors of major Australian companies, asking, `How do you resolve this tension?' I had different responses. Some said that there were countries in the world in which they had simply made a corporate decision not to trade in that particular jurisdiction. That, of course, represents a great loss to the jurisdiction, but that was the decision—that, in order to protect some measure of integrity, a company simply could not go into one country or another. Others said to me, `If you want to be competitive, you simply have to play the game.' They may spend several hundred thousand dollars building a bid for a major project, and then they would say, `So you are going to walk away from this because you are not prepared to give the guy and his family $5,000 or $10,000 or whatever it may be?'That is why the multilateral character of this legislation is so important. Up until now, if you wanted to in effect do the right thing, if you wanted to practise virtue, then you had to accept a massive competitive disadvantage. You had to accept that, for every contest you walked into, you were playing with your hands tied behind your back while your competitors in many cases were entirely unrestrained. The fact that you have all of these OECD and other member nations coming on as signatories to the treaty means that each of us as one are really putting our hands up and saying, `We are taking a different view about this issue; we are accepting a restraint on our conduct, but we do so with the commercial comfort that our principal competitors are accepting the same constraint.'There are those—and every member of the House of Representatives will have a few in his or her electorate—who have a deep level of apprehension about the United Nations, about multilateral relationships, about organisations such as the OECD and a feeling of Big Brother and an erosion of Australian sovereignty and of the national interests, but I think a piece of legislation such as this demonstrates the very powerful and appropriate use of multilateral cooperation in addressing a compelling practical problem.I want to turn to this question of the functional impact of corruption, which the member for Fowler and others have also spoken about. I talk about the functional impact because there is a demonstrably negative impact on developing economies of a culture of graft. There is a developmental impact, and the World Bank—as the member for Fowler mentioned—estimates that there is about $80 billion worth of graft going into the developing world and just over double that in aid. So the graft budget is nearly half of the aid budget. All of the evidence indicates that the countries which do participate in this culture pay a huge economic cost for it.But I just reaffirm that I am not standing here with a sense of moral unction. I had the opportunity to have dinner recently with the Vietnam Minister for Social Services and the Disabled, Dr Duc Huu Dam. He was one of the most impressive individuals I had met for a very long time—a senior minister in the Vietnamese government and a longstanding member of the leadership of the Communist Party of Vietnam. When I presumed to ask him his salary, he explained to me that it was $US100 a month. I have some frustration with remuneration in the House of Representatives, but when I sat with this man, who had several children and was living as a minister of the government—a member of the national leadership body of the Communist Party—on $US100 a month, I thought that it is easy for us to lapse into a kind of unctuous or sanctimonious attitude towards these questions. I do not want to provide any kind of legitimacy to corruption, but I simply recognise the fact that the conditions of life in the developing world are just unbelievably difficult.Yesterday I had the pleasure to meet the head of mission in Australia for Bosnia. That was an equally instructive experience. He explained to me that, when he arrived in Australia five years ago with his six-year-old son, they went into the temporary accommodation in Canberra where the mission would be housed. He graphically remembers his son rushing out of the bathroom, barely able to control himself, saying, `Father, father, they have hot water in Australia.' The head of mission explained to me that, up to that moment, it had been two years since his family had had the benefit of hot water.We endorse and support this bill because we think it is bad for Australian companies to, in effect, sully themselves and sully their own corporate culture by participating in a culture of corruption. We endorse it because we recognise in the long run it is damaging to developing countries. This is the subject of a fair bit of academic literature. Francis Fukuyama came to the world's attention as an author when he wrote a book entitled The end of history and the last man, which was really a treatise on the ideological triumph of democratic capitalism. In a second book, entitled Trust: social virtues and the creation of prosperity, he examines the relationship of trust both between individuals and between individuals and public institutions in a whole range of nations around the world and the relationship between the level of trust and the creation of prosperity.His argument is that you can actually create a trust indice and that you can measure the speed of economic development and the level of prosperity of a nation against the levels of trust that exist between individuals and between citizens and their principal public institutions. I think he makes a fairly compelling argument. The clear consequence is that where you get a culture of distrust you get a reluctance to invest and you get a reluctance to enter into contracts. Where major economic decisions are made on the basis of bribery, you get misallocation of resources whereby often the lesser technology and the lesser project proponent will be successful. Again, the country, the community, the mums and dads, are the ones who suffer as a consequence.As I said, I remember sitting in a discussion among a group of Australian directors who were developing a major manufacturing project. There had been an offer of finance for this project from one of our South-East Asian neighbours. This Australian director said that, attractive as the financing terms were, he would not accept the offer because they had a corporate policy that their company would not do business in that particular country, on the basis of their previous commercial experience. Again, the losers, because a series of public officials had accepted bribes in that jurisdiction, were the people of the country because they would not get the benefit of the technology.This idea of Fukuyama's that trust is a core ingredient in the creation of prosperity has been taken up by other economists, historians and economic historians, probably most notably Max Weber. In his analysis of the emergence of the Industrial Revolution, he spoke about the culture of the puritans. One of those virtues was the idea that a man was bound by his word, that a man or woman was obligated to discharge the obligations they had given in good faith. As that cultural value achieved a wider communal consensus, it provided the foundation upon which the law of contract could emerge. The law of contract then became one of the foundation stones, one of the pillars, upon which the Industrial Revolution was subsequently built, because individuals were prepared to risk capital on the understanding that commitments made by their partners in a project would be honoured.This theme is taken up by no doubt Australia's most famous economic historian, Max Hartwell, originally of the University of New South Wales, then of Oxford and the University of Virginia. Hartwell really drew the attention of the discipline of economic history to the role of cultural values in the creation of wealth; and in what became known as the standard of living debate, when other economic historians were focusing on the availability of particular technologies, on geography, on topography, on relationships with other trading partners, et cetera, Hartwell's emphasis was on the presence or absence of a set of cultural values in particular countries.This may be controversial, but, although Africa is one of the most natural resource rich continents of the world, you have virtually from one end to the other the experience of economic destitution. I do not resile from the view that the problem in Africa is not a shortage of natural resources; it is a shortage of what Francis Fukuyama described as social capital. It is a low rating on the trust index. The member for Fowler suggested that Australia has been ranked 11th in the world in terms of its unwillingness to participate in corruption. That is not a bad outcome, but I think each of us standing up here today is saying that we would like to see us get even further up the list. We would like to be ranked No. 1 in a public virtue such as unwillingness to perpetuate a culture of corruption.We can take a certain amount of pride in both the way this legislation has been constructed and in its content. It does send a signal not only to the developing world but also to ourselves. Without wanting to rub that bruise, our recent experience in bidding for the Olympic Games has not been a happy one for Australia. It has produced a degree of demoralisation in a project that should have been the subject of unremitting celebration. We have lessons to learn. I hope this bill will help us as well as the developing world. (Time expired)11:06:006058Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—in reply—Madam Deputy Speaker Gash, having portfolio responsibility for the Sex Discrimination Act, I am pleased to be able to remark that, prior to Mr Wright arriving, it was the first occasion I can recall when there has been a female presiding Deputy Speaker and two female clerks. I do not think I have yet seen that occur in the House, but the Main Committee is a pioneering institution. I thank all members who have participated in the debate for their interest in the bill and for their contributions. I mention the members for Denison, Moreton, Fowler and Parramatta.The passage of this legislation will enable Australia to fulfil an important obligation that Australia undertook when it signed the OECD convention on 7 December 1998. Since the signature by Australia, the number of countries which have taken the further step of depositing instruments of ratification or acceptance has grown to 13. I think it was mentioned in the debate that there were 12. Austria became the 13th country on 20 May 1999. This is in a relatively short period since Iceland became the first on 17 August last year. Australia will very shortly be able to join that group.The government is very appreciative of the exhaustive examination of the draft legislation by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. This has been the subject of some comment. The member for Moreton specifically mentioned that this was the first occasion when there had been a treaty or convention under examination and a bill to implement it at the same time. It is perhaps a little surprising, given that the committee has now been operating for some three years approximately, that it has not happened before, assuming that is right. I am not in a position to dispute what the member for Moreton asserted, but I think it does point in the right direction.If the committee is going to examine a convention with a view to determining whether Australia should take final treaty action in respect of it and it is the sort of treaty that requires legislation in order for Australia to fulfil the obligations that would apply under it, then it is entirely appropriate that any relevant legislation—I would add, whether Commonwealth, state or territory—should be examined by the committee at the same time, if it is available. It is generally within the power of governments to ensure that the legislation is available. I would hope that this is simply the first of many occasions when the committee will be looking at legislation.I am not going to enter the debate as to whether it was the joint committee or the opposition who can take responsibility for the amendments. That is a matter I have no personal knowledge of. But the government, as I indicated earlier, was happy to accept the amendments, whatever their origin. They certainly were moved by the opposition in the Senate.The member for Denison kindly offered congratulations to me as Attorney-General in respect of this legislation. I really ought to decline on the basis that my contribution on this legislation was at an early stage when I was also administering the justice portfolio. The Treasurer, the Deputy Prime Minister in his capacity as Minister for Trade and I were responsible for the early development of the proposals. But the Minister for Justice, now the Minister for Justice and Customs, Senator Amanda Vanstone, is the one to whom the congratulations ought to be offered; vicariously, on her behalf, I am pleased to accept them.The government really does look forward to being able to report to the OECD that the implementing legislation has passed with the support of all parties in the parliament. The message that can be sent to the international community about our attitude to corruption is important in a world where trade between different countries is increasingly influencing domestic policy.The member for Parramatta indicated some of the practical difficulties that will apply in respect of the implementation of the obligations implicit in this legislation. They are not to be underestimated, but that is no reason for not attempting to make sure that the world becomes a better place in the light of the implementation of the policy that is underlying the bill. I thank honourable members for their contributions, and I commend the bill to the Main Committee. I look forward to Australia lodging its instrument of ratification at the OECD convention.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Gash)—If no member wishes to consider the bill in detail, I will put the question to report forthwith. The question is that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills6060r7716060Debate resumed from 24 March, on motion by Mr Vaile:That the bill be now read a second time.11:12:006060Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOTXW4DicksonALP00—Labor has no difficulty in supporting the Damage by Aircraft Bill 1999 because, as Minister Vaile said in his second reading speech, it establishes the availability of compensation as promptly and comprehensively as is practicable for members of the non-flying public who might be unfortunate enough to be the victims of an air accident. This bill encompasses personal injury as well as property damage. It rectifies current compensation outcomes which vary according to whether a strict liability regime or the common law applies, whether the aircraft is engaged in domestic or international operations and whether the aircraft's country of registration is a signatory to the 1952 Rome Convention on Damage Caused by Foreign Aircraft to Third Parties on the Surface.These issues are eliminated and a more timely uniform national regime is established. This means that strict and unlimited liability is established. This then applies to all foreign owned aircraft operating over Australian territory, all Australian aircraft operating international flights, all domestic interstate carriers and all private owner-operators operating to, from and within territories.Further difficulties seem to have been addressed in this bill. The burden of proof had been imposed on injured third parties on the ground, but now the plaintiff has no need to establish liability in the first instance before seeking compensation. Neither is the burden of proof imposed upon injured third parties to prove intention or negligence by the operator. It also obviates the demand under common law which governs flying within the territories, Queensland and South Australia that members of the public who suffer damage by aircraft have to prove negligence before compensation can be considered.It is important to note though that the bill is limited to damage caused during the period of flight and to impact with an aircraft, part of an aircraft or anything which drops or falls from an aircraft. This means that issues which the Civil Aviation (Damage by Aircraft) Act 1958 did not address are now covered—and that is the purpose of reviewing legislation, to make sure that it keeps up with the public's and the particular industry sector's needs.The bill does not extend to damage caused by noise. That is important to note too because there are a lot of Australian residents for whom noise associated with aircraft landing at and taking off from airports is still an important issue. But this bill does not cover that. Neither does it extend to damage caused by vibrations or wake vortices. This bill also does not extend to damage caused during ground operations such as taxiing or towing; these are still covered by common law. Serious incidents such as overshooting the runway—an interesting example of an air accident involving, from what I can gather, that in part occurred in the United States today—or veering off a taxiway at speed causing damage, as well as crash landings, are also included in the bill's provisions.Labor agrees that this bill will allow for the introduction of an improved regime for third parties on the ground compensation that falls within Commonwealth jurisdiction. It will provide the basis for a desire to unify national compensation arrangements. Also, it will end the now outdated practice of linking liability limits to the gold conversion mechanisms under the treaty of Rome—and lots of stories abound about the current value of gold and the bottom end of the limit that that has imposed, which has been grossly inadequate.Including strict and unlimited liability to all aircraft consistently across Australia will be a good outcome from the point of view of social justice—a point which Minister Vaile made and with which Labor heartily concurs. I also note that, in the minister's second reading speech, he cited statistics of houses damaged and members of the non-flying public killed as a result of recent air accidents. I could not help but remark upon one example which promoted lively discussion of this bill's application in our caucus committee this week. This was the alleged case of a cow falling or having been pushed from an aircraft in Indonesia; the cow fell on unsuspecting Indonesian fishermen below.Under our bill, this would be dealt with at section 10C. This section applies if a person or property on, in or under land or water suffers personal injury, loss of life, material loss, damage or destruction caused by an impact with a person, animal or thing that dropped or fell from an aircraft in flight. I think an investigation into why that cow was pushed might prove very interesting indeed. Nevertheless, these things do happen, and here is a piece of legislation which deals with such likelihoods.To sum up our position, we support the Damage by Aircraft Bill 1999. As well as the reasons noted, there are no additional costs anticipated, despite the fact that the bill applies to aircraft possessed by or controlled by the Commonwealth, other than Defence Force aircraft. After I finish, the member for Swan intends to give a more personal perspective of how he would like to see the bill more broadly applied and how it relates to his electorate of Swan.11:19:006061Thompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON84CBlairLP10—I would like to speak from a more personal viewpoint. I was prompted to speak on the Damage by Aircraft Bill 1999 not because of an academic type of interest but because many years ago, when I was a radio journalist at Longreach in western Queensland, I was around the traps doing a few stories and I remember doing a very dramatic story with a fellow who was absolutely haunted. In the early 1960s, he was having lunch in a farmhouse in the middle of nowhere, out in the middle of the outback. Unbeknownst to him, in the air above him there was a serious air incident being played out when an Ansett Viscount got into great difficulty. This fellow was sitting down having his lunch when he heard this noise. He turned around and went out his backdoor and found himself face to face with the cockpit of a crashed airliner. It was a horrific accident that no-one survived. You can imagine how that particular man is haunted—and he will be, I think, to his death—by that incident.In all that great expanse of nothingness which is the outback, to think that an airliner like that could fall practically on this man's back doorstep is incredible. That is what we are dealing with in this bill—the unforeseen circumstances, the completely unexpected ramifications of the wonderful technology that enables us to fly and to travel about the planet the way we do. The reality is that it is not an `if'. The fact that there may be another air accident in Australia is not an `if'; it is `when', because aircraft are made by human beings and they fly not by the grace of God but by dint of a whole bunch of various mechanical contrivances, and human error is wont to significantly impact on those things from time to time.There are examples given in the explanatory memorandum and in the Bills Digest that has been issued on this matter. It talks, for example, about the El Al crash in Amsterdam, in which 43 people on the ground were killed, not to mention the people on the aircraft itself. It also talks about other incidents in which damage has occurred on the ground. There are plenty of other examples—the Lockerbie crash, where the plane, although affected by a terrorist bomb, did fall on houses and people were killed as a result. But I think those incidents may seem to a lot of people to be very far away. I would like to read a little excerpt that I have here. I have a range of excerpts; I have been going through the reports of accidents and incidents that the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation complete as a result of air accidents. The one I would like to talk about first off—and I will just read a couple of excerpts from this—was an incident that happened at Maddington in Western Australia on 3 February 1997. It involved an aircraft that was out fighting fires, dropping retardant on fires. This is what happened:The pilot levelled the wings, fully opened the throttle: this appeared to have little or no effect. . . . . . . . .He flew the aircraft close to the stall at approximately 60 kts . . . Having passed over several streets, the pilot decided to attempt to land the aircraft on a small street, parallel and close to the aircraft's flight path.The aircraft severed a set of powerlines at the northern end of the street before its right wing struck and broke a power pole. The aircraft then veered right, glanced off the roof of an occupied house and embedded itself into the next house, which was unoccupied at the time.That is something that happened on the streets of Western Australia, and I think it goes to show that we are not immune from the consequences of air accidents. As I said, I have been through a range of these issues and they do show where the bill can be very effective. The opposition spokesman and Mr Vaile, speaking on behalf of the minister when laying out the bill, made comments about all the ramifications—the Rome Convention, the fact that at the moment in different states within Australia there are different ways in which compensation can be sought and achieved as the result of an air accident, and the fact that some nations would be subject to unlimited damages claims if their aircraft were to crash in Australia and others would not because they are signatories to the Rome Convention.Those are all very important issues. However, in going through these examples of crash investigations, I have sought to see the way in which they apply to the bill. There are a couple of grey areas—and I have discussed with the departmental officers some of these issues—that I believe we should bring out into the open and discuss because, down the track, these may be matters for the courts to decide.The second example is that of a crash between two gliders two kilometres north of Tocumwal in New South Wales on 5 January 1997. Three people were killed in that accident. It was a crash between one dual-seat glider and a single-seater. The inquiry found that there were no established procedures for gliders in the circuit area—in other words, no radio procedures—but one of the gliders arrived at speed into the circuit area and basically collected the other one. That was the finding of the report. In this bill we say:(1) This section applies if a person or property on, in or under land or water suffers personal injury, loss of life, material loss, damage or destruction caused by:—an aircraft falling. We are discriminating to a degree and it is intended that this bill will assist people who are on the ground and a plane falls on them. It will assist them by way of compensation not only if they are killed or injured but also for all of their property. The question that arises for me as a result of that glider incident is: what compensation is there to the owner of the glider? I know that people were killed in that glider as well, but what about the innocent glider pilot who was hit by the other glider? Why is there a discrepancy between property on the ground and property that is in the air?I know that we are dealing with a bill replacing a previous act that only ever dealt with people on the ground, and it is appropriate that we should look at that. But I think we must also extend our thoughts to what happens in the air. There is an act—the commercial liability act, I think it is called, or something of that nature—under which passengers in that plane can claim. But I think property is property, no matter where it is. If it gets damaged as a result of an incident, then I believe there should be no discrepancy as to whether it is property that flies or property that is firmly lashed to the ground. I think that incident provides us with a very important example.The next incident I would like to talk about illustrates another issue that is of concern to me in relation to this legislation. This involved an accident that occurred 11 kilometres east of Mackay in Queensland on 17 July 1997. It was a helicopter carrying, I think, a pilot out to the vessel MV Karoo, which was anchored offshore. The helicopter landed on the cargo hatch of the MV Karoo and, while its blades were still spinning, the passengers got out. The pilot had put the brake on the helicopter and set about getting out of it. At that time, the wind was gusting quite a bit and the helicopter slid backwards off the hatch, with the pilot still halfway out of the door, and fell onto the lower deck of the carrier. One of the issues covered in the bill is the definition of when an aircraft is in flight. You could say that, when the helicopter was going backwards, it was flying. But in the legislation it says:(2) For the purposes of this Act, a power-driven aircraft that is heavier than air is taken to be in flight from the moment when power is applied for the purpose of take-off until the moment when its landing run ends.That gets very grey when you are talking about a helicopter that has touched down, has the brake on but still has its rotor spinning and people are getting out. In fact, after the people had got out and the pilot had done whatever he was intending to do he would have taken off again straightaway. The question is: does it apply? Was the aircraft in flight or, as the bill provides, was it deemed to be taxiing or parked—or what? That is something that I think is going to be an issue for courts to decide in the future.There is also the fact, too—and I have raised this already—that often accidents involving aircraft do not necessarily involve the aircraft while flying. There have been rather big accidents involving an aircraft landing and another aircraft taxiing. Under the provisions of this bill—that is, the unrestricted compensation and the fact that it can be applied without the need to prove fault—if an aircraft were coming in to land and was in no distress whatsoever and the pilot of a taxiing aircraft were to taxi out onto the runway, through a mistake or something happening, and the two were to collide, it occurs to me that, under this bill, the cause for compensation for third parties who may be injured by damage when those aircraft crashed into the terminal, or whatever else might happen, would flow to the aircraft that was landing but was clearly not the one that was at fault. It would be up to the people responsible, the operators and owners of that landing aircraft, who would then find themselves responsible, to seek through the courts the compensation they would be subject to from the operators of the aircraft that was at fault.There are some elements to that that I am a bit concerned about because, in the process, if the landing aircraft were to be subject to this legislation, I think that the operators of that aircraft may be well and truly bankrupt and gone long before they had the opportunity to get from the operator that was at fault, that is the taxiing aircraft, the compensation or the relief they would be entitled to. That is something that crossed my mind. Naturally, I have raised that with the departmental officers, and I do hope that the minister will be able to respond to that when he is summing up, because these are questions that will arise and that the travelling public in the future will have to deal with.Those are a number of issues, but I wanted to also bring the attention of members to the range of things that can go wrong with aircraft in flight. I will go through some of these, and these are all incidents that have happened in Australia since 1997. I have made a summary: a crash in the Northern Territory—poor flight planning and not enough fuel for the aircraft to complete its journey; a crash in New South Wales—the glare of the sun may have distracted the pilot, and he hit a tree when he was crop-dusting; an incident near Balranald aerodrome in New South Wales—loss of control at night due to poorly maintained instruments breaking down; an incident near Narrabri aerodrome in New South Wales—a near miss between two passenger aircraft, one apparently a De Havilland DHC8, which does carry a number of people, and I think those aircraft came within 300 metres of each other before one spotted the other; and an incident in the Northern Territory—the wing ribs on an aircraft, which had rotted, separated in flight and catapulted the aircraft into a river, with loss of life. These incidents all illustrate how fragile we are when we fly, how seriously we need to take the maintenance of aircraft and how important the provision of compensation is when things do go wrong.I spoke previously about the crashes at Lockerbie and in Amsterdam. Do not think that that sort of thing does not happen, or there is not an opportunity for that to happen, in Australia. I have two examples here—one from 2 May 1997 and another one from 20 August 1997—and both involved Boeing 747s at Australian airports. The second one, on 20 August 1997, occurred when the aircraft was taxiing for departure at Brisbane airport—the airport that I fly out of regularly. The BASI incident report says:. . . the crew of the Boeing 747 selected the flaps to the take-off position. As the flaps extended, the left outboard aileron deflected to the full down position.When they checked it out, they found that the aileron cable on that side had broken while the aircraft was taxiing out. Clearly it would have been a disaster if the guy had actually flown out and opened the throttle; that would have been terrible. Only a couple of months earlier, on 2 May, a 747 took off from Sydney aerodrome. After having taken off, the BASI incident report says that:. . . the co-pilot advised the pilot in command (PIC) that his control wheel had become jammed when attempting to make right wing down aileron inputs—which means to move the right aileron. It continues:The crew actioned the emergency/abnormal checklist for jammed or restricted flight controls . . .And listen to this—the statement in the manual says that the crew must:"use maximum force, including a combined effort by both pilots, if required" . . .So they did this, and the report goes on to say:. . . but they reported that their attempts made no change to the system. After fuel dumping was completed, the aircraft was vectored, using left turns only, to the runway 34L localiser and configured for the landing.Fortunately, Mr Deputy Speaker, when they were only 400 feet up on the final approach, the problem cleared itself and the aircraft came in and landed. The investigation found that a plastic cable guard in the left aileron control cable system had broken. Pieces of shattered plastic were found in the vicinity of the left lower cable pulley system in the vertical cable which runs out that way. Subsequently, although they could find no replacement cable guards, the aircraft was `approved to return to service with the guards removed'. By the sounds of that, I do not know whether I would want to see any guards on any plane I was flying in.I thought I would finish on a lighter note. Those are very important issues, and we must be ever vigilant on aircraft safety. I was interested to hear what the opposition spokesman said about falling cows. There is an incident here, which occurred 220 kilometres north of Sydney, with a Mitsubishi MU2 aircraft. Anyone who knows anything about planes knows that the MU2 has a pretty sorry record around the world. It has had a lot of difficulties; I should put it that way. The aircraft was flying along at cruising flight level 130, 13,000 feet, in visual conditions. There was a loud bang. It turned out that `the propeller blade had failed about 96 millimetres from the blade butt'. Of course, that blade could have gone anywhere and, as I said at the start about the plane crash near that guy's backdoor, it could well have gone down and injured someone. That is an important example.There is another example that is similar. When I was working at Mackay years ago, again in my radio career, there was a funny story of a fish falling from the sky and smashing into the roof of a man's house. It involved a Lake Buccaneer aircraft, which are small amphibian aircraft that fly back and forth to the reef and land at Mackay airport. When they land on the sea over near the islands, they taxi up onto the beach with their wheels down, then they go back out into the water and they close up their wheel-well doors again. This fish had apparently snuggled up in there thinking it was a nice place to be. I do not know whether it was hiding from a shark, but it got up in there, and as the plane was coming in on its final approach, the pilot selected the wheels down and down went the fish. Practically anything can fall from the sky, it seems to me, Mr Deputy Speaker, including fish. We do have to be careful.I really do commend the bill. I have indicated some areas that I reckon are grey areas, and I have indicated some areas at which I think we should look in relation to future legislation or whatever—for example, the question about protecting people, or property that is in flight as well as property that is on the ground. All in all, doing this is a very good move. We cannot have discrepancies in the system. I would strongly urge the governments of South Australia and Queensland, as mentioned in the minister's speech, to set about introducing complementary legislation to bring this into effect.11:38:006065Wilkie, Kim, MPMr WILKIE84GSwanALP00—Broadly speaking, I support the thrust of the Damage by Aircraft Bill 1999 . I do this for a number of reasons. Firstly, there needs to be a single set of principles that guide compensation in this country. Secondly, a clear message needs to be sent to the community from government about air safety. Also, where we have the potential for aircraft accidents, little or no thought has been given to the possible impact on innocent victims who are the third party to any accident. I will use this speech as an opportunity to highlight some potential problems in the industry that might be developing due to certain facets of aviation policy under this government which impact on air safety.Whilst supporting this bill, I believe that, unfortunately, it does not go far enough in addressing damage by aircraft. Consideration should have been given to other forms of damage. In my electorate of Swan, for example, many complaints are received in my electorate office about the effects of unburnt or improperly burnt aircraft fuel on the areas immediately surrounding the airport. For example, people ring and say that the clothes on their line have been soiled from fuel or unburnt fuel coming from aircraft. There has been paint damage reported on vehicles when they have been parked underneath the flight path over a long period of time. There has been a strong smell of fumes from unburnt aviation fuel, and there is a belief amongst many that this has caused increased problems such as asthma, et cetera, in those areas. Therefore I believe that some consideration needs to be given to examining whether residual aircraft fuel has a damaging effect on the residents in the area. I further believe that the issue of the environmental and other impacts of fuel being dumped as circumstance demands should also be considered.Obviously the legislation affects four main groups: the aviation industry both domestically and internally, the public and owners of aircraft. I understand that there has been extensive dialogue with the airline industry. The minister has also indicated in his recent speech that the proposal has strong support from these groups.Accidents involving aircraft can obviously be horrific. These accidents may unfortunately also involve those on the ground and may cause injury, death and damage not only to passengers but also to members of the public on the ground. My research into instances that had the potential to injure or damage property in Western Australia alone reveals four such events in the last five years, and some of those have been touched on. These range from kit bags falling from the sky over the southern suburbs and parts of a light aircraft falling onto Perth's outer rural districts. Fortunately, no injuries have occurred to date. Of course, worse incidents have been recorded in other states and internationally. Well-known incidents have occurred in Australia. Some residential dwellings were extensively damaged and a resident injured. In another, five members of the public were killed. There are also numerous overseas examples of aircraft hitting high density areas, resulting in a large loss of life. This is particularly relevant when you consider that many of our airports are located in built-up areas with flight paths over highly populated suburbs.The outcome for the community with the passage of this bill is improved compensation arrangements for third parties on the ground where fatal injury, non-fatal injury or damage from aircraft that come within Commonwealth jurisdiction occurs. It is important to note that, once the bill is enacted, all aircraft will be subject to unlimited liability for any injury or damage caused to members of the public not involved in the flight during an air accident. Qantas and Ansett, who will be most affected by the new arrangements, have advised that they agree with the national introduction of strict and unlimited liability. According to aviation insurance sources and the two major domestic airlines, the impact on business, including small business, will be minimal or nil. Aviation insurance sources advise that the great majority of owner operators, commercial or private, already carry adequate insurance to cover their third party on-ground liabilities.Historic arrangements form the basis of the obligations in this country due to Australia's compliance with the Rome Convention—that is, the Convention on Damage Caused by Foreign Aircraft to Third Parties on the Surface 1952. This convention was developed with the intention of achieving international harmony in compensation arrangements for damage caused by international aircraft to parties on the ground. In this country, the convention was given force of law in Australia by the Civil Aviation (Damage by Aircraft) Act 1958. I note with some alarm that the convention has failed to achieve its objective of international uniformity, because only 38 countries are party to it. This has been compounded because only seven signatory countries have been licensed to operate in Australian territory at any one time.Most alarmingly, I note that countries that are not parties to the convention and that fly to this nation include the United States, Japan, China and major countries in South-East Asia, such as Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia. In Europe, this includes the United Kingdom. I imagine that these nations would form the basis for most of the airline industry. I am also led to believe that Australia is not the first nation to look at altering its legislative arrangements. Canada did so in 1976, citing similar problems with the convention.Obviously some action needed to be taken to redress these shortcomings in the compensation system by overcoming these deficiencies in access to compensation and its levels. To do this, the Damage by Aircraft Bill 1999 repeals and replaces the Civil Aviation (Damage by Aircraft) Act 1958. To effectively align the liability system in the Australian states, the Damage by Aircraft Bill provides a system that makes all aircraft operators in those states and territories subject to stringent and unlimited liability for third party on-the-ground damage. It will also be noted that the Damage by Aircraft Bill 1999 is planned to provide members of the public with damages that are without delay and as broad as is practicable. The bill is also positive in another sense, in that the uniformity will embrace areas not covered under the current arrangements.To my surprise, on investigating the matter, I found that, in the territories and some states, there are no provisions covering air operators' third party liabilities and compensation. It would be correct therefore to say that those injured are left to seek redress under common law arrangements. The parameters of damage under common law must initially prove negligence in the courts prior to any amounts of compensation being considered. Thus, they are subject to detailing a burden of proof on the airline. It is also my understanding that this can differ across the nation. This lack of national uniformity in what are meant to be public protection measures is unsatisfactory from the point of view of social justice and inconsistent with the concept of a single national market for aviation services.The quantum under the Rome Convention also needed to be addressed. The amount of compensation is the area of most concern. This differs according to whether the operator of the aircraft is engaged in domestic or international operations and, in the case of international aircraft, whether or not an aircraft's country of registration is a signatory to the Rome Convention. It was noticeable that the Rome Convention limits the amount payable. A Boeing 747, for example, has a liability limit of around $A36 million. It would be correct to say that if a large aircraft were to crash into an area such as the Perth CBD then this amount would be vastly inadequate.This situation contrasts sharply with that applying to operators of aircraft registered in non-convention countries when they fly over Australian territory. While these operators are also subject to strict liability, there is no statutory limit to the compensation payable by them. Similarly, operators of Australian registered aircraft engaged in domestic operations in New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia and Tasmania are subject to strict and unlimited liability legislation. In addition, as a consequence of Australia's adherence to the Rome Convention, damages received by victims of an accident caused by an Australian registered aircraft on an international flight—currently ones involving Qantas or Ansett—are likely to be substantially less than if an aircraft of a non-convention country, such as Japan, the United Kingdom or the United States, were involved. This variation in the levels of compensation creates unwarranted uncertainty for the plaintiff and can increase the costs on the judicial system and the plaintiff through the increased levels of litigation necessary to obtain better compensation.Advice from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade supports changes in the legislative arrangements, and the Attorney-General's Department advises that this would not be contrary to Australia's international obligations. As this will require repealing the current legislation, which gives effect to the Rome Convention in Australia, Australia's participation in the convention will be formally renounced on a timing consistent with the new act coming into force.It should be noted that there has been bipartisanship in supporting measures that reform aviation and consumer protection. An example would be the legislation which considerably improved the air passenger liability regime by making it mandatory for air carriers to carry non-voidable insurance of $500,000 per passenger to cover their liabilities to passengers. The contrast to this are the voluntary arrangements and undertakings by the airlines, which have significant drawbacks. Their insurers can easily review them on a case-by-case basis, especially when a large accident occurs.The other legislative options, such as leaving the matter to common law, would require the majority of states to repeal legislation they have had in place since the 1950s. Common law remedies would also be a regressive step as far as an equitable public protection measure is concerned. They give no assurance of adequate compensation to the victim, who in any case has to prove negligence before any amount of compensation is considered. The cost to a plaintiff, if a private householder, can be prohibitive. For the great majority of the industry, the option taken is a minor adjustment to the existing legislative regime. It would not substantially alter the existing arrangements for domestic or international carriers or owner-operators of private aircraft in the majority of states.The Department of Transport and Regional Services will continue to administer the legislation. For the non-flying public, there is the benefit of uniform access to ready and increased compensation from the courts. This is an optimum outcome from the point of view of social justice. For those coming under Commonwealth jurisdiction, there is an immediate benefit of increased levels of compensation. The option chosen is preferred as the simplest means of attaining a national uniform regime based on legislation with improved levels of compensation and ready access to them. The minor adjustment of the existing legislation which the bill represents is the most efficient and effective option, given the objectives.As this bill covers aviation, I should like the Main Committee to note some concerns that members of the community and I have with regard to matters of air safety. It is particularly pertinent when discussing issues of air safety to re-examine other elements of this government's policy. I note that on a number of occasions members of this side of the Main Committee have endeavoured to raise the subject of privatisation of air services. Unfortunately, it seems that the government has tried to stymie these discussions. I hope that in the near future we will all be given the opportunity of openly entering into constructive dialogue with the government on this matter.In a recent speech to the House about the vexing matter of aircraft noise in my electorate of Swan, I indicated that matters pertaining to air safety needed to be considered in relation to a guiding set of principles. I suggested that the following criteria needed to be considered: firstly, that the government has the ultimate responsibility of the proper care of the airport, its environs and the community; and, secondly, that the overall safety of the community be the prime consideration.This means that appropriate guidelines for air safety must be in place and monitored. I trust, for example, that this set of arrangements will be in place and suitable for future options on the management and organisation of control towers. As we can appreciate, the amount of air traffic will not decrease. My concern, therefore, is that an agenda of hiving off air traffic control and emergency services could place the users of our airports in jeopardy. This would happen because the excellent record of air safety in the nation could, for a few dollars, be in peril due to staff reductions, lack of suitable equipment or a decline in training and standards in our facilities.I conclude by saying that any legislation that enshrines a national set of rules to remove uncertainty and embrace fair compensation should be applauded. It is notable that the industry, including insurers, have expressed as positive any moves to remove the old treaty of Rome from applying to compensation in Australia. The treaty was fine in its day, but time moves on. We need an effective apparatus across this nation. That the states and territories have indicated their support for the legislation is also a notable virtue. I would also like to reinforce to members of this chamber that I will be pursuing further information as to whether the scope of this legislation should be extended to encompass other forms of damage such as unburnt fuel being emitted from aircraft and environmental damage caused by fuel dumping.The public are notable winners in the new arrangement. Any recourse above the vagaries of common law should also be accorded support. I feel compelled to indicate to the minister one final point: if the government is concerned with air safety, then it should also reconsider its policy on other matters such as privatisation of air towers. It also should be very wary of any further moves down the deregulation path in an industry worth billions of dollars to our economy.11:52:006069Wilton, Greg, MPMr WILTONYK6IsaacsALP00—I would like to applaud the member for Swan on a fine contribution to this debate. There are two pieces of legislation before the parliament at the moment which would be of great interest to Australians, particularly those living within the proximity of any one of a number of airports and particularly those in my own electorate of Isaacs who live in the vicinity of Moorabbin airport, which borders the electorate and is in fact the second busiest airport in the country in terms of movements, second only to Sydney. The first bill is the Damage by Aircraft Bill 1999 , which, as previous speakers have said, effectively removes all limits to all compensation sought by third parties on the ground who are injured or who may experience damage as a result of airborne aircraft activity.No doubt previous contributors to this debate have mentioned the El Al disaster and the Lockerbie tragedy. I had the misfortune of visiting the Lockerbie site not long after that tragedy. To see it first-hand really focused my mind on the need for a bill of this nature, given the loss of life that occurred on the ground of innocent civilians. I also well remember an incident that occurred within the environs of Moorabbin airport about 30 years ago when a helicopter and a fixed-wing aircraft, which was an air ambulance, collided midair near the airport and wreckage fell onto a built-up area surrounding the airport. That is notable, given that 30 years ago there would have been half the residential development in that area that exists there today.The second bill before the chamber on a similar matter relates to something that the member for Hindmarsh rolls out every year or so. But, placing that cynicism aside, both these bills do indeed reflect the requirement for the federal government to sit up and take notice of the increasing demands on our major and regional airports and the inherent safety related risks to surrounding and nearby residents.Like my colleagues the member for Swan and the member for Grayndler, I too receive petitions and individual complaints about the levels of aircraft activity and noise emanating from, in my case, Moorabbin airport, especially in non-daylight hours, given that that airport is a major freight hub for the south-east of our nation and provides important training facilities for both fixed-wing and rotary aircraft. Plans are currently afoot to increase the annual aircraft activity by more than 100,000 movements and to allow medium sized passenger aircraft with seating capacities of up to 100 access to the airport.Looked at in isolation, these figures do show a healthy, thriving regional airport that does serve outer metropolitan Melbourne. However, what I consider to be the government's aviation policy vacuum and indifference to community concerns would allow this increasing demand to take place in an environment where there are no radar services, restricted air traffic control and, surprisingly, no curfew. The minister for transport, despite a number of calls and pleas from my office and other groups, notably the Moorabbin Airport Residents Association, to visit the airport, has just approved the airport master plan without even visiting the site.R36ALBANESEMr Albanese—Shame.YK6Wilton, Greg, MPMr WILTON—Shame, as the member for Grayndler says. Thankfully, though, in perhaps a somewhat slightly more morbid vein, the Damage by Aircraft Bill does reduce the likelihood of Moorabbin and surrounding residents having insult added to any potential injury, in the event of an aircraft crashing into their backyards, because of inadequate compensation arrangements. At least with this legislation there will be no legal boundaries to obtaining appropriate and adequate compensation for injury and damage experienced just because someone has the misfortune of living beneath a particular flight path.However, if the Howard government was really serious about aviation policy, then it does need to look fairly analytically and fairly carefully at the infrastructure and planning required to cope with the rapid increase in air traffic brought about by such major events as the Sydney Olympics, the Melbourne Grand Prix and the Melbourne Cup, just to name three. This means that the minister does not just simply sign off on submissions which stand to significantly alter airport arrangements. It also means looking beyond the dirt tracks that indeed pass for airports in rural areas and shifts the minister's focus from trucks, diesel and farms to urban transport concerns such as aircraft noise and increasing aviation traffic above Australia's suburbs.An investigation into airport curfews would indeed be a start, and so is denouncing Australia's commitment to the Rome Convention, which severely limits compensation payments to third parties on the ground. However, these are just two areas where the government has even bothered to scrutinise aviation policy since its election in 1996. It is my view that it is about time the government displayed some leadership on the issue of aviation policy in general and did indeed start listening to community concerns.In conclusion and in line with the submission made by the member for Swan, I support the Damage by Aircraft Bill and take the opportunity once again to urge the government to look beyond the party room and to implement what can only be described as a sensible strategy aimed at formulating workable and user-friendly curfews for all airports and to heed the legitimate concerns of those who live near them.11:59:006070Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—I am very pleased to rise to contribute to the debate on the Damage by Aircraft Bill 1999 because, as a number of members have stated, nowhere in Australia do aircraft cause more potential damage than at Sydney airport. My electorate of Grayndler directly faces the main parallel runways to the north of the airport, and the residents of Sydney are indeed very concerned about not just aircraft noise but safety at the airport.On Monday, 1 March this year an arriving Air New Zealand 747 narrowly missed colliding with an Eastern Australia Airlines Dash 8 that was sitting on the runway waiting for clearance to take off. Although there have been differing explanations as to how this was able to occur, the consensus appears to be that there was a technical failure that made it impossible for the air traffic controllers to communicate with the arriving 747. In this same week, it has been revealed, at least four other passenger jets aborted landings in just four days. On Saturday, 27 February pilots of a KLM flight from Amsterdam were forced to pull up after spotting another plane on the runway. The following day an Ansett flight was forced to do a `go-around' as a departing Qantas jet was delayed on the runway. On Tuesday, 2 March, just one day after the close call of the Air New Zealand 747, a Qantas 747 was ordered by the traffic control tower to do a `go-around' rather than land as expected. No reason was given for this.What was the response that the public received from Airservices Australia about these instances, about these near misses and near disasters in the middle of Australia's most populated city? What was the response given to those who live under the flight path of these planes or who travel in such aircraft? The response of Airservices Australia was to put it all in the too-hard basket. Instead of addressing the very real issues of safety and the implementation of the controversial new precision radar monitor, Airservices Australia have decided to duck for cover.In a letter written to Qantas, Ansett and the Sydney Airports Corporation in the same week, Airservices Australia said that they no longer wanted responsibility for the implementation of the government's long-term operating plan. As Brendan Nelson, the chair of the Sydney Airport Community Forum, said in the Sydney Morning Herald on Saturday, 6 March, despite the fact that Airservices Australia exist to manage aircraft traffic, they expressed a desire to abandon the management of such traffic at Sydney airport. At the very least they wanted to abandon the equitable management of such traffic. They decided that the principles of a fair sharing of noise were just too hard for them to implement.Airservices Australia are simply uninterested in how their actions impact on the local community. Airservices Australia are currently more interested in how to increase the capacity at Sydney airport than they are with any fair operation of that airport. They are obsessed with ensuring that parallel runway operations and the capacity of that airport are increased, that the airport is upgraded by stealth rather than actually implementing the long-term operating plan, which is, after all, government policy. The new precision radar monitor system, in spite of the very clear opposition of the Sydney Airport Community Forum, is being rushed into place at Sydney airport. There is only one reason why the PRM system exists, that is, to upgrade the airport to increase its capacity.It is very clear that members of not just SACF but representatives from the community on the Implementation and Monitoring Committee, people such as David Lidbetter, have stated that PRM will lead to a simply unacceptable level of increase in noise for residents to the north and south of the Sydney airport. Draft statements that have been made about how PRM will operate describe how PRM will cause aircraft to fly over the same communities twice. They are going to fly over at one level, then go back up to the north and fly over the same community again. The same residents will be subjected to noise from planes, twice. It really is absurd.The fact is that parallel runway operations are being operated at the moment at Sydney airport two-thirds of the time. We were told in the long-term operating plan that movements to the north of the airport would be only 17 per cent, and there is a reason for that: because it is the most densely populated area of Australia—not just Sydney but Australia. But what we see is that the current practice is that movements to the north constitute almost 30 per cent of all movements. What we have with the PRM in terms of promoting parallel operations is part of preparing the airport for privatisation, preparing for the operation of an airport with no regard whatsoever for the communities who live around it.At the same time, there is $1.6 million worth of cuts in the airport for traffic controllers and people involved in safety. We have a 30 per cent downsizing in staff at Sydney airport. We have a government that believes that there should be competition for safety standards at the airport. How can you compromise on safety? How can you argue that this should be something that should be left to the market? The end result of a government that fails to take action is that the communities around airports suffer.I want to particularly turn my attention to the activities of Evergreen Airlines and the issue of fuel venting which has had substantial publicity at Sydney airport. Residents are not just fearful of a plane coming down. If a plane comes down on your house you are not going to be too worried about compensation because you are not going to be around to sue. The fact is that there are more subtle forms of damage, and that occurs when airlines dump or vent fuel over residences.At 10.10 a.m. on Tuesday, 20 April a freight jet owned by Evergreen International Airlines departed to the north on the main north-south runway of Kingsford Smith airport—runway 34 left. As it climbed, it dumped fuel over several kilometres of inner Sydney suburbs. The Sydney Morning Herald reported that a resident in Haberfield said that a `trail of fuel vapour had hung in the air even after the jumbo had disappeared from sight'. Residents outraged by this incident contacted my office.Evergreen Airlines is the same airline company that was implicated in four separate incidents of fuel dumping between 1995 and 1997. After repeated questions in parliament by me to the previous minister for transport, John Sharp, the government finally revealed the facts surrounding each of the four dumping incidents. In each case the aircraft was owned by Evergreen International Airlines. In each case the destination was Hong Kong. In each case they were chartered by Qantas. The incidents were thought to have occurred because of faulty fuel valves that do not seal properly and so allow fuel to spray from the aircraft when it is steeply banked on take-off. The circumstances of the previous incidents are identical in almost every respect to the incident that occurred on 20 April this year.In response to my question to the minister on 6 November 1997, the then minister for transport promised that Evergreen Airlines had been called to account after the October 1996 incident. The minister stated that his department `has written to Evergreen expressing both my own and the wider community's extreme concern about the series of reported fuel venting incidents'. The minister informed parliament that his department had also reported the incident to the US Federal Aviation Administration, as Evergreen aircraft are registered in the United States. The minister promised that the Australian department would therefore further liaise with their US counterparts. Most importantly, the minister assured me that regulations were being developed by the department so as to make it an offence to vent fuel in other than an emergency or to operate an aircraft that has faulty parts that may lead to fuel venting.On 29 April 1999, Evergreen Airlines wrote to Paul Merner, first assistant secretary for airports in the Department of Transport and Regional Services, in reply to a letter sent by him seeking an explanation for the latest incident on 20 April. Evergreen wrote back saying, and I quote from their correspondence:We have received a "preliminary" report from HAECO with the following findings:1) two vent valves were found to have their float arms broken. One was in tank #1 and the other in tank #3 . . . . . . . . . . . .2) The drain system and valve assemblies were inspected with four valves in tanks 1, 3 and 4 found to have bad seals within the valves . . . . . . . . . . . .4) The right hand wing surge tank vent duct was found to be worn at the coupling flange . . . And so on. What makes this careless attitude even worse is that it happened over and over again—five incidents in three years. The same airline wrote to the department in November 1997 saying that it had undertaken all the necessary checks and maintenance on its aircraft fleets to prevent these future incidents from occurring. The US Federal Aviation Administration also wrote to the department on 21 January 1998, saying that it was working closely with Evergreen to prevent further incidents and would continue to monitor the situation—1996, 1997, 1998; we get to 1999 and finally we have some action.Last Friday at the Sydney Airport Community Forum, the following resolution was carried with the support of every single community representative. The only abstention, once again, was from the airlines, who see their role on the community forum as opposing the community. The resolution I moved read as follows:Sydney Airport Community Forum (SACF) expresses alarm at the repeated incidents of fuel venting over the community in the vicinity of Sydney airport. We note that in spite of government commitments by Minister John Sharp to question No. 1557 on 24 June 1997, no regulations have been introduced. SACF demands the government introduce regulations which would include substantial fines and provision to ban repeat offenders such as Evergreen Airlines from Sydney airport during the next parliamentary sitting week beginning 31 May 1999.What did we see? We heard a report from the department to the SACF meetings that these regulations were being prepared. More than two years after Minister Sharp, in response to a question on notice—it is in Hansard —said that they were going to do something to stop this occurring. I was told on Friday that, `Something is happening, so can you just withdraw your resolution perhaps and it will all be okay?' The community found that unacceptable, because the community notes that this government has to be dragged kicking and screaming into action.2V5SWANMr Swan—On anything.R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESE—On anything, as my colleague the member for Lilley said. They prevaricate, they delay and they defer on action. What a disgrace it is that today we are debating the Damage by Aircraft Bill 1999 , which goes to the heart of this very issue, when at the SACF meeting last Friday the government said, through its department, that regulations were coming in—that they were subject to approval that day. There is no coincidence. Something happens every time there is a SACF meeting. On the same day that the community has a spotlight on the government, we get action; and we get action because the Australian Labor Party members and community members on that forum pursue it in the public arena. It is not due to anything else.Commitments from government ministers appeared in Hansard, but nothing happened. What we got was a report from the department which said, `The regulations which are being gazetted today'—the air navigation fuel spillage regulations—`would make it an offence to release fuel except in an emergency or with approval from air traffic control, or CASA. The regulations also empower the secretary with the right of inspection the right to ground an aircraft suspected of releasing fuel.' We got that. We asked to see the regulations and we were told we could not. We are only the community forum! We could not get them.You would think we could get them this week, given that this bill is on. I spoke to the minister's office two days ago, and I also raised the question of what these regulations are with the Chair of the Sydney Airport Community Forum. But guess what! The regulations are being gazetted after this bill goes through the House. We cannot get a copy of the regulations so there can be no parliamentary scrutiny of them during this debate. They are going to be tabled after question time today. That is typical of this government.In the pages of the Sydney Morning Herald on Saturday, the government proudly proclaimed, `The federal government last night approved the world's first laws allowing airlines to be grounded and fined if caught dumping fuel on residential areas.' It is an interesting contradiction. How do you ground an airline after it has dumped fuel? What do you do? While it is dumping fuel, do you radio them and say, `Hey, can you come back?' so they can dump fuel on the way back in as well? It is an interesting concept.I welcome the fact that fines are being introduced. The figure we were given last Friday by a departmental representative was $13,000, but we do not know that because we do not have access to the regulations. $13,000—how pathetic! We need an economic imperative that makes the cost of failing to maintain aircraft properly more than the cost of doing the right thing. We need serious penalties; $13,000 is not a serious penalty. Last Friday, the Sydney Airport Community Forum successfully carried a resolution calling for fines of up to $500,000 if planes breached the curfew at Sydney airport. What has been occurring is that a decision is made, `Oh, well. It's going to cost us a few grand. How much are we making out of this flight? We will just land. We do not care that it is midnight, 2 a.m. or 3 a.m. We will just do it because the economic benefit is there for us.'The same principle should apply to this issue. It should be said to a repeat offender like Evergreen Airlines, `If you continue to engage in this practice of flying out of Sydney airport over the most densely populated area in Australia with planes which vent fuel all over residents for 20 kilometres after take-off, we will say that you are not welcome.' There is nothing wrong with that. As we know, Sydney airport has already told airlines like Virgin Airlines that they are not welcome. It has reached the cap. Airlines such as Emirates have moved their operations to Melbourne because you cannot get in and out of Sydney airport because of the way that that airport is managed.There is nothing wrong whatsoever with having provisions in these regulations to say, `If you are a repeat offender you are not welcome.' If you are a bad driver, you get taken off the road. If you are a bad airline operator, why shouldn't you be taken out of the skies? This government has not provided any real disincentive. The regulations should have been tabled and should have been scrutinised by this parliament in this debate. I find it astonishing, and totally consistent with why there is such concern about the operation of Sydney airport. As with the information with regard to the expansion of the airport, with regard to the development of the precision radar monitoring system and with regard to the actual figures for the operation of the long-term operating plan at Sydney airport, there is one thing that is consistent, that is, the community has to drag the information out of this government and this government fails to provide proper community consultation.The time is coming when the Sydney Airport Community Forum will get sick and tired of carrying resolutions unanimously that are then ignored by the government. The government has stacked SACF with its representatives—there are five Labor representatives out of 20 on the committee, in spite of the fact that Labor represents the areas around Kingsford-Smith. But Labor has the quality representatives because it has not lost a vote yet. The people who live around Sydney airport know that this government has failed them, and it is failing them again through its failure to take real concerted action on the issue of air safety and on the issue of the wellbeing of residents who live around Sydney airport.12:19:006075Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—I rise to support the Damage by Aircraft Bill 1999 because it is of great importance to the residents of Lilley, in particular those who live around what is becoming an extremely busy airport—an airport which will have the same problems in 20 years time that the member for Grayndler was talking about if we do not get a change to the secretive approach of the operator and of the federal government.The only way these airports can expand is if they live in harmony with and work with their communities. The secretive approach in relation to the problems of the Brisbane airport master plan—withholding of flight paths, the venting of fuel and on-ground noise—continues in Brisbane, as it has in Sydney over the years. It will produce all of those problems in Brisbane if a much more mature relationship does not develop between the communities affected, the airport operators and the federal government.It is very good to see this bill, the purpose of which is to improve compensation for members of the public who suffer personal injury or property damage as third parties on the ground involved in air accident. It is just a pity we cannot have stronger regulation of what happens when operators and airport authorities breach their own guidelines in the operation of aircraft onto and off the airport. I will talk about that in a moment.Aeroplanes fly all over the electorate of Lilley all day and most of the night. They fly over the suburbs of Chermside, Wavell Heights, Kedron, Gordon Park, Wooloowin, Clayfield, Ascot, Albion, Hamilton, Hendra, Shorncliffe, Deagon, Banyo, Boondall, Virginia, Nudgee Beach, Northgate and Nundah. In the last three years, there has been a deterioration in noise management procedures surrounding the airport, to which the BACL, the minister and this government have been completely indifferent.Aircraft are deviating needlessly and causing unnecessary noise. Too many aircraft are not adhering to the correct ascent and descent profiles. In short, they are flying too low, and when they fly too low they disturb communities and also increase risk. We ought to have much more effective policing of the proper ascent and descent profiles in the electorate.None of the residents in these suburbs doubt the importance of Brisbane airport to the economic future of our local community and to south-east Queensland in general. But now they are being told that they have to accept a new runway, when they cannot even get the operation of the current runway in proper context. They cannot get best practice at the existing runway, and the government want to expand it with a new runway which is going to double the capacity of the airport. All of this has been done without any comprehensive economic, social, environmental or public health impact statement. The federal government has approved a new runway 2.1 kilometres west of the existing runway without a comprehensive analysis of what effect it will have on the local community.How can residents believe the BACL and the federal government when they say that the new runway will not impact upon them, when they have not implemented on the old runway the best practice that they claim they are going to implement on the new runway? This proposed parallel runway has the potential to cause serious problems in the northern suburbs. Air traffic will increase over suburbs like Aspley, Chermside, Kedron, Gordon Park, Wooloowin, Hamilton and Hendra. The location of the new runway will be close to Shorncliffe, Deagon, Banyo, Nudgee Beach, Northgate, Nundah and Hamilton. All of these suburbs will have significantly more noise if the new runway goes ahead, and it has been approved under the master plan by the federal government. In that master plan—a document of some 240 pages—only three pages specifically examine the options. The whole document was rigged so that only one conclusion could be reached—that a new parallel runway be located 2.1 kilometres west of the existing runway.The transport minister has now locked into that option, so concerned residents are constantly contacting my office regarding this proposed runway. I believe we do need to have that comprehensive economic, social, environmental and public health study. We need to have it and we need to have the flight paths, but they are being withheld as well. One reason why we will have to have a Senate inquiry into the master plan process is that locals have been left in the dark.The problem we have at the moment is that the BACL and the federal government are continually refusing to supply flight paths. They are deliberately keeping residents in the dark. What is more disturbing is that in the master plan the new parallel proposed runway is located 2.1 kilometres west of the existing runway—virtually on top of a whole number of suburbs that existed in this area before the existing runway was built. These are not new suburbs; these are not homes that have been built since the airport was expanded. They have been there for 50 years. They are proposing to build a runway 2.1 kilometres west of the existing runway, virtually on top of these suburbs.Many people come to me and they say, `Wayne, if this new parallel runway has to go ahead, why does it have to be 2.1 kilometres west of the existing runway? Why can't it be one kilometre? Why can't it be 1.2? Why can't it be 1.5?' But, as is the case with the master plan, we can get no answers from the BACL or the federal government. If this dastardly proposal must go ahead, the new runway could be located closer to the existing runway, thereby alleviating the effects on local suburbs such as Banyo, Northgate, Nundah and Deagon. But we cannot get an answer. We cannot get any analysis. We cannot get any commonsense. And if we do not get any commonsense and this proposal goes ahead, we will have the situation that we had in Sydney when their parallel runway went ahead—we will have the whole community in uproar about this proposal. So wouldn't it be better in the interim if we just had some consultation, if we could just develop some faith, if we could just get rid of the secrecy and if we could just get a dialogue going? We need the jobs and we need the economic expansion, but we do not need a divisive debate which will kill the potential economics of this airport and bring with it the divisiveness of Sydney and all of the things that came with it, such as curfews and the like. If this goes ahead, make no mistake, that is the future that we will be looking at in Brisbane.Wouldn't it be good if the BACL and the federal government also paid some attention to air quality in the area? We are now dealing with a bill that compensates people for damage. Why don't we talk about compensating people for damage that comes from the venting of fuel over their suburbs? As the member for Grayndler said before, we have been constantly pressuring the federal government to do something about this. We are now told there are regulations, but those regulations could not even be given to us before this debate today. We had an example of a Qantas jet that vented fuel over Brisbane not too long ago. I have been told that it was not immediately over the airport area, but how many jets have been doing it that we do not know about?In the new environmental plan—in the master plan—there has been a study of the impact on the immediate environment of the airport site, but no studies of the air quality in the suburbs immediately surrounding the airport have taken place in Brisbane. Why don't the BACL and the federal government get together and work with those local communities so we can have some analysis of air quality and so residents can be assured that their quality of life is not being adversely affected by the sorts of incidents that have been occurring in Sydney?I call on the BACL and the federal government to do something substantial about measuring air quality in the suburbs immediately surrounding Brisbane airport. That would be something that would naturally complement the sorts of initiatives that are in this bill today. The health and welfare of all of those residents in those suburbs surrounding this community must be paramount because, if this airport is to expand, there has to be a broad community consensus behind it. It cannot expand, and it will not be able to operate effectively, if that consensus is fractured.That consensus is being fractured by the failure of the government to provide the flight paths for the parallel runway, the failure to put in place sufficient environmental standards and measurement, and the fuel venting incidents that we have seen in Sydney. There is a need for a tighter regulatory approach. As the member for Grayndler said, at the end of the day, the way we can regulate this is going to be economic. In Sydney and Brisbane we have to have tougher fines for aircraft operators who do not adhere to the regulations, tougher fines for aircraft operators that vent fuel and tougher fines for aircraft operators that rev their engines on the ground in the middle of the night and wake up most of the people surrounding those suburbs.We need tougher regulation so that we can get an effective transport industry that lives in harmony with those people who are, in the first instance, most adversely affected by the economic growth of an airport such as Brisbane. We need that. It is commonsense. Why can't we get some commonsense out of the federal government? Why can't we get some genuine consultation? Why can't we get some genuine regulation?I call on the federal government and the BACL to change their practice of the last couple of years and do something decent to deliver genuine consultation and collaboration between the airport community and the airport in the long-term interests of the north Brisbane suburbs and the generation of jobs and wealth in our community.Debate interrupted.Adjournment607710000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! It being approximately 12.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the Main Committee do now adjourn.607812:30:006078Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—On 9 February 1998 Christopher Corrigan gave evidence in the Industrial Relations Commission matter 30432 of 1998. He was asked:In taking the steps that you did to approach Mr Wells, what financial obligation if any did that involve you or Lang Corporation, or Patricks in in terms of the recruitment of the personnel?His answer was: `None.' When asked if Patrick, Lang Corp or he personally accepted any financial obligation with respect to the recruitment of the Dubai workers, his answer again was: `No.' Industrial Relations Commission Vice-President Ian Ross relied on these answers in granting section 127 orders under the Workplace Relations Act, which revolved around the question of whether or not allegations of deceitful conduct had been proved.There is overwhelming evidence that these statements by Mr Corrigan were not true, that he knew they were not true and that therefore he committed perjury. An affidavit by Mr Michael Wells dated 6 May 1998 indicated as such and has a number of documents attached to it which indicate that what Mr Corrigan said was not true. There is a document entitled `Confirmation of an agreement to act'—an agreement between CTMS and Patrick—dated 23 October 1997, in which CTMS agrees to recruit on behalf of Patrick and, in return, gets a $30,000 retainer from Patrick, a $4,000 per week management fee plus a 10 per cent placement fee; a line of credit to CTMS from Patrick is agreed and Patrick is also obliged to pay for the overseas travel of Mr Wells and Mr Kilfoyle.Second, there are bank records of Fynwest Pty Ltd—another company involved in the exercise—which show $140,000 paid to Fynwest by Patrick. Third, there is a deed of immunity between Lang Leasing Pty Ltd and Fynwest Pty Ltd of 1 December 1997. The bank records were dated 9 January 1998. Fourth, there is an invoice dated 15 December 1997 to Patrick from International Port Services Training marked `Attention: C Corrigan' for $392,000. Fifth, there is a letter from Chris Corrigan dated 17 February 1998 to Fynwest, effectively acknowledging a financial obligation to Fynwest. Finally, there is a letter from Corrigan to the CTMS lawyers dated 8 May 1998, claiming that the 23 October agreement had been breached and referring to `the loan provided by Patrick to Fynwest Pty Ltd'.On 5 October 1998, the Registrar of the Industrial Relations Commission referred the perjury question to the DPP. According to the answer given by the Attorney-General on 5 May 1999 to a question on notice from me:The Director's office advised the Registrar on 2 November that on the material provided the Director was unable to determine whether an offence had been committed.The Attorney-General also advised me that the matter had not been referred to the Australian Federal Police.This is an absolutely scandalous situation. Overwhelming documentary evidence indicating that Mr Corrigan has committed perjury has been referred to the DPP and he has not even seen fit to refer the matter to the AFP for further investigation. Mr Corrigan has not been interviewed. Mr Wells, who has alleged in an affidavit that Mr Corrigan perjured himself, has not been interviewed. Mr Kilfoyle has not been interviewed. I call on the Attorney-General and the Minister for Justice and Customs to explain this extraordinary situation. Why are the serious accusations of perjury against Mr Corrigan not even being investigated? If the government is unable to answer this question, public confidence in the independence and competence of the DPP's office will be seriously undermined.If Mr Corrigan is aggrieved that I have raised this matter in parliament, I urge him to exercise his right to make a formal reply in parliament. Indeed, I challenge him to respond to these accusations. Perhaps he might explain to us how a person who enters into an agreement to finance the recruitment of the Dubai mercenaries, who transfers money in accordance with that agreement and who seeks to enforce that agreement can swear on oath that the recruitment of these workers did not involve him and his company in any financial obligation. Perhaps the Attorney-General can explain to us how it is that this behaviour does not attract the investigative activity of the Australian Federal Police and has led the Director of Public Prosecutions to the conclusion that there is no evidence of an offence. This is a scandalous situation, and the government should be called to account for it.607912:34:006079Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—Once again I feel I must rise in this debate to express my concerns regarding the ever pervasive violence portrayed in the media and in film, video games and the music industry within our society which our children and young people are subjected to. I would like to make reference to two articles which appeared in yesterday's edition of the Australian : one by leading Australian film-maker George Miller and one by Jane Mills, head of screen studies at the Australian Film, Television and Radio School.Mr Miller's article calls for prudence in regard to the issue of violence in the media. The article refers to tragedies like Port Arthur and Dunblane, saying that our world—`a world which has little or no moral complexity'—knows only `that guns are the answer to almost any problem'. Of course, for some within our society, this notion is very true, even for those of us who realise that guns and violence are not the answer. Sadly, there are those who are victims of those who do not realise this. Today, more than ever, it is obvious that the media impinge on our lifestyle to a greater degree than ever before. As Mr Miller states, the media influence `what we wear, the way we talk, the way we move, the way we play as children'. Therefore, how can we dismiss the influence of the media as a non-issue in relation to influencing our behaviour on a mass scale?On the other hand, Ms Mills claims that there is no hard evidence to prove that today's society needs to be prudent and have media censorship. Rather, Ms Mills turns the blame on the current government, saying that the government:. . . fans the flames of moral panic and blames the screen for what it is reluctant to address.For goodness sake! I cannot believe that Ms Mills is not aware of the role of the Office of Film and Literature Classification which refuses classification of, on average, one or two films a week. Why? Not everybody is able to distinguish between reality and fantasy.If Ms Mills wants hard evidence to prove that today's society needs to have prudence with regard to entertainment, then I encourage her to enter a school playground and talk to the teachers, and indeed the students, about the influence that certain aspects of the media have on our children. What is becoming evident is that stories written by our primary school children are about murder, violence and rape. What happened to the happy stories about the family, friendships, life dreams or even the family pet?I know that some teachers at several schools in my electorate during the height of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles frenzy actually asked parents to come to the school during recess and lunchtime just to help supervise the children at play who were acting out, mimicking, copying—whichever terminology you wish to use—the violent, aggressive fights and the play scenarios of their heroes. I dare say that pizza vendors experienced a huge increase in demand during that time—and I should know. As a mother of three very active young boys, I banned the cartoon Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles—yes, it was censored—in my home because I could clearly see the influence it was having on their so-called play scenarios. Every night at teatime, it was, `Why can't we have pizzas like the Ninja Turtles, mum?' I will not mention the merchandising aspect of the Ninja Turtle craze.Once again I make the point that if the censors are failing in their responsibility to keep our screens clear of violence, such as cartoons aimed at children, then it is up to us as parents to be ever vigilant as to what our children are exposed to and what we think is appropriate for entertainment. Too many times I have seen cartoons and drama series on television which have portrayed unnecessary and inappropriate levels of violence, and this material is being designed for children to view. A cartoon I watched many years ago with my children in the lounge room was a sadistic, violent portrayal of the Three Bears. Daddy Bear was continually verbally abusing Baby Bear, calling him stupid, dumb, useless, hopeless and no good, while at the same time beating him around the head and body with a four-by-four, laughing all the time. It made me feel sick to the stomach to watch, so I turned it off so my children did not have to see it. On complaining to the television station, the response was, `You don't have to watch it.' That is okay for my children, but what about young children who are not supervised and do not have the commonsense to turn it off? What child would?As I have said many times before, my biggest concern about the whole censorship debate is the level of violence in the entertainment industry and the effect that violent role models can have on our young people. If Ms Mills is so convinced that we do not need censorship because media and films do not affect our behaviour, I would like her to explore the reasons why the advertising industry spends billions of dollars each year in order to change, modify and influence our behaviour on a daily basis, to encourage us to behave the way they want us to and to have us spend our consumer dollar on their products. Where is the prudence in that, Ms Mills? (Time expired)608012:39:006080Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—Two weeks ago, four small businesses based in the Fairfield City area in the heart of my electorate were recognised by the inaugural Champion of Champions Small Business Awards for Sydney and the Central Coast as being the leaders in their highly competitive and demanding fields. Today, it is my great pleasure to read their names into Hansard and, in so doing, recognise not only their achievements but also the extremely high standard at which they conduct their business.The four businesses that received awards at the ceremony are: the Fairfield Fish Markets, Chic Skin Care Clinic, Bossley Park General Store & Deli, and Horsley Building Supplies. All four establishments are assets to the wider Fairfield City community. I offer the owners, their families and their staff my warm congratulations on their efforts—and what efforts they are!Like all successful small businesses they have not reached this elite level without much hard work and sacrifice. Long hours have been put in; overwhelming challenges and disappointments have had to be overcome. The fact that they have made it through and reached this level reflects highly upon them all.Each of the four businesses had recently been recognised as leaders in our community by winning their category at the Fairfield City Small Business Awards. The fact that they have now gone on to be acknowledged as leaders in their fields throughout Sydney and the Central Coast is certainly something which they can be proud of and which the whole of the City of Fairfield should wear as a badge of pride. The awards they have received are recognition of the outstanding levels of customer service, dedication, commitment and innovation that you can find in each one of their establishments.The Champion of Champions Small Business Awards is the biggest and most prestigious small business awards program to have been launched in Australia. At the award ceremony in mid-May over 2,000 people were in attendance to congratulate the winners in 26 different categories. The judges, which included representatives from the Small Business Development Service, Tourism New South Wales, the Restaurant and Catering Association, LBW & Partners Chartered Accountants, Australian Flowers magazine and Good Fruit & Vegetables magazine, focused on the unique features belonging to each small business, such as the way they stayed ahead of their competitors, how the business was marketed, levels of customer service, benefits offered to customers, training of staff, and so on.Obviously, Fairfield City's winners were considered to be head and shoulders above the rest of their competitors in all of these respects. No other area in all of metropolitan Sydney achieved such a level of success in these awards. Out of the 26 different categories from which the judges chose winners, most areas contained one or sometimes two award recipients. For Fairfield City to have four winners represented was simply outstanding.I say to George Costi, his family and staff of the Fairfield Fish Markets; to Lois Yaghoubpour, her family and staff of the Chic Skin Care Clinic; to Joe De Abrea, his family and staff of Bossley Park General Store & Deli; and to Renzo Valleri, his brother, his family and staff of Horsley Building Supplies: you have really shown that Fairfield City is one of the small business centres of New South Wales.These four establishments are examples of how we do business in Fairfield City. We are a centre of business excellence and high standards. Anyone who wants to see what it is really like to receive incomparable levels of service and the best products should do their shopping or even conduct their businesses within Fairfield City.Once again, I congratulate those four excellent small businesses on their outstanding achievements. I wish them many, many more years of awards and successes and, more importantly, I am so proud to say that they are within my electorate of Prospect. Too often we pick up a newspaper and all we read is bad news. I am saying it is about time we started to read the good news and acknowledge the hard work, the determination and the spirit in which they started their businesses off, the confidence that they had in the area and the way they have grown as our areas have grown. I congratulate them again and we are so very proud of them all.608112:44:006081Barresi, Phil, MPMr BARRESIZJ6DeakinLP10—In an adjournment speech in parliament last night Anna Burke, the member for Chisholm, made claims about the recently opened migrant information centre that ranged from the blatantly uninformed to the blatantly untrue. It is of concern to me, Mr Deputy Speaker, because this migrant information centre which the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs opened last week is one in which the community can take great pride for its establishment and for the service which it will deliver to the entire eastern suburbs of Melbourne. It is also a migrant information centre which has been much anticipated by the community and one which I, along with a number of other community minded individuals, pursued relentlessly so that it would be established in Melbourne's east. There was quite a lot of establishment time spent on this migrant information centre to make sure that it truly represented the community and helped to resolve the issues which new settlers have in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne.There were a number of claims that the member for Chisholm made which I would like to put straight. Her first claim, which I am very surprised at, is that the migrant information centre, which is in Mitcham, is in the City of Maroondah. Only poor knowledge of the local area, sloppy research or inability to read a map would allow Ms Burke to conclude that Mitcham was anywhere but in the City of Whitehorse. This is absurd because the City of Whitehorse is a city which both the member for Chisholm and I share, and such sloppiness, at least, I put down to her inability to research.The other claim is that the migrant information centre was `initially earmarked for Box Hill'. The migrant information centre was never earmarked for Box Hill or anywhere else. The migrant information centre covers the municipalities of Booroondara, Manningham, Whitehorse, Monash, Maroondah, Knox and Yarra Ranges, a considerable geographic region within Melbourne's east. Box Hill was one of many locations looked into as possible sites, and at the end of the day Box Hill was not considered an ideal location for the service because it was not considered to be in the heart of that region and also because of financial constraints associated with available rental space in Box Hill. But it was given a fair hearing from all the board members.Furthermore, the Labor government refused to give Box Hill an MIC for 13 years. It took this coalition to set up the MIC in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne, and one has to ask: why after 13 years? Undoubtedly, they refused to set one up because they did not believe that the immigrants in Melbourne's east were worthy of their support, unlike the migrant information centres that were established in other parts of Melbourne, such as in the west, the north-west and the northern suburbs.She goes on to say it is a `puzzling decision' that `has been shrouded in controversy'. There is no controversy. The decision to locate in Mitcham was endorsed by all board members, including those of Labor persuasion. She talks about the `contentious appointment of the member for Deakin to the board'. Everyone knows of my indisputable strong links with the migrant community, apart from the fact that I was instrumental in the establishment of the migrant information centre. My appointment was supported by all board members and follows the precedent set by the former Labor government, which had the Hon. Clyde Holding on the board of the migrant information centre in Port Melbourne. I do not think being a member of parliament detracted from Clyde's ability to be impartial when it came to board decisions, as it won't be with me.She talks about the `disproportionately high salary of the centre's CEO'. This migrant information centre follows a new management model, one which embraces the community. The CEO's remuneration is in line with what is required to entice a professional with the skills required to do the job.She talks about the government having `gutted the family migration stream'. Labor's actions in the Senate to disallow the parent migration reform forced over 2,200 people to join a long waiting list rather than receive expedited entry.The member for Chisholm's comments are a slap in the face to the dedicated staff at the migrant information centre, who are working with the community for greater harmony, understanding and acceptance of our newly arrived immigrants, and I look forward to her supporting the migrant information centre rather than attacking it without any truth.608312:49:006083Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—I rise again to speak about the wonderful area in which I live and which I represent, Greater Western Sydney. This region contains 1.6 million people and over 60,000 businesses with a GDP of $35 billion, which makes it one of Asia's specific premier centres for economic development, global trade and capital investment. I wish in particular to speak about some of the commercial developments in Western Sydney that will lead to future employment opportunities.Recently I attended the launch by Mr Bob Carr, the very successful NSW Premier, of Greater Western Sydney as the call centre location for Australian industry. This scheme is being promoted by the Greater Western Sydney Economic Development Board and is intended to use the rapidly growing call centre industry to provide training and employment opportunities for local residents. Call centres, the telephone reception and customer service departments of medium to large companies, are increasingly being relocated from head offices in the city to regional centres where operating costs are cheaper and staff are readily available.With a growth rate of approximately 25 per cent per annum, the call centre industry is one of Australia's fastest growing industries. Two-thirds of Australian industry is concentrated in New South Wales, with the overwhelming majority in the Sydney area. When you consider that 60 per cent of all those who work in the CBD live in the Greater Western Sydney region—which is an area from Homebush to the east, Camden to the south, Emu Plains to the west and Baulkham Hills to the north—the potential pool of staff makes this area ideal for the establishment of a call centre as well as other industries.The Greater Western Sydney Economic Development Board hopes to capitalise on the cultural, geographic and economic strength of the region and to attract hundreds of new call centre operations. The board hopes to create 35,000 jobs in western Sydney from this development over a 10-year period.A division having been called in the House of Representatives—Sitting suspended from 12.51 p.m. to 1.03 p.m.MK6Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELD—Before the suspension, I was talking about call centres in Greater Western Sydney. While Greater Western Sydney has the transport networks, telecommunications infrastructure and government support necessary to become a prime resource for call centres, there is a further major reason why Western Sydney will be chosen: our most important resource—people. What a call centre needs most is educated, motivated and multilingual people who enjoy working flexible hours. One-third of Greater Western Sydney's 1.6 million people speak a second language. Two-thirds of this region's labour force have secondary qualifications, and a number already work in this service sector. This region is already the home of some of Australia's largest call centres, including those of AGC, MMI, St George, Colonial State Bank, Sharp, IBM, World Vision, James Hardie and Integral Energy.The President of the New South Wales Call Centre Management Association, Mr Charles Stephens, has backed the program to promote Greater Western Sydney as an Australian base for call centres. Mr Stephens has stated:When you consider that 60% of all those who work in the C.B.D. live in the Greater West, the potential pool of staff in this area is just another benefit that makes it ideal for the establishment of a call centre.Cheaper rent, more space, a pool of currently skilled and potential staff living nearby, the ability to have part-time workers and reduced staff attrition all make this region an attractive location for employers to move to.The training of the Greater Western Sydney population in specialised call centre agency skills is also assured with the launch of a new Call Centre Traineeship Centre. The managing director of Customer Focus Group, a training company specialising in call centre and customer service traineeships, is confident that the nationally recognised program will ensure that those wanting a job in the industry will be able to develop the skills to get one. I welcome these moves to attract additional industry to Greater Western Sydney.608413:05:006084Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—Queensland's tilt train, the City of Rockhampton , set an Australian railway speed record on 23 May when it reached a speed of 210 kilometres per hour just north of Bundaberg. It is interesting to note that it achieved this speed while carrying its full complement of six loaded passenger cars on an uphill grade.The tilt train began service last November on the Brisbane-Rockhampton run, where it normally travels at approximately 160 kilometres per hour—the fastest narrow-gauge regular passenger service in the world. The service has proved enormously popular with the people of my electorate. It shows what can be achieved by rail transport with appropriately engineered infrastructure, state-of-the-art rolling stock and a focus on airline type passenger comfort. I would like to extend congratulations to the CEO of Queensland Rail, Mr Vince O'Rourke, whose leadership has been quite exemplary, and to his team—in particular to Bundaberg drivers Ken Cavanagh and Greg Robinson.The previous speed record was set in New South Wales in 1992 when an XPT reached 193 kilometres per hour. The tilt train service has reduced travelling time from Brisbane to Rockhampton—a journey that used to take 14 hours just a decade ago—to a mere seven hours today. The trip from Bundaberg to Gladstone in my electorate, one of the fastest legs, which takes 2¼ hours by road, now takes only 1½ hours by tilt train. This is the basis for a cultural change in modes of travel.I would also point out that, in the next quarter, a second service will commence from Bundaberg to Brisbane, taking people from Bundaberg at 5 o'clock in the morning, bringing them into Brisbane at Roma Street just after 9 a.m. and bringing them back at a similar time in the afternoon, from 5 o'clock till 9 o'clock. This will make a huge difference to people who wish to travel to Brisbane for business, doctors, shopping and a range of other matters. We should also recognise that these beautifully crafted trains with their airline type seats, television, sound, et cetera, were put together by Walkers Ltd at Maryborough; they too need to be congratulated.When trains in Europe are running regularly at 350 kilometres per hour and freight trains at 180 kilometres per hour, it is a joke that trains on our major trunk routes are forced to travel between 10 and 65 kilometres per hour. We are an international joke when it comes to travel. But mercifully the Queensland system has now set a new standard for the whole of Australia. It may not yet be to European standards, but it is certainly a quantum leap for this country.I would recommend that the government take up a number of the recommendations of the report Tracking Australia. One of our recommendations in that report was that there be $750 million in the short term to fix the worst deficiencies in the national track. If you do not get the track right, there is no way that the trains, whether they be passenger or freight, can move at an acceptable speed. Once again, I congratulate Queensland Rail, in particular Mr Vince O'Rourke and his team, for an outstanding service and hope that the tilt train will go on to set further records and enhance passenger travel within this country.608513:09:006085Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—I rise to extend my sincere condolences and care to a constituent of the Dunkley electorate, Bev Knopfmacher. Mrs Knopfmacher was given the devastating news that her world renowned husband, mathematician Mr Knopfmacher, while in Austria delivering lectures to university students, had passed away. Since that devastating time Mrs Knopfmacher has been fighting a battle against the insurance company that provided travel insurance to Mr Knopfmacher. GCU Insurance has been less than helpful at this difficult time for Mrs Knopfmacher.Since learning of her husband's death, Mrs Knopfmacher has sought to have her husband's body returned to Australia and buried in a manner befitting her faith. Her faith also prescribes that the burial be carried out without delay. Having advised the travel insurance company of her husband's situation, she has run into repeated frustration—and I share her view that it can only be described as unbelievably cruel.First of all, she has been asked to prove that there was not some pre-existing medical condition, a subject that is ordinarily canvassed at the time the insurance is taken out. Those of us who have taken out travel insurance would be aware that we have to complete a declaration relating to our health condition. So, even during this difficult and devastating time for Mrs Knopfmacher, she has had to fish through medical reports simply to validate the statements that accompanied the medical health insurance statement when travel insurance was taken out.Having done that, GCU are insisting now that an autopsy be carried out on the body of Mrs Knopfmacher's husband in Austria. As if it is not hard enough for her to cope with her devastating loss, she is now faced with having to deal with another jurisdiction in another country, having to juggle with a 12-hour time difference—and all she wants is her husband's body brought home. This is not a matter of a discretionary operation that has occurred as a result of something happening while Mr Knopfmacher was on travel; this is an emergency of the gravest kind. He deserves to be returned to this country without further delay.Mrs Knopfmacher does not need her grief and devastation compounded by the heartless and cruel actions of GCU Insurance. I call on GCU Insurance to do the right thing: to honour the insurance policy that has been taken out in good faith and to recognise the family's desire and, I think, justified need in having the body of their husband and father returned to this country for burial.I would also like to acknowledge the assistance being provided through Minister Downer's office with consular support and also the interest and concern shown by Peta Tomlinson, the chief journalist at the Mornington Peninsular Leader newspaper who has joined me. Together we are hoping to get a satisfactory outcome for Mrs Knopfmacher. She is so devastated by what has gone on, she is so appalled by the conduct of GCU Insurance that she, personally, is now considering paying for the entire costs of returning her husband's body to this country just so that she can have the burial in a manner that befits and is prescribed by her faith.It is outrageous that someone in her situation should be subjected to this sort of bureaucratic obfuscation. I call on GCU Insurance to do the right thing to assist one of its clients and to look after the needs of Mrs Knopfmacher at this very difficult and traumatic time for her.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The time allowed for the debate has expired. For the future reference of the Main Committee, I indicate the procedure that was undertaken today when the adjournment debate was interrupted by a division in the chamber. A reading of standing order 274A in part indicates:Provided further that, after the debate on the question—That the committee do now adjourn—has continued for 30 minutes or until 1.30 p.m., whichever first occurs, the Chair shall interrupt the debate . . . On this occasion we have interpreted `has continued for 30 minutes' as indicating that the adjournment debate should go for a total of 30 minutes, and that was the procedure that was undertaken. The committee stands adjourned until a date and time to be fixed by the Deputy Speaker.Main Committee adjourned at 1.14 p.m.Answers to Questions in Writing6087The following answers to questions were circulated:6087(Question No. 570)5706087Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 31 March 1999:What are the names and addresses of the (a) schools served under the Jobs Pathway Program; (b) Brokers providing services under the Program.6087Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KempBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(a) While the names of each of the schools served by a Jobs Pathway Program broker are listed on the JPP website (http://www.detya.gov.au/vet/ jpp/jpp.htm), I have asked my Department to prepare the attached material which lists each school and its address.(b) Details of each JPP broker are also available from the JPP website. For the honourable member's convenience, I have asked my Department to include this information in the attached material.1998-99 JOBS PATHWAY PROGRAMBROKER AND SCHOOLS IN NEW SOUTH WALES AND ACTSchool NameAddressTownStatePost CodeAUSTRALIAN SPORTS INDUSTRY GROUP TRAINING COMPANY14 Fennell Street, Parramatta NSW 2151All Saints Greek Orthodox Grammar School54 Hampden RoadLAKEMBANSW2195Bankstown Girls' High School Mona StreetBANKSTOWNNSW2200Bankstown Grammar School Georges CrescentGEORGES HALLNSW2198Bankstown Senior College Antwerp StreetBANKSTOWNNSW2200Bass High School Cnr Hume Hwy & Arundle RdBASS HILLNSW2197Belmore Boys' High School Burwood RoadBELMORENSW2192Benidle Boys High School530 Chapel RdBANKSTOWNNSW2200Bonnyrigg High School Elizabeth DriveBONNYRIGGNSW2177Canley Vale High School Prospect RoadCANLEY VALENSW2166Canterbury Girls' High School Church StreetCANTERBURYNSW2193Cerdon College Sherwood RoadMERRYLANDSNSW2160De La Salle College 544 Chapel RdBANKSTOWNNSW2200De La Salle College 300 The River RoadREVESBY HEIGHTSNSW2212East Hills Boys High School Lucas RoadPANANIANSW2213Fairfield High School The Horsley DriveFAIRFIELDNSW2165Fairvale High School Thorney Road And Maude StreetsFAIRFIELD WESTNSW2165Freeman Catholic High School Mount StreetBONNYRIGGNSW2177Granville South High School Rowley RoadGUILDFORDNSW2161Hurlstone Agricultural High SchoolRoy Watts RoadGLENFIELDNSW2167Ingleburn High School Oxford StreetINGLEBURNNSW2565James Meehan High School Harold StreetMACQUARIE FIELDSNSW2564Macquarie Fields High School Bensley RoadMACQUARIE FIELDSNSW2564Mary Mackillop College Carnarvon StreetWAKELEYNSW2176Merrylands High School Bristol StreetMERRYLANDSNSW2160Nazareth Senior College 351 Hume HighwayBANKSTOWNNSW2200Patrician Brothers College 268 The Horsley DriveFAIRFIELDNSW2165Prairiewood High School Prairevale RoadWETHERILL PARKNSW2164Sefton High School Munro And Hector StreetsSEFTONNSW2162St Euphemia College 6-12 East TceBANKSTOWNNSW2200St John's Park High School Mimosa RoadGREENFIELD PARKNSW2176Strathfield South High School Hedges AvenueENFIELDNSW2136 Tyndale Christian School 58 Douglas RoadBLACKTOWNNSW2148Westfield High SchoolHamilton RoadFAIRFIELD WESTNSW2165CENTRAL COAST BUSINESS EDUCATION NETWORK INCORPORATEDShop 4, Niagara Park Shopping Centre, Niagara Park NSW 2250Berkeley Vale Community High Berkeley RoadBERKELEY VALENSW2259Central Coast Grammar School Arundel And The Entrance RoadsERINA HEIGHTSNSW2260Corpus Christi College Lot 9 Gavenlock RoadTUGGERAHNSW2259Erina High School The Entrance RoadERINANSW2250Green Point Christian College Avoca DriveGREEN POINTNSW2251Henry Kendall High School Faunce StreetGOSFORDNSW2250Kincumber High School Bungoona RoadKINCUMBERNSW2251Lisarow High School Chamberlain RoadLISAROWNSW2250Mater Dei College Lot 9 Gavenlock RdTUGGERAHNSW2259Narara Valley High School Cnr Fountains And Pandala Rd'sNARARANSW2250St Edward's Christian Brothers College13 Frederick StreetEAST GOSFORDNSW2250Terrigal High School Charles Kay DriveTERRIGALNSW2260The Entrance High School The Entrance RoadLONG JETTYNSW2261Umina High School Veron RoadUMINANSW2257Woy Woy High School Edward StreetWOY WOYNSW2256Wyong High School Alison RoadWYONGNSW2259COOTAMUNDRA WORKSKILLS INCORPORATED30 Mackay Street, Cootamundra NSW 2590Ardlethan Central School Methul StreetARDLETHANNSW2665Ariah Park Central SchoolReid StreetARIAH PARKNSW2665Boorowa Central School Pudman StreetBOOROWANSW2586Cootamundra High School Poole StreetCOOTAMUNDRANSW2590Junee High School Waratah StreetJUNEENSW2663Murrumburrah High School Smith StreetMURRUMBURAHNSW2587Sacred Heart School Morris StreetCOOTAMUNDRANSW2590St Anne's SchoolDe Boos StTEMORANSW2666St Mary's High School 51 Lennox StWEST WYALONGNSW2671St Mary's Catholic Secondary School Ripon StreetYOUNGNSW2594Temora High School Anzac StreetTEMORANSW2666Trinity SchoolCnr Albury & East StreetsHARDENNSW2587Young Technology High SchoolBruce StreetYOUNGNSW2594CSA TRAINING SERVICES INCORPORATEDSuite 2, Level 2 Lachlan Tower, 17-21 Macquarie Street, Parramatta NSW 2150Arthur Phillip High School Smith StreetPARRAMATTANSW2150Bethel Christian Academy 108 Mt Druitt RoadMOUNT DRUITTNSW2770Bidwill High School Bunya RoadBIDWILLNSW2770Blacktown Boys High School Sunnyholt Road & Fifth AvenueBLACKTOWNNSW2148Blacktown Girls High School Fifth AvenueBLACKTOWNNSW2148Carlingford High School North Rocks RoadCARLINGFORDNSW2118Castle Hill High School Castle StreetCASTLE HILLNSW2154Coverdale Christian School Cnr Regent & Mcculloch StreetsRIVERSTONENSW2765Crestwood High School 17 Chapel LaneBAULKHAM HILLSNSW2153Cumberland High School 183 Pennant Hills RoadCARLINGFORDNSW2118Evans High School 166 Walters RdBLACKTOWNNSW2148Grantham High School Best RoadSEVEN HILLSNSW2147Greystanes High School Beresford RoadPENDLE HILL SOUTHNSW2145James Ruse Agricultural High SchoolFelton RoadCARLINGFORDNSW2118John Paul Ii Senior High School 50 Breakfast RoadMARAYONGNSW2148Macarthur Girls High School Macarthur StreetPARRAMATTANSW2150Macquarie Boys' Technolgy High School James Ruse DriveNORTH PARRAMATTANSW2151Mitchell High School Keyworth DriveBLACKTOWNNSW2148Model Farms High School Gooden DriveBAULKHAM HILLSNSW2153Mount Druitt High School Stuart StreetMT DRUITTNSW2770 Muirfield High School Barclay RoadNORTH ROCKSNSW2150Oakhill College Old Northern RoadCASTLE HILLNSW2154Pendle Hill High School Knox StreetPENDLE HILLNSW2145Quakers Hill High School Lalor RoadQUAKERS HILLNSW2763Redeemer Baptist School 2-12 Masons DriveNORTH PARRAMATTANSW2151Riverstone High School McCulloch StreetRIVERSTONENSW2765Rooty Hill High School North ParadeROOTY HILLNSW2766Seven Hills High School Johnson AvenueSEVEN HILLSNSW2147Tara Anglican School For Girls Masons DriveNORTH PARRAMATTANSW2151HURSTVILLE ENTERPRISE ASSOCIATION FOR PEOPLE SERVICES INCGround Floor, 2 Rose Street, Hurstville NSW 2220Beverly Hills Girls High SchoolBroadarrow Rd & King Georges RdBEVERLY HILLSNSW2209Blakehurst High School Waniora RoadBLAKEHURSTNSW2221Boys Town Waratah RoadENGADINENSW2233Caringbah High School Willarong RoadCARINGBAHNSW2229Cronulla High School Captain Cook DriveCRONULLANSW2230De La Salle College 51 Caroline StKINGSGROVENSW2208Endeavour High School Cnr Taren Pt Rd & The BoulevardeCARINGBAHNSW2229Engadine High School Porter RoadENGADINENSW2233Gymea Technology High School Hotham Rd And Princes HwyGYMEANSW2227Hurstville Boys High School Kenwyn StreetHURSTVILLENSW2220James Cook Boys Technology High SchoolPrinces HighwayKOGARAHNSW2217Kingsgrove High School Stoney Creek & Kingsgrove RdsKINGSGROVENSW2208Kingsgrove North High School St Albans RoadKINGSGROVENSW2208Kirrawee High School 21-29 Hunter StreetKIRAWEENSW2232Kogarah High School Regent StreetKOGARAHNSW2217Kogarah Intensive English SchoolRegent StreetKOGARAHNSW2217Marist Brothers High School65 Victoria AvenueMORTDALENSW2223Moorefield Girls Technology High SchoolPrinces HighwayKOGARAHNSW2217Narwee High School Chamberlain StreetNARWEENSW2209Peakhurst High School Samuel & Rona StreetsPEAKHURSTNSW2210Penshurst Girls High School 2 Austral StreetPENSHURSTNSW2222Port Hacking High School The KingswayMIRANDANSW2228St George Girls High School Victoria StreetKOGARAHNSW2217JOB FUTURES LIMITED (Specialist services for people with a disability)49 Wentworth Street, Kingston ACT 2604Alfred Deakin High School Kent StreetDEAKINACT2600Belconnen High School Murranji StreetHAWKERACT2614Calwell High School Casey CresCALWELLACT2905Campbell High School Treloar CrescentCAMPBELLACT2601Canberra College—Weston Campus (Stirling College)Fremantle DriveSTIRLINGACT2611Canberra High School Bindubi StreetMACQUARIEACT2614Caroline Chisholm High School Hambidge CresCHISHOLMACT2905Copland College Copland DriveMELBAACT2615Dickson College Phillip AvenueDICKSONACT2602Erindale College Mcbride CrescentWANNIASSAACT2903Ginninderra High School Starke StreetHOLTACT2615Hawker College Murranji StreetHAWKERACT2614Kaleen High School Baldwin DriveKALEENACT2617Kambah High School O'Halloran CircuitKAMBAHACT2902Lake Ginninderra College 48 Emu BankBELCONNENACT2617Lanyon High School Heidelberg StreetCONDERACT2906Lyneham High School Goodwin StreetLYNEHAMACT2602Melba High School Conley DriveMELBAACT2615Melrose High School Marr StreetPEARCEACT2607Narrabundah College Jerrabombera AveNARRABUNDAHACT2604School Without Walls Elouera StBRADDONACT2601Stromlo High School Badimara StreetWARAMANGAACT2611Telopea Park High School Nsw CrescentBARTONACT2600 Tuggeranong College Cowlishaw StTUGGERANONGACT2900Wanniassa High School Wheeler CrescentWANNIASSAACT2903Woden Special School Dennison StreetDEAKINACT2600LISMORE SKILLS CENTRE INCORPORATED (Specialist services for Indigenous Australians)218-232 Molesworth Street, Lismore NSW 2480Alstonville High School Cawley CloseALSTONVILLENSW2477Ballina High School Burnett StreetBALLINANSW2478Bonalbo Central School Peacock StreetBONALBONSW2470Byron Bay High SchoolBroken Head RoadBYRON BAYNSW2481Casino High School Queensland RoadCASINONSW2470Catherine Mcauley College Victoria StGRAFTONNSW2460Grafton High School Oliver & Mary StreetsGRAFTONNSW2460Kadina High School Kadina StreetGOONELLABAHNSW2480Kyogle High School Summerland WayKYOGLENSW2474Lismore High School Dalley StreetLISMORENSW2480Maclean High School Wombah StreetMACLEANNSW2463Mullumbimby High School Jubilee AvenueMULLUMBIMBYNSW2482Nimbin Central School Cullen StreetNIMBINNSW2480Richmond River High School Lake StreetNORTH LISMORENSW2480South Grafton High School Tyson StreetSOUTH GRAFTONNSW2461Southern Cross School K-12Chicaba DriveEAST BALLINANSW2478St John's College Woodlawn Woodlawn RoadLISMORENSW2480St Mary's High School Canterbury StreetCASINONSW2470Trinity Catholic College 1 Dawson StreetLISMORENSW2480Wilson Park SchoolWyrallah RoadLISMORENSW2480Woodburn Central School Uralba StreetWOODBURNNSW2472Woodenbong Central School Unumgar StreetWOODENBONGNSW2476LIVERPOOL SKILLS CENTRE LIMITEDShop 3, 39 Scott Street, Liverpool NSW 2170All Saints Catholic Boys College43 Bigge StreetLIVERPOOLNSW2170All Saints Catholic Girls CollegeBigge StreetLIVERPOOLNSW2170All Saints Catholic Senior High SchoolLeacocks LaneCASULANSW2170Ashcroft High School Maxwells AvenueASHCROFTNSW2168Casula High School Mile RoadCASULANSW2170Holsworthy High SchoolInfantry ParadeHOLSWORTHYNSW2173Hoxton Park High School Wilson RoadHINCHINBROOKNSW2171James Busby High School35 Beanland StreetBUSBYNSW2168Liverpool Boys High School Forbes StreetLIVERPOOLNSW2170Liverpool Girls High School Forbes StreetLIVERPOOLNSW2170Lurnea High School Hillview ParadeLURNEANSW2170Miller Technology High SchoolCabramatta AvenueMILLERNSW2168Moorebank High School Bangalow AveMOOREBANKNSW2170William Carey Christian School Bumbera StreetPRESTONSNSW2170MARTIN COLLEGE PTY LTD (Campbelltown project)55 Oxford Street, Darlinghurst NSW 2010Airds High School Briar RoadCAMPBELLTOWN SOUTHNSW2560Ambarvale High School Thomas Rose DriveROSEMEADOWNSW2560Broughton Anglican College Menangle RoadCAMPBELLTOWNNSW2560Camden High School John StreetCAMDENNSW2570Campbelltown High SchoolBeverley RoadCAMPBELLTOWNNSW2560Eagle Vale High School Drysdale RoadCLAYMORENSW2559Elderslie High School Hilder StreetNARELLANNSW2570Elizabeth Macarthur High School Waterworth DriveNARELLANNSW2567John Therry Catholic High School Demetrius RoadROSEMEADOWNSW2560Leumeah High School Junction RoadLEUMEAHNSW2560Macarthur Anglican SchoolCnr Wilson & Camden Valley WayNARELLANNSW2567Mount Carmel High School St Andrews RoadVARROVILLENSW2565Odyssey House Moonstone PlaceEAGLEVALENSW2558Picton High School Hume HighwayPICTONNSW2571Robert Townson High SchoolShuttleworth AveRABYNSW2566 Sarah Redfern High School Pembroke RoadMINTONSW2566Sherwood Hills Christian School 61 Jacaranda AvenueBRADBURYNSW2560St Gregory's College Badgally RoadCAMPBELLTOWNNSW2560St Patrick's College 4 St Johns RoadCAMPBELLTOWNNSW2560Thomas Reddall High School Woodhouse DriveAMBARVALENSW2560MARTIN COLLEGE PTY LTD (Granville project)55 Oxford Street, Darlinghurst NSW 2010Auburn Girls High School Hunter Street And Braemar AvenueAUBURNNSW2144Birrong Boys High School Rodd StreetBIRRONGNSW2143Birrong Girls High School Cooper RoadBIRRONGNSW2143Christian Community High School 59-61 Regent StreetREGENTS PARKNSW2143Concord High School Stanley StreetCONCORDNSW2137Granville Boys' High School 14 Mary StreetGRANVILLENSW2142Homebush Boys' High School Bridge RoadHOMEBUSHNSW2140Mackillop Girls High School 39 Croydon StreetLAKEMBANSW2195Meriden School 12 Redmyre RoadSTRATHFIELDNSW2135MLC School Rowley StreetBURWOODNSW2134Patrician Brothers High School Grimwood StreetGRANVILLENSW2142Santa Sabina College 90 The BoulevardeSTRATHFIELDNSW2135St John's College 39 Croydon StreetLAKEMBANSW2195St Patrick's College34 Calliope StreetGUILDFORDNSW2161Strathfield Girls' High School Albert RoadSTRATHFIELDNSW2135The Mcdonald College 11-13 Beresford RdSTRATHFIELDNSW2135Trinity Catholic College 13 Park RoadAUBURNNSW2144Wiley Park Girls' High School The BoulevardePUNCHBOWLNSW2196MARTIN COLLEGE PTY LTD (Parramatta project)55 Oxford Street, Darlinghurst NSW 2010Baulkham Hills High School Windsor RoadBAULKHAM HILLSNSW2153Catherine McAuley High School Darcy RoadWESTMEADNSW2145Girraween High School Gilba RoadGIRRAWEENNSW2145Northmead High School Campbell StreetNORTHMEADNSW2152Our Lady Of Lebanon School 23-25 Alice StreetHARRIS PARKNSW2150Our Lady Of Mercy College Victoria RoadPARRAMATTANSW2150Parramatta High School Great Western RoadPARRAMATTANSW2150Parramatta Marist High School 2 Darcy RoadWESTMEADNSW2145St Patrick's Marist College 151 Kirby StreetDUNDASNSW2117The King's School Pennant Hills RoadNORTH PARRAMATTANSW2151Toongabbie Baptist Christian Community School40 Metella RoadTOONGABBIENSW2146William Clarke CollegeCnr Green & Wrights RoadKELLYVILLENSW2153MARTIN COLLEGE PTY LTD (Port Jackson project)55 Oxford Street, Darlinghurst NSW 2010Aquinas College Anzac RoadMENAINSW2234Ashfield Boy's High School 117 Liverpool RoadASHFIELDNSW2131Balmain High School Terry StreetROZELLENSW2039Bethany College Croydon RoadHURSTVILLENSW2220Bethlehem College 18 Bland StreetASHFIELDNSW2131Brigidine Senior School 7 Coogee Bay RoadRANDWICKNSW2031Burwood Girls High School Queen StreetCROYDONNSW2132Casimir Catholic College 57-61 Francis StreetMARRICKVILLENSW2204Christian Brothers High School 57 Francis StreetMARRICKVILLENSW2204Cleveland Street High School Park RoadALEXANDRIANSW2015De La Salle College 24 Bland StASHFIELDNSW2131De La Salle College 389 Port Hacking RoadCARINGBAHNSW2229De La Salle College 2 Cross StreetCRONULLANSW2230Domremy College 121 First AvenueFIVE DOCKNSW2046Dulwich High SchoolSeaview Street DULWICH HILLNSW2203Fort Street High School Parramatta RoadPETERSHAMNSW2049Glebe High School Taylor StreetGLEBENSW2037Holy Cross College 70 Edgecliff RdBONDI JUNCTIONNSW2022 Leichhardt High School Balmain RoadLEICHHARDTNSW2040Marcellin College 195 Alison RoadRANDWICKNSW2031Marist College Kogarah 52 Wolseley StBEXLEYNSW2207Marist College Pagewood Donovan AveMAROUBRANSW2035Marrickville High School Northcote StreetMARRICKVILLENSW2204Newington College 200 Stanmore RoadSTANMORENSW2048Newtown High School Of Performing ArtsKing StreetNEWTOWNNSW2042Noor Al Houda Islamic College 2B Third AvenueCONDELL PARKNSW2200Our Lady Of Mercy College Burraneer62-66 Dominic StreetCRONULLANSW2230Our Lady Of The Sacred Heart Regional College2 Kensington RdKENSINGTONNSW2033Presbyterian Ladies College Boundary StreetCROYDONNSW2132Rosebank College 1A Harris RoadFIVE DOCKNSW2046St John Bosco High School Banksia AvenueENGADINENSW2233St Mary's Cathedral College St Mary's RoadSYDNEYNSW2000St Patrick's College 551 President AvenueSUTHERLANDNSW2232St Scholastica's College 4 Avenue RdGLEBENSW2037St Ursula's College 69 Caroline StKINGSGROVENSW2208Tempe High School Unwins Bridge RoadTEMPENSW2044Waverley College 131 Birrell StreetWAVERLEYNSW2024JOB FUTURES/JOB QUESTSuite 101, 114-116 Henry Street, Penrith NSW 2751Bede Polding College Rifle Range RoadSOUTH WINDSORNSW2756Blaxland High School Coughland RoadBLAXLANDNSW2774Blue Mountains Grammar School LtdGreat Western HighwayWENTWORTH FALLSNSW2782Cambridge Park High School Harrow RoadCAMBRIDGE PARKNSW2747Caroline Chisholm Catholic High SchoolGarswood RoadREGENTVILLENSW2750Colyton High School Carpenter StreetST MARY'SNSW2760Cranebrook High School Hosking StreetCRANEBROOKNSW2749Dunheved High School Maple RoadNORTH ST MARY'SNSW2760Emmaus Catholic College Lot 2 Bakers LaneERSKINE PARKNSW2759Erskine Park High School Swallow DriveERSKINE PARKNSW2759Gateway Christian School 60 Thirroul AvenueBLACKHEATHNSW2785Jamison High SchoolEvan RoadPENRITH NSW2750John Wycliffe Christian School 133 Rickard RdWARRIMOONSW2774Katoomba High School Martin StreetKATOOMBANSW2780Kingswood High School Smith Street & Bringelly RoadKINGSWOODNSW2747Korowal School 77 Scott AvenueLEURANSW2780Loyola College Lot 541 North ParadeMT DRUITTNSW2770Mamre Christian College 45 Bakers LaneERSKINE PARKNSW2759Mccarthy Catholic Senior High SchoolMackellar StreetEMU PLAINSNSW2750Nagle Girls High School Reservoir RoadBLACKTOWN SOUTHNSW2148Nepean District Christian School 836 Mulgoa RoadMULGOANSW2745Nepean High School Great Western HighwayEMU PLAINSNSW2750Patrician Brothers' College 100 Flushcombe RdBLACKTOWNNSW2148Penrith Christian Community SchoolSimeon RoadORCHARD HILLSNSW2748Penrith High School High StreetPENRITHNSW2750Springwood High School Grose RoadSPRINGWOODENSW2777St Agnes' High School Evans RdROOTY HILLNSW2766St Clair High School Endeavour AvenueST CLAIRNSW2759St Columba's High School 168 Hawkesbury RoadSPRINGWOODNSW2777St Dominic's College 64 Parker StPENRITHNSW2750St Marys Senior High School Rippon StreetST MARYSNSW2760St Paul's Grammar School Penrith Taylor RdCRANEBROOKNSW2750Terra Sancta College Lot 85 Hambledon RoadSCHOFIELDSNSW2762Winmalee High School High School DriveWINMALEENSW2777OCTEC INCORPORATED247 Anson Street, Orange NSW 2800All Saints College Ophir RoadBATHURSTNSW2795Bathurst High School Hope StreetBATHURSTNSW2795 Blayney High School Water StreetBLAYNEYNSW2799Canobolas Rural Technology High SchoolIceley RoadORANGENSW2800Canowindra High School Browns AvenueCANOWINDRANSW2804Central West Christian Community SchoolBack Trundle RoadPARKESNSW2870Condoblin High School Innes StreetCONDOBLINNSW2877Cowra High School Dowell StreetCOWRANSW2794Delroy High School East StreetWEST DUBBONSW2830Dubbo Christian School Sheraton RoadDUBBONSW2830Dubbo High School Wingewarra StreetDUBBONSW2830Dubbo South High School Boundary RoadDUBBONSW2830Forbes High School 18 Wyndham AvenueFORBESNSW2871Gilgandra High School Off Court StreetGILGANDRANSW2827Gulgong High School Belmore StreetGULGONGNSW2852James Sheahan Catholic High SchoolAnson StreetORANGENSW2800Kelso High SchoolBoyd StreetKELSONSW2795Kinross Wolaroi School Bathurst RoadORANGENSW2800La Salle Academy Rabaul StLITHGOWNSW2790Lake Cargelligo Central School Canada StreetLAKE CARGELLIGONSW2672Lithgow High School PO Box 296LITHGOWNSW2790Mackillop College Gorman's Hill RoadBATHURSTNSW2795Molong Central School Phillip StreetMOLONGNSW2866Mudgee High School 37 Douro StreetMUDGEENSW2850Narromine High School Merilba StreetNARROMINENSW2821Oberon High School Ross StreetOBERONNSW2787Orange Christian School Cecil RoadORANGENSW2800Orange High School Woodward StreetORANGENSW2800Parkes High School Albert StreetPARKESNSW2870Peak Hill Central School Caswell StreetPEAK HILLNSW2869Portland Central School Vale StreetPORTLANDNSW2847Red Bend Catholic College Red BendFORBESNSW2871St John's College Sheraton RoadDUBBONSW2830St Joseph's Central School Adelaide StreetBLAYNEYNSW2799St Matthew's Central School Lewis StreetMUDGEENSW2850St Raphael's Central School Liverpool StreetCOWRANSW2794St Stanislaus College Bentinck And Brilliant StreetsBATHURSTNSW2795The Scots School O'Connell RoadBATHURSTNSW2795Trangie Central School Derribong StreetTRANGIENSW2823Trundle Central School Croft StreetTRUNDLENSW2875Tullamore Central School Hinkler StreetTULLAMORENSW2874Wellington Christian School Gipps StreetWELLINGTONNSW2820Wellington High School Whiteley StreetWELLINGTONNSW2820West Wyalong High School 30 Dumaresq StreetWYALONG WESTNSW2671Yeoval Central School Cumnock RoadYEOVALNSW2868SOUTHERN TABLELANDS EDUCATION CENTRE (GOULBURN) CO-OPERATIVE34 Chantry Street, Goulburn NSW 2580Braidwood Central School Wilson StreetBRAIDWOODNSW2622Crookwell High School Crown StreetCROOKWELLNSW2583Goulburn High School Goldsmith StreetGOULBURNNSW2580Marian College Clinton StreetGOULBURN NORTHNSW2580Mulwaree High School McDermitt DriveGOULBURNNSW2580St Patrick's College Clinton StGOULBURNNSW2580ST JOSEPH'S VOCATIONAL COLLEGE49 Hay Street, Port MacquarieChatham High School St Vincents & Davis StreetsTAREENSW2430Forster High School Cape Hawke DriveFORSTERNSW2428Heritage Christian School Mumford StreetPORT MACQUARIENSW2444Kempsey High School Broughton StreetKEMPSEYNSW2440Mackillop Senior CollegeLochinvar Place PORT MACQUARIENSW2444Melville High School Nicholson StreetKEMPSEYNSW2440St Clare's High School Davis StreetTAREENSW2430St Joseph's High School Warlters StreetPORT MACQUARIENSW2444St Joseph's Vocational CollegeHay StreetPORT MACQUARIENSW2444 St Paul's College 107 Sea StreetWEST KEMPSEYNSW2440St Paul's High School Ocean DrivePORT MACQUARIENSW2444Taree High School Albert StreetTAREENSW2430Wingham High School Rowley StreetWINGHAMNSW2429THE ENTERPRISE AND TRAINING COMPANY OF COFFS HARBOUR LTD (Clarence/Coffs Harbour project)72 Grafton Street, Coffs Harbour NSW 2450Bellingen High School East EndBELLINGENNSW2454Bowraville Central School High StreetBOWRAVILLENSW2449Coffs Harbour Christian Community SchoolCuracoa StreetCOFFS HARBOURNSW2450Coffs Harbour College Hogbin DriveCOFFS HARBOURNSW2450Coffs Harbour High School High StreetCOFFS HARBOUR JETTYNSW2450Dorrigo High School Fernbrook RoadDORRIGONSW2453John Paul College Hogbin DriveCOFFS HARBOURNSW2450Macksville High School Boundary StreetMACKSVILLENSW2447Nambucca Heads High School Centenary DriveNAMBUCCA HEADSNSW2448Orara High School Joyce StreetCOFF'S HARBOURNSW2450Toormina High School Armstrong DriveSAWTELLNSW2452Woolgoolga High School Centenary DriveWOOLGOOLGANSW2456THE ENTERPRISE AND TRAINING COMPANY OF COFFS HARBOUR LTD (Port Macuqarie project)72 Grafton Street, Coffs Harbour NSW 2450Kendall Central School Comboyne StreetKENDALLNSW2439Port Macquarie High School Cnr Owen & Burrawan StreetsPORT MACQUARIENSW2444Wauchope High School Nelson StreetWAUCHOPENSW2446Westport High School Findlay AvenuePORT MACQUARIENSW2444THE QUEST GROUP PTY LTDUnit 18, Gadal Building, 28 Corinna Street, Woden ACT 2605Canberra College—Weston CampusFremantle DriveSTIRLINGACT2611Canberra College—Woden CampusLaunceston StreetPHILLIPACT2606Copland CollegeCopland DriveMELBAACT2615Darramalan CollegeCowper StreetDICKSONACT2602Dickson CollegePhillip AvenueDICKSONACT2602Erindale CollegeMcBride Crescent WANNIASSAACT2903Hawker CollegeMurranji StreetHAWKERACT2614Lake Ginninderra CollegeEmu BankBELCONNENACT2616Lake Tuggeranong CollegeCowlishaw StreetTUGGERANONGACT2259Narrabundah CollegeJerramobera AvenueNARRABUNDAHACT2604TOURISM EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING CORPORATION LTD (Newcastle project)Level 1, 500 Hunter Street, Newcastle NSW 2300Belmont High SchoolPacific HighwayBELMONTNSW2280Cardiff High School Boronia StreetCARDIFFNSW2285Cessnock High School Aberdare StreetCESSNOCKNSW2325Francis Greenway High School Lawson AvenueBERESFIELDNSW2322Gateshead High School Pacific HighwayGATESHEADNSW2290Glendale Technology High School Oaklands StreetGLENDALENSW2285Gorokan High School Goobarabah AvenueGOROKANNSW2263Hunter Valley Grammar School Norfolk StreetASHTONFIELD NSW2304Jesmond High School Janet StreetJESMONDNSW2299Kurri Kurri High School Stanford & Deakin StreetsKURRI KURRINSW2327Lake Macquarie High SchoolMarmong StreetBOORAGUALNSW2284Lambton High School Womboin & Young RoadsLAMBTONNSW2299Macquarie College 182-222 Lake RoadWALLSENDNSW2287Maitland Grossman High School Cumberland & Dickson StreetsMAITLAND EASTNSW2323Maitland High School High StreetMAITLAND EASTNSW2323Mayfield Christian Community SchoolCnr Kerr & Bull StreetMAYFIELDNSW2304Morisset High School Bridge StreetMORISSETNSW2264Mount View High SchoolMount View RoadCESSNOCK WESTNSW2325 Nelson BayHardy StreetNELSON BAYNSW2315Newcastle Grammar School 60 Newcomen StreetNEWCASTLENSW2300Newcastle High School Park Way AvenueHAMILTONNSW2303Northlakes High School Brava AvenueSAN REMONSW2262Rutherford High SchoolAvery StreetRUTHERFORDNSW2320San Clemente High School Havelock StreetMAYFIELDNSW2304Singleton High School York StreetSINGLETONNSW2330St Catherine's College Queen StreetSINGLETONNSW2330St Francis Xavier's SchoolParkway AvenueNEWCASTLENSW2301St Joseph's Box 12ABERDARENSW2336St Joseph's All Saints CollegeNew England HighwayLOCHINVARNSW 2321St Mary's CampusPO Box 213MAITLANDNSW2320St Mary's High School Pacific HighwayGATESHEADNSW2290St Peter' High School9 Free Church StreetMAITLANDNSW2320St Philip's Christian College 57 High StreetWARATAHNSW2298Swansea High School Park AvenueCAVES BEACHNSW2281The Broadmeadow School Lambton RoadBROADMEADOWNSW2292Toronto High School Field AvenueTORONTONSW2283Wallsend High School Macquarie StreetWALLSENDNSW2287Waratah High School Turton RoadWARATAHNSW2298Warners Bay High School King StWARNERS BAYNSW2282West Wallsend High School Appletree RoadWEST WALLSENDNSW2286Whitebridge High School Lonus AvenueWHITEBRIDGENSW2290TOURISM EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING CORPORATION LTD (Woollongong project)63A Market Place, Wollongong NSW 2500Albion Park High School Church StreetALBION PARKNSW2527Berkeley High School Gura StreetBERKELEYNSW2506Bomaderry High School Cambewarra RoadBOMADERRYNSW2541Bowral High School Cnr Park & Aitken RoadsBOWRALNSW2576Bulli High School Ursula RoadBULLINSW2516Corrimal High School Murray RoadCORRIMALNSW2518Dapto High School Cleveland RoadDAPTONSW2530Edmund Rice College 112 Mount Keira RoadWOLLONGONG WESTNSW2500Figtree High School Gibsons RoadFIGREENSW2525Holy Spirit College Cawley RoadBELLAMBINSW2518Illawarra Grammar SchoolWestern AvenueWOLLONGONGNSW2500Illawarra Senior College Military RoadPORT KEMBLANSW2505Kanahooka High School Thirroul & Roberts StreetsKANAHOOKANSW2530Keira Technology High School Lysaght StreetFAIRY MEADOWNSW2519Kiama High School Saddleback RoadKIAMANSW2533Lake Illawarra High School Reddall ParadeLAKE ILLAWARRANSW2528Moss Vale High School Narellan RoadMOSS VALENSW2577Nowra Technology High School Moss StreetNOWRANSW2541Oak Flats High School The EsplanadeOAK FLATSNSW2529Shoalhaven High SchoolPark RoadEAST NOWRANSW2541Smith's Hills High School Gipps StreetWOLLONGONGNSW2500St Mary's Star Of The Sea CollegeMarket StreetWOLLONGONGNSW2500Warilla High School Keross AvenueBARRACK HEIGHTSNSW2528Warrawong High School Cowper StreetWARRAWONGNSW2502Wollongong H.S. Of The Performing ArtsLysaght StreetFAIRY MEADOWNSW2519Woonona High School Nicholson LaneWOONONANSW2517TURSA EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING INCORPORATEDLevel 1, 114 Keen Street, ASA Building, Lismore NSW 2480Alstonville High School Cawley CloseALSTONVILLENSW2477Ballina High School Burnett StreetBALLINANSW2478Bonalbo Central School Peacock StreetBONALBONSW2470Byron Bay High SchoolBroken Head RoadBYRON BAYNSW2481Casino High School Queensland RoadCASINONSW2470Catherine Mcauley College Victoria StGRAFTONNSW2460Grafton High School Oliver & Mary StreetsGRAFTONNSW2460Kadina High School Kadina StreetGOONELLABAHNSW2480 Kingscliff High School Oxford StreetKINGSCLIFFNSW2487Kyogle High School Summerland WayKYOGLENSW2474Lismore High School Dalley StreetLISMORENSW2480Maclean High School Wombah StreetMACLEANNSW2463Mount St Patrick Regional High SchoolMooball StreetMURWILLUMBAHNSW2484Mullumbimby High School Jubilee AvenueMULLUMBIMBYNSW2482Murwillumbah High School Riverview StreetMURWILLUMBAHNSW2484Nimbin Central School Cullen StreetNIMBINNSW2480Richmond River High School Lake StreetNORTH LISMORENSW2480South Grafton High School Tyson StreetSOUTH GRAFTONNSW2461Southern Cross School K-12Chicaba DriveEAST BALLINANSW2478St John's College Woodlawn Woodlawn RoadLISMORENSW2480St Mary's College PO Box 236CASINONSW2470Trinity Catholic College 1 Dawson StreetLISMORENSW2480Tweed River High School Heffron StreetSOUTH TWEED HEADSNSW2486Wollumbin High School North Arm RoadMURWILLUMBAHNSW2484Woodburn Central School Uralba StreetWOODBURNNSW2472Woodenbong Central School Unumgar StreetWOODENBONGNSW2476WAGGA WAGGA EDUCATION CENTRE CO-OPERATIVE LIMITED102-104 Peter Street, Wagga Wagga NSW 2650Barellan Central SchoolBoree StreetBARELLANNSW2665Batlow Technology SchoolPioneer StreetBATLOWNSW2730Coleambally Central SchoolKingfisher AvenueCOLEAMBALLYNSW2707Coolamon Central SchoolMethul StreetCOOLAMONNSW2701Gundagai High SchoolHanley StreetGUNDAGAINSW2722Hay War Memorial High SchoolPine StreetHAYNSW2711Kooringal High SchoolZeigler AvenueKOORINGAL NORTHNSW2650Leeton High SchoolMallee & Myrtle StreetLEETONNSW2705Lockhart Central SchoolHalliday StreetLOCKHARTNSW2656McAuley Catholic Central SchoolCapper StreetTUMUTNSW2720Mount Austin High SchoolLeavenworth DriveWAGGA WAGGANSW2650Mount Erin High SchoolEdmondson StreetWAGGA WAGGANSW2650Narrandera High SchoolElizabeth StreetNARRANDERANSW2700Oaklands Central SchoolCoreen StreetOAKLANDSNSW2646St Francis De Sales Regional CollegeYanco AvenueLEETONNSW2705St Michael's Regional High SchoolChurch StreetWAGGA WAGGANSW2650St Paul's Lutheran CollegeKiemke AvenueWALLA WALLANSW2659The Rock Central SchoolFord StreetTHE ROCKNSW2655Trinity Senior High SchoolKildare AvenueWAGGA WAGGANSW2650Tumbarumba High SchoolWilliam StreetTUMBARUMBANSW2653Tumut High SchoolBogong PlaceTUMUTNSW2720Urana Central SchoolWilliam StreetURANANSW2645Wagga Wagga Christian CollegeLot 2 Kooringal RoadWAGGA WAGGANSW2650Wagga Wagga High SchoolColeman StreetWAGGA WAGGANSW2650Yanco Agricultural High SchoolEuroley RoadYANCONSW27031998-99 JOBS PATHWAY PROGRAMBROKERS AND SCHOOLS IN VICTORIASchool NameAddressTownStatePost CodeADULT COMMUNITY EDUCATION SALE INCORPORATED55 Raymond Street, Sale Vic 3850Catholic College, Sale 29-41 Pearson StSALEVIC3850Gippsland Grammar King George V AvenueSALEVIC3850Maffra Secondary College PO Box 86MAFFRAVIC3860Sale CollegeGuthridge ParadeSALEVIC3850Yarram Secondary College PO Box 135YARRAMVIC3971BALLARAT GROUP TRAINING & WIMMERA AND GRAMPIANS GROUP TRAINING COMPANY INC50 Curtis Street, Ballarat Vic 3350 Ararat Community Secondary CollegeBarkley StreetARARATVIC3377Bacchus Marsh Grammar South Maddingley RdBACCHUS MARSHVIC3340Bacchus Marsh Secondary College Grant StreetBACCHUS MARSHVIC3340Ballarat & Clarendon College 1425A Sturt StBALLARATVIC3350Ballarat And Queens Anglican Grammar School201 Forest StWENDOUREEVIC3355Ballarat High School Sturt Street WestBALLARATVIC3350Ballarat Secondary CollegeFussell StreetBALLARATVIC3350Beaufort Secondary CollegePark RoadBEAUFORTVIC3373Damascus College 200 Victoria StBALLARAT EASTVIC3350Daylesford Secondary CollegeVincent StreetDAYLESFORDVIC3460Dimboola Memorial Secondary CollegePO Box 40DIMBOOLAVIC3414Donald High School Camp Street, PO Box 138DONALDVIC3480Edenhope P-12 CollegeBox 96EDENHOPEVIC3318Goroke P-12 CollegeBox 151GOROKEVIC3412Horsham College 59 Dimboola Road, Po Box 508HORSHAMVIC3400Kaniva Secondary College Farmers Street, Po Box 63KANIVAVIC3419Lake Bolac Secondary College Mortlake RoadLAKE BOLACVIC3351Loreto College 1600 Sturt StBALLARATVIC3350Marian College 304 Barkly StARARATVIC3377Mcauley College Wycheproof RdDOOBOOBETICVIC3478Mount Clear Secondary CollegeGeelong RoadMOUNT CLEARVIC3350Murtoa Secondary College PO Box 146MURTOAVIC3390Nhill Secondary College PO Box 210NHILLVIC3418Rainbow Secondary College Albert Street, PO Box 223RAINBOWVIC3424Sebastopol Secondary College Hertford StreetSEBASTOPOLVIC3356St Arnaud Secondary College PO Box 40ST ARNAUDVIC3478St Brigid's College Robinson StHORSHAMVIC3400St Patrick's College 1431 Sturt StBALLARATVIC3350Stawell Secondary CollegeBarnes StreetSTAWELLVIC3380Warracknabeal Secondary CollegePO Box 285WARRACKNABEALVIC3393CENTRAL GOLDFIELDS JOBS PATHWAY PROGRAMMENoalan Street, Maryborough Vic 3465Ascension College McIvor HighwayJUNORTOUNVIC3551Bendigo Senior Secondary College Rosalind ParkBENDIGOVIC3550Catholic College, Bendigo Barkly StBENDIGOVIC3550Eaglehawk Secondary CollegeReserve StreetEAGLEHAWKVIC3556East Loddon P12 CollegeSerpentine RoadDINGEEVIC3571Flora Hill Secondary College Curtin StreetBENDIGOVIC3550Girton College105 Mackenzie StBENDIGOVIC3550Gisborne Secondary CollegeGisborne-Melton RoadGISBORNEVIC3437Golden Square Secondary College Hattam StreetGOLDEN SQUAREVIC3555Highview Christian Community College21 Kars StMARYBOROUGHVIC3465Kangaroo Flat Secondary College Olympic ParadeKANGAROO FLATVIC3555Maryborough Regional College Cnr Nolan And Burns StreetsMARYBOROUGHVIC3465White Hills Secondary College Napier StreetBENDIGOVIC3550CONTINUING EDUCATION CENTRE ALBURY WODONGA INCORPORATED52 Hovell Street, Wodonga Vic 3690Albury High School Kiewa StreetALBURYNSW2640Beechworth Secondary College PO Box 21BEECHWORTHVIC3747Benalla College (Technical School)Faithful StreetBENALLAVIC3672Billabong High School Gordon StreetCULCAIRNNSW2660Bright P-12 College PO Box 30BRIGHTVIC3741Catholic College, Wodonga Bowman CrtWODONGAVIC3690Cohuna Secondary College Murray Valley HighwayCOHUNAVIC3568Corryong High SchoolTowong RoadCORRYONGVIC3707Deniliquin High School Harfleur StreetDENILIQUINNSW2710Echuca High School Crofton StreetECHUCAVIC3564Echuca Secondary CollegeButcher StreetECHUCAVIC3564Finley High School Tocumwal StreetFINLEYNSW2713Galen Catholic College Cnr College & Phillipson StsWANGARATTAVIC3677James Fallon High SchoolFallon StreetALBURY NORTHNSW2640 Mitchell Secondary College Mitchell StreetWODONGAVIC3690Murray High School Kaitlers RoadLAVINGTONNSW2641Rutherglen High School PO Box 84RUTHERGLENVIC3685St Joseph's College 21 Dickson StECHUCAVIC3564Tallangatta Secondary College PO Box 81TALLANGATTAVIC3700The Scots School Perry StreetALBURYNSW2640Tocumwal High SchoolTOCUMWALNSW2714Wangaratta High School Phillipson StreetWANGARATTAVIC3677Wangaratta Secondary College Greta RoadWABGARATTAVIC3677Wodonga High School Woodland StreetWODONGAVIC3690Wodonga Secondary College PO Box 300, Hedgrow CrtWODONGAVIC3690Xavier High School Kiewa StreetALBURYNSW2640Yarrawonga Secondary College PO Box 39YARRAWONGAVIC3730COUNCIL AT KANGAN BATMAN INSTITUTE OF TAFEPearcedale Parade, Broadmeadows Vic 3047Ave Maria College 20-22 Vida StESSENDON WESTVIC3040Buckley Park Secondary CollegeCooper StreetESSENDONVIC3040Caroline Chisholm Catholic College204 Churchill AvenueBRAYBROOKVIC3019Catholic Regional College—SydenhamPO Box 5SYDENHAMVIC3038Debney Park Secondary College Mount Alexander RoadFLEMINGTONVIC3031Footscray City CollegeKinnear StreetFOOTSCRAYVIC3011Gilmore College For GirlsPO Box 2021FOOTSCRAY VIC3011Kealba Secondary CollegeDriscolls RoadST ALBANSVIC3021Keilor Downs Secondary CollegeOdessa AvenueKEILOR DOWNSVIC3038Kings Park Secondary CollegeGoldsmith AvenueDELAHEYVIC3038Lowther Hall Anglican Grammar School17 Leslie RdESSENDONVIC3040Marian College Glengala RdSUNSHINE WESTVIC3020Maribyrnong Secondary CollegeRiver StreetMAIDSTONEVIC3021St Albans Secondary CollegeMain Road EastST ALBANSVIC3021St Bernard's College 1 Beryl StESSENDON WESTVIC3040St Columba's College 139 Buckley StESSENDONVIC3040Strathmore Secondary College Pascoe Vale RoadSTRATHMOREVIC3041EMPLOYMENT IN THE COMMUNITY FOR YOUNG PEOPLE INCORPORATED187 Maude Street, Shepparton Vic 3630Cobram Secondary College PO Box 387COBRAMVIC3644Goulburn Valley Grammar School Verney RdSHEPPARTONVIC3630Kyabram Secondary College PO Box 382KYABRAMVIC3620Mcguire CollegePO Box 6605SHEPPARTONVIC3632Mooroopna Secondary College PO Box 183MOOROOPNAVIC3629Nathalia High School Pearce StreetNATHALIAVIC3638Notre Dame College 139 Knight StSHEPPARTONVIC3630Numurkah High School PO Box 229NUMURKAHVIC3636Rushworth High School Heily StreetRUSHWORTHVIC3612Shepparton High School PO Box 1247SHEPPARTONVIC3630St Augustine's College Church StKYABRAMVIC3620St Mary Of The Angels School Chapel StNATHALIAVIC3638Wanganui Park Secondary CollegeParkside DriveSHEPPARTONVIC3630KURNAI COLLEGEMacDonald Street, Morwell Vic 3840Catholic Regional College, TraralgonKosciusko StTRARALGONVIC3844Kurnai College Mcdonald StreetMORWELLVIC3840Lowana CollegeNewarr AvenueMOEVIC3825Presentation College Hawker StMOEVIC3825Traralgon Secondary College Grey StreetTRARALGONVIC3844KYM EMPLOYMENT SERVICES INCORPORATEDSHOP 31, Macauly Place, Bayswater Vic 3153Alphington Grammar School Old Heidelberg RdALPHINGTONVIC3078 Aquinas College Thomas StRINGWOODVIC3134Bayswater High School Orchard RoadBAYSWATERVIC3153Billanook College 193 Cardigan RdMOOROOLBARKVIC3138Blackburn High School Springfield RoadBLACKBURNVIC3130Boronia Heights Secondary CollegeMount View RoadBORONIAVIC3155Box Hill High School Whitehorse RoadBOX HILLVIC3128Box Hill Migrant Education Centre34-36 Prospect StreetBOX HILLVIC3128Box Hill Senior Secondary CollegeDunloe AvenueBOX HILLVIC3128Canterbury Girls Secondary CollegeMangarra RoadCANTERBURYVIC3126Croydon Community School Cnr Mt Dandenong & Anzac RoadsCROYDONVIC3136Croydon Secondary College PO Box 207CROYDONVIC3136Doncaster East Secondary College 20 George StreetDONCASTER EASTVIC3109Doncaster Secondary College PO Box 25DONCASTERVIC3108Donvale Christian College 155 Tindals RdDONVALEVIC3111Emerald Secondary College 425 Belgrave-Gembrook RoadEMERALDVIC3782Emmaus College 503 Springvale RdFOREST HILLVIC3131Fairhills High School PO Box 226FERNTREE GULLYVIC3156Ferntree Gully CollegeDorset RoadFERNTREE GULLYVIC3156Fintona Girls' School 79 Balwyn RdBALWYNVIC3103Forests Hill Secondary College Mahoneys RdBURWOOD EASTVIC3151Healesville High School PO Box 224HEALESVILLEVIC3777Heathmont CollegeHeathmont RoadHEATHMONTVIC3135Highvale Secondary College PO Box 212GLEN WAVERLEYVIC3150Ivanhoe Girls' Grammar School 123 Marshall StIVANHOEVIC3079Kew High School Cnr Burke Road And High StreetEAST KEWVIC3102Kingswood College 355 Station StBOX HILLVIC3128Lilydale Adventist Academy Edinburgh RoadLILYDALEVIC3140Lilydale Heights Secondary College17-19 Nelson RoadLILYDALEVIC3140Lilydale High SchoolWilliam StreetLILYDALEVIC3140Luther College Plymouth RdCROYDONVIC3136Marcellin College 160 Bulleen RdBULLEENVIC3105Maroondah Secondary College Brentall RoadCROYDONVIC3136Mater Christi College 28 Bayview RdBELGRAVEVIC3160Melbourne Rudolf Steiner School 213 Wonga RdWARRANWOODVIC3134Monbulk Secondary College David Hill RoadMONBULKVIC3793Mooroolbark Heights Secondary College Manchester Road, PO Box 105MOOROOLBARKVIC3138Mount Evelyn Christian School 135-141 York RdMOUNT EVELYNVIC3796Mount Lilydale College Allison CresLILYDALEVIC3140Mount Scopus Memorial College 245 Burwood HwyBURWOODVIC3125Mullauna College Mitcham CampusMitcham RoadMITCHAMVIC3132Norwood Secondary College Byron StreetRINGWOODVIC3134Our Lady Of Sion College 1065 Whitehorse RdBOX HILLVIC3128Parkwood Secondary CollegePO Box 474RINGWOOD VIC3134Pembroke Secondary College 20 Cambridge Road, Po Box 42MOOROOLBARKVIC3138Presbyterian Ladies' College Burwood HwyBURWOODVIC3125Ringwood Secondary School Bedford RoadRINGWOODVIC3134Rossbourne School 131 Power StHAWTHORNVIC3122Ruyton Girls' School 12 Selbourne RdKEWVIC3101Scoresby High School Cavell StreetSCORESBYVIC3179Siena College 815 Riversdale RdCAMBERWELLVIC3124St Joseph's CollegeLysterfield RdFERNTREE GULLYVIC3156Swinbourne Secondary College505 Burwood RoadHAWTHORNVIC3122Templestowe Secondary College Cypress AvenueLOWER TEMPLESTOWEVIC3107Tintern Church Of England Girls Grammar School90 Alexandra RoadRINGWOOD EASTVIC3135Upper Yarra Secondary CollegeLittle Yarra RoadYARRA JUNCTIONVIC3797Upwey High School Monbulk RoadUPWEYVIC3156Vermont High School Morack RoadVERMONTVIC3133Wantirna High School Harold StreetWANTIRNAVIC3152Whitefriars College 156 Park RdDONVALEVIC3111Worawa Aboriginal College Cnr Dalry & Piccaninny RdsHEALESVILLEVIC3777Xavier College Barkers RdKEWVIC3101Yarra Valley Anglican School Kalinda RoadRINGWOODVIC3134LINK EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING INCORPORATED9 Langhorne Street, Dandenong VIC 3175 Beaconhills Christian College Toomuc Valley RdPAKENHAMVIC3810Berwick Secondary College Manuka RoadBERWICKVIC3806Brandon Park Secondary CollegeCollegium AvenueMULGRAVE NORTHVIC3170Carwatha Secondary College PO Box 270NOBLE PARK NORTHVIC3174Chandler High School Isaac RoadNOBLE PARKVIC3174Cleeland Secondary College 23 Ann StreetDANDENONGVIC3175Coomoora High School Coomoora RoadSPRINGVALEVIC3171Cranbourne Secondary CollegeStawell StreetCRANBOURNEVIC3977Dandenong High School Princes HighwayPO BOX 681, DANDENONGVIC3175Doveton Technical School 64 Box StreetDOVETONVIC3177Dromana Secondary CollegeRmb 4090 Harrisons RdDROMANAVIC3936Eumemmerring Secondary College (Hallam Senior Campus)Frawley RoadNARRE WARRENVIC3805Flinders Christian Community CollegeCnr Boes & Mornington-Tyabb RdsTYABBVIC3913Frankston High School Towerhill RoadFRANKSTONVIC3199Glenfern Secondary CollegeUpper Ferntree Gully RoadFERNTREE GULLYVIC3156Hampton Park Secondary College Fordholm RoadHAMPTON PARKVIC3976Heatherhill Secondary College Janine RoadSPRINGVALE SOUTHVIC3172John Paul College—The O.J. Olsen MemorialMcMahons RdFRANKSTONVIC3199Karingal Park Secondary College Belar AvenueFRANKSTONVIC3199Killester College 433 Springvale RdSPRINGVALEVIC3171Koo Wee Rup Secondary College Rossiter RdKOO WEE RUPVIC3981Langwarrin Secondary CollegeWarrandyte RoadLANGWARRINVIC3910Lyndale Secondary College Gladstone RoadDANDENONG NORTHVIC3175Lyndhurst Secondary College South Gippsland HighwayCRANBOURNEVIC3977Maranatha Christian CollegeReema BvdENDEAVOUR HILLSVIC3802Monash Secondary CollegeDuerdin StreetNORTH CLAYTON VIC3168Monterey Secondary CollegeSilvertop StreetFRANKSTON NORTHVIC3200Mornington Secondary College Wilsons RoadMORNINGTONVIC3931Mount Eliza Secondary CollegeCanadian Bay RoadMOUNT ELIZAVIC3930Mount Erin Secondary College Golf Links & Robinsons RoadsFRANKSTONVIC3199Nazareth College Manning DriveNOBLE PARK NORTHVIC3174Noble Park Secondary College Callaghan StreetNOBLE PARKVIC3174Pakenham Secondary College PO Box 120PAKENHAMVIC3810Patterson River Secondary CollegeEel Race RoadCARRUMVIC3197Rosebud Secondary CollegeEastbourne RoadROSEBUDVIC3939Rowville Secondary College Turramurra DriveROWVILLEVIC3178Springvale Secondary College Sandown RoadSPRINGVALEVIC3171St Francis Xavier's College Beaconsfield AveBEACONSFIELDVIC3807St John's Regional College Caroline StDANDENONGVIC3175St Paul's School `Woodleigh' Golf Links RdBAXTERVIC3911St Peter's Catholic Co-Educational CollegeNavarre DriveCRANBOURNEVIC3977Wellington Secondary College91 Police RoadMULGRAVEVIC3170Westall Secondary College Rosebank AveCLAYTON SOUTHVIC3169Westernport Secondary College High StreetHASTINGSVIC3915Wheeler's Hill Secondary CollegeRaphael Drive WHEELERS HILLVIC3150MILDURA SENIOR COLLEGECorner of Deakin Avenue and Fourteenth Street, Mildura Vic 3500Chaffey Secondary CollegeDeakin AvenueMILDURAVIC3500Coomealla High SchoolSilver City HighwayDARETONNSW2717Irymple Secondary CollegeKaradoc AvenueIRYMPLEVIC3498Kerang Technical High SchoolMurray StreetKERANGVIC3579Mackillop College53 Macrae StreetSWAN HILLVIC3585Manangatang P-12 CollegeMallee HighwayMANANGATANGVIC3546Merbein Secondary CollegeCommercial StreetMERBEINVIC3505Mildura Koori Open Door Education CampusPO Box CP728MILDURAVIC3501Mildura Senior CollegeDeakin AvenueMILDURAVIC3500 Murrayville Community CollegeFrancis StreetMURRAYVILLEVIC3512Ouyen Secondary CollegePO Box 124OUYENVIC3490Red Cliffs Secondary CollegePO Box 285RED CLIFFSVIC3496Robinvale Secondary CollegeLatje RoadROBINVALEVIC3549St Joseph's College154 Twelth StreetMILDURAVIC3500Swan Hill Secondary CollegePye StreetSWAN HILLVIC3585Tooleybuc Central SchoolMurray StreetTOOLEYBUCNSW2736Tyrell CollegeSutcliffe StreetSEA LAKEVIC3533Werrimull P-12 SchoolKing StreetWERRIMULLVIC3496MOSEDG—CHISHOLM JOBS PATHWAY Suite 4, Level 2, 477 Warrigal Road, Moorabin East Vic 3189Bentleigh Secondary CollegePO Box 186EAST BENTLEIGHVIC3165Berendale School 2 Berend StMOORABBINVIC3189Brentwood Secondary College PO Box 355GLEN WAVERLEYVIC3150Brighton Grammar School 90 Outer CresBRIGHTONVIC3186Brighton Secondary College Marriage RoadEAST BRIGHTONVIC3187Caulfield Grammar School 217 Glen Eira RoadEAST ST KILDAVIC3183Cheltenham Secondary College Bernard Street, PO Box 85CHELTENHAMVIC3192Christian Brothers College 11 Westbury StST KILDA EASTVIC3183De La Salle College 1318 High StreetMALVERNVIC3144Elwood Secondary College 101 Glenhuntly RoadELWOODVIC3184Glen Eira Secondary College 76 Booran RoadCAULFIELDVIC3634Kilbreda College Cnr Mentone & Como PdesMENTONEVIC3194Kilvington Baptist Girls' Grammar SchoolCnr Leila & Katandra RdsORMONDVIC3163Loreto, Mandeville Hall 10 Mandeville CresTOORAKVIC3142Mckinnon Secondary College Mckinnon RoadMCKINNONVIC3204Mentone Girls Secondary College PO Box 52MENTONEVIC3194Mentone Grammar School 63 Venice StMENTONEVIC3194Mordialloc-Chelsea Secondary CollegePO Box 144MORDIALLOCVIC3195Oakleigh South Secondary College Bakers RoadOAKLEIGH SOUTHVIC3167Our Lady Of The Sacred Heart College111 Jasper RdBENTLEIGHVIC3204Parkdale Secondary College Warren Road, PO Box 110EAST MORDIALLOCVIC3195Presentation College 187 Dandenong RdWINDSORVIC3181Sacred Heart Girls' College Cnr Kangaroo & Warrigal RdsOAKLEIGHVIC3166Salesian College Bosco StCHADSTONEVIC3148Sandringham Secondary College Holloway RoadSANDRINGHAMVIC3191St Bede's College 2 Mentone PdeMENTONEVIC3194St Leonard's College 163 South RdBRIGHTON EASTVIC3187Star Of The Sea College Martin StGARDENVALEVIC3185Vaucluse College Darlington PdeRICHMONDVIC3121MOUNT ALEXANDER EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING SERVICES27 Lyttleton Street, Castlemaine Vic 3450Castlemaine Secondary College Etty StreetCASTLEMAINEVIC3450Kyneton Seondary College Epping StreetKYNETONVIC3444Sacred Heart College 94 High StKYNETONVIC3444NORTHERN MELBOURNE INSTITUTE OF TAFE TRADING AS JPP IN THE NORTHCorner Dalton Road and Cooper Street, Epping Vic 3076Banksia Secondary College Cnr Waterdale Rd & Bell StWEST HEIDELBERGVIC3081Bundoora Secondary College Balmoral AvenueBUNDOORAVIC3083Diamond Valley Secondary College Greysharps RoadHURSTBRIDGEVIC3099Eltham College Cnr Main & Mt Pleasant RdsRESEARCHVIC3095Eltham High School Whithers Way, PO Box 42ELTHAMVIC3095Epping Secondary College MacDonalds LaneEPPINGVIC3076Greensborough CollegePO Box 72GREENSBOROUGHVIC3088Ivanhoe Grammar School The RidgewayIVANHOEVIC3079La Trobe Secondary CollegeCnr Waiora Rd & Kingsbury DriveMACLEOD WESTVIC3085Lakeside High School Radford RoadRESERVOIRVIC3073Lalor High School David StreetLALORVIC3075Lalor North High School 114 Childs RoadEPPINGVIC3076 Loyola College 325 Grimshaw StWATSONIAVIC3087Macleod CollegeMay StreetMACLEODVIC3085Merrilands High School Merrilands RoadRESERVOIRVIC3073Mill Park Secondary College Moorhead DriveMILL PARKVIC3082Northcote High School St George's RoadNORTHCOTEVIC3070Northland Secondary College 62 Murray RoadNORTHLANDVIC3072Our Lady Of Mercy College 52 Cape StHEIDELBERGVIC3084Peter Lalor Secondary College Duncan RoadTHOMASTOWNVIC3074Preston Girls High School Cooma StreetPRESTONVIC3072Redden Catholic College 10 Clifton GrPRESTONVIC3072Reservoir District Secondary CollegePlenty RoadRESERVOIRVIC3072St Helena's Secondary CollegeWallowa RoadELTHAM NORTHVIC3095St Monica's College 16 Davisson StEPPINGVIC3076Thomastown Secondary CollegePO Box 110THOMASTOWNVIC3074Thornbury/Darebin Secondary College 346 Raleigh StreetTHORNBURYVIC3071Viewbank Secondary College Warren RoadROSANNAVIC3084Whittlesea Secondary College Laurel StreetWHITTLESEAVIC3757NORTHWEST WORKNET LIMITED33A Taylor Street, Moonee Ponds Vic 3039Ascot Vale Special School 1 Tasma StreetASCOT VALEVIC3032Box Forest Secondary College Hilton StreetGLENROYVIC3046Brunswick Secondary College Victoria StreetBRUNSWICKVIC3056Catholic Regional College, Keilor NorthSanta Monica DrKEILOR NORTHVIC3036Collingwood High School PO Box 63ABBOTSFORDVIC3067Essendon-Keilor District CollegePO Box 142NIDDRIEVIC3042Hillcrest Secondary College Johnstone StreetBROADMEADOWSVIC3047Kensington Communty School405 Racecourse RoadKENSINGTONVIC3031King Khalid Islamic College 653 Sydney RdCOBURGVIC3058Lowther Hall Anglican Grammar School17 Leslie RdESSENDONVIC3040Melbourne Girls Secondary CollegeYarra BoulevardRICHMONDVIC3121Mercy Diocesan College 760 Sydney RdCOBURG NORTHVIC3058Moreland City Secondary CollegePO Box 378COBURGVIC3058Niddrie Secondary CollegeSapphire StreetNIDDRIEVIC3042Overnewton Anglican Community CollegeOvernewton RdKEILORVIC3036Penleigh & Essendon Grammar SchoolRachelle RdKEILOR EASTVIC3033Princes Hill Secondary College Arnold StreetNORTH CARLTONVIC3054St Aloysius' College 52 Brougham StNORTH MELBOURNEVIC3051St Joseph's College 385 Queensberry StNORTH MELBOURNEVIC3051St Mary's Coptic Orthodox College19-35 Thorpdale AvenueCOOLAROOVIC3048Sydney Road Community High School350 Sydney RoadBRUNSWICKVIC3056University High School Story StreetPARKVILLEVIC3052SOUTH AND WEST GIPPSLAND JOBS PATHWAY 26 Jeffrey Street, Leongatha Vic 3953Chairo Christian School Lardner's TrackDROUIN EASTVIC3818Drouin Secondary College South RoadDROUINVIC3818Hillcrest Christian College McDonald's TrackNYORAVIC3987Korumburra High School PO Box 153KORUMBURRAVIC3950Leongatha Christian School 101 Horn StLEONGATHAVIC3953Leongatha Secondary College Private Bag 1 LEONGATHAVIC3953Marist-Sion College 165 Burke StWARRAGULVIC3820Mary Mackillop Catholic Regional CollegeHorn StLEONGATHAVIC3953Mirboo North High School Castle StreetMIRBOO NORTHVIC3871Neerim District Secondary CollegeNeerim East RoadNEERIM SOUTHVIC3831Newhaven College Boys' Home RdNEWHAVENVIC3925South Gippsland Secondary CollegeHoddle RoadFOSTERVIC3960 St Paul's Anglican Grammar SchoolBowen StWARRAGULVIC3820Trafalgar High School School RoadTRAFALGARVIC3924Warragul Secondary College PO Box 213WARRAGULVIC3820Wonthaggi Secondary College PO Box 117WONTHAGGIVIC3995SOUTH WEST VICTORIA SEAL INC62 Liebig Street, Warrnambool Vic 3280Apollo Bay P-12 CollegeRengilley AvenueAPOLLO BAYVIC3233Baimbridge Secondary College 85 Stephen StreetHAMILTONVIC3300Bayview College 119 Bentinck StPORTLANDVIC3305Brauer College Caramut RoadWARRNAMBOOLVIC3280Camperdown CollegeWilson StreetCAMPERDOWNNSW3260Casterton High School Mount Gambier RoadCASTERTONVIC3311Catholic Regional College Dimora AveCAMPERDOWNVIC3260Cobden Technical School Mckenzie StreetCOBDENVIC3266Colac College142 Hearn StreetCOLACVIC3250Colac High School PO Box 264COLACVIC3249Emmanuel College 37 Ardlie StWARRNAMBOOLVIC3280Good Shepherd College Mt Napier RdHAMILTONVIC3300Hamilton College Chaucer StHAMILTONVIC3300Hawkesdale P12 CollegeCnr Spring & Mictchell StrHAWKESDALEVIC3287Heywood District Secondary CollegeGorrie StreetHEYWOODVIC3304Lavers Hill P-12 CollegeOcean RoadLAVERS HILLVIC3238Lorne P-12 School Grove RoadLORNEVIC3232Monivae College 133 Ballarat RdHAMILTONVIC3300Mortlake P12 CollegeHood Avenue MORTLAKEVIC3272Portland Secondary College PO Box 452PORTLANDVIC3305Terang High School Strong StreetTERANGVIC3264Timboon P-12 College Bailey StreetTIMBOONVIC3268Trinity College Colac Inc Pound RdCOLACVIC3250Warrnambool Secondary College Grafton RoadWARRNAMBOOLVIC3280STRATEGIC TRAINING AND EMPLOYMENT PLACEMENT SERVICES PTY LTDShop G103, Broadmeadows Shopping Cente, Pascoe Vale Road, Broadmeadows Vic 3047Broadmeadows Secondary School Blair StreetBROADMEDOWSVIC3047Craigieburn Secondary CollegeHothlyn DriveCRAIGIEBURNVIC3064Erinbank Secondary College Erinbank CrescentWEST MEADOWSVIC3049Fawkner Secondary CollegeJukes RoadFAWKNERVIC3060Gladstone Secondary CollegeTaylor DriveGLADSTONE PARKVIC3043Pascoe Vale Girls Secondary CollegeLake AvenuePASCOE VALEVIC3044Penola Catholic College 29 Gibson StreetBROADMEADOWSVIC3047Upfield Secondary College King StreetBROADMEADOWSVIC3047WESTGATE COMMUNITY INITIATIVES GROUP INCORPORATED22 Hopkins Street, Footscray Vic 3011Altona Secondary College Civic ParadeALTONAVIC3018Braybrook High School 352 Ballarat RoadBRAYBROOKVIC3019Brimbank Secondary CollegeJamieson StreetST ALBANSVIC3021Catholic Regional College Cnr Sydenham & Pecks RdsSYDENHAMVIC3038Deer Park Secondary College Billingham RoadDEER PARKVIC3023Galvin Park Secondary College Shaws Road, PO Box 304WERRIBEEVIC3030Hoppers Crossing Secondary College2 Fraser StreetHOPPERS CROSSINGVIC3030Kurunjang Secondary CollegeKurunjang DriveMELTONVIC3337Laverton Secondary College Cnr Bladin & Jennings StreetsLAVERTONVIC3028Melton Secondary CollegeCoburns RoadMELTONVIC3337Sunshine Secondary College Graham StreetSUNSHINEVIC3020The Grange Secondary CollegeDeloraine DriveHOPPERS CROSSINGVIC3030Werribee Secondary College Duncans Road, PO Box 314WERRIBEEVIC3030Williamstown Secondary CollegePasco StreetWILLIAMSTOWNVIC3016WORKWAYS ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED265 Main Street, BAIRNSDALE VIC 3875 Bairnsdale Secondary College McKean StreetBAIRNSDALEVIC3875Cann River Secondary CollegeTamboon RoadCANN RIVERVIC3889Lakes Entrance Post Primary SchoolNorth StreetLAKES ENTRANCEVIC3909Mallacoota Secondary CollegeBucknall StreetMALLACOOTAVIC3892Nagle College PO Box 970BAIRNSDALEVIC3875Orbost Secondary College Arnold StreetORBOSTVIC3888Swifts Creek Secondary CollegeOrneo HighwaySWIFTS CREEKVIC38951998-99 JOBS PATHWAY PROGRAMBROKERS AND SCHOOLS IN QUEENSLANDSchool NameAddressTownStatePost CodeBUNDAMBA STATE HIGH SCHOOLNaomi Street, Bundamba Qld 4304Boonah State High SchoolPO Box 94BOONAHQLD4310Bremer State High SchoolPO Box 23BOOVALQLD4304Bundamba State High SchoolBrisbane RoadBUNDAMBAQLD4304Redbank Plains State High SchoolSchool RoadREDBANK PLAINSQLD4300Rosewood State High SchoolLanefield RoadROSEWOODQLD4340St Edmund's CollegeMary StreetIPSWICHQLD4305St Mary's CollegeMary StreetIPSWICHQLD4305St Peter Claver College10 Old Ipswich RoadRIVERVIEWQLD4303West Moreton Anglican CollegeKeswick RoadKARRABINQLD4306Westside Christian CollegeStuart StreetGOODNAQLD4300BURNETT AREA SCHOOLS INDUSTRY COMMITTEE (BASIC)Shop 4, Upstairs Target Arcade, Bundaberg Qld 4670Biggenden State SchoolFrederick StreetBIGGENDENQLD4621Bundaberg Christian College 78 Woongarra StreetBUNDABERGQLD4670Bundaberg Special SchoolDr Mays RoadBUNDABERGQLD4670Bundaberg State High School PO Box 1041BUNDABERGQLD4670Eidsvold State SchoolHodgkinson StreetEIDSVOLDQLD4627Gayndah State High School Pineapple StreetGAYNDAHQLD4625Gin Gin State High School Bundaberg RoadGIN GINQLD4671Isis District State High School 3 Ridgway StreetCHILDERSQLD4660Kepnock State High School Kepnock RoadBUNDABERGQLD4670Monto State High School PO Box 41MONTOQLD4630North Bundaberg State High SchoolMarks StreetNORTH BUNDABERGQLD4070Shalom College Fitzgerald StBUNDABERGQLD4670St Luke's Anglican School 4 Mezger StreetKALKIE, BUNDABERGQLD4670CAPRICORNIA TRAINING COMPANY LIMITED38 Armstrong Street, Rockhampton Qld 4700Glenmore State High SchoolCorner Bruce Highway and Farm StreetROCKHAMPTON NORTHQLD4701Mount Morgan State High School25 Central StreetMOUNT MORGANQLD4714North Rockhampton State High SchoolBerserker StreetROCKHAMPTON NORTHQLD4701Rockhampton North Special School307 Dean StreetROCKHAMPTON NORTHQLD4701Rockhampton Special SchoolCorner Denison and William StreetsROCKHAMPTONQLD4700Rockhampton State High SchoolCampbell StreetROCKHAMPTONQLD4700Yeppoon State High SchoolRawlings StreetYEPPOON QLD4703CLUB CROCODILE HOLDINGS PTY LTDLevel 1, 347 Ann Street, Brisbane Qld 4000Aspley State High School 651 Zillmere RoadASPLEYQLD4034Balmoral State High School PO Box 120MORNINGSIDEQLD4170Banyo State High School Tufnell RoadBANYOQLD4014Bribie Island State High SchoolPO Box 37 BongareeBRIBIE ISLANDQLD4507 Caboolture State High School Lee StreetCABOOLTUREQLD4510Camp Hill State High School Burn StreetCAMP HILLQLD4152Cavendish Road State High School PO Box 156HOLLAND PARKQLD4121Clairvaux-Mackillop College Klumpp RoadUPPER MOUNT GRAVATTQLD4122Clontarf Beach State High School King StreetCLONTARF BEACHQLD4019Corinda State High School Pratten SchoolCORINDAQLD4075Corpus Christi College 60 Bage StreetNUNDAHQLD4012Craigslea State High School Hamilton RoadWEST CHERMSIDEQLD4032Deception Bay State High School Government StreetDECEPTION BAYQLD4508Everton Park State High School Stafford RoadEVERTON PARKQLD4053Ferny Grove High School Mcginn RoadFERNY GROVEQLD4055Glenella High SchoolCnr Hampton & Clenella RdsGOODNAQLD4300Grace Lutheran College Anzac AvenueROTHWELLQLD4020Hendra State High School Widdop StreetHENDRAQLD4011Holland Park State High School Bapaume RoadHOLLAND PARKQLD4121Indooroopilly State High School PO Box 61INDOOROOPILLYQLD4068Kedron State High School Park RoadWOOLOOWINQLD4030Kelvin Grove State High School L'estrange TerraceKELVIN GROVEQLD4059Kenmore State High School PO Box 116KENMOREQLD4069Mansfield State High School Ham RoadMANSFIELDQLD4122Marist College Ashgrove Moola RdASHGROVEQLD4060Mitchelton State High School PO Box 126EVERTON PARKQLD4053Morayfield State High School Visentin RoadMORAYFIELDQLD4506Mount Alvernia College Cremorne RoadKEDRONQLD4031Mount Gravatt State High School Lokeburn StreetMOUNT GRAVATTQLD4122Mount Maria Senior College 67-69 Osborne RoadMITCHELTONQLD4043Mount St Michael's College 67 Elimatta DriveASHGROVEQLD4060Nashville State High School Barfoot StreetNASHVILLEQLD4017Oxley State High School PO Box 76CORINDAQLD4075Padua College 80 Turner RdKEDRONQLD4031Redcliffe State High School Klinger RoadREDCLIFFEQLD4020Rochedale State High schoolPriestdale RoadROCHEDALEQLD4123Sandgate District State High SchoolPO Box 195SANDGATEQLD4017Southern Cross Catholic College Old Scarborough RoadSCARBOROUGHQLD4020St Columban's CollegeElliott RoadBANYOQLD4014St John Fisher College 248 Bracken Ridge RoadBRACKEN RIDGEQLD4017St Joseph's CollegePO Box 130VIRGINIAQLD4014St Patrick's College 66 Park ParadeSHORNCLIFFEQLD4017Sunnybank State High SchoolTurton StreetSUNNYBANKQLD4109The Gap State High School Waterworks RoadTHE GAPQLD4061Toowong State High School Bywong StreetTOOWONGQLD4066Wavell State High School Brae StreetWAVELL HEIGHTSQLD4012Yeronga State High School Villa StreetYERONGAQLD4104COMMUNITY AGENCY FOR DEVELOPMENT EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING INC (CADET) (Mooloolaba project)60 George Street, Caloundra Qld 4551Beerwah State High School Roberts RoadBEERWAHQLD4519Caloundra Christian College Caloundra RoadCALOUNDRAQLD4551Caloundra State High School Queen StreetCALOUNDRAQLD4551Immanuel Lutheran College Wises RoadMAROOCHYDOREQLD4558Kawana Waters State High SchoolSportsman's ParadeKAWANA WATERSQLDKilcoy State High School Seib StreetKILCOYQLD4515Maroochydore State High School PO Box 55MAROOCHYDOREQLD4558Matthew Flinders Anglican CollegeStringybark RoadBUDERIMQLD4556Mountain Creek Secondary High SchoolLady Musgrave DriveMOUNTAIN CREEKQLD4557COMMUNITY AGENCY FOR DEVELOPMENT EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING INC (CADET) (Nambour project)60 George Street, Caloundra Qld 4551Burnside High School PO Box 396NAMBOURQLD4560Christian Outreach College—Sunshine CoastKiel Mountain RoadWOOMBYEQLD4559Coolum State High School Savannah RoadCOOLUM_BEACHQLD4573Good Shepherd Lutheran College 115 Eumundi RoadNOOSAVILLEQLD4566Kenilworth Secondary College Elizabeth StreetKENILWORTHQLD4574 Maleny State School Bunya StreetMALENYQLD4552Nambour Christian College Mckenzie RoadWOOMBYEQLD4559Nambour State High School PO Box 79NAMBOURQLD4560Noosa District State High School Tulip StreetCOOROYQLD4563Pomona Secondary School Station StreetPOMONAQLD4568St John's College Perwillowen RoadNAMBOURQLD4560Sunshine Beach State High School Ben Lexcen DriveSUNSHINE BEACHQLD4567DAKABIN STATE HIGH SCHOOLMarsden Road, Kallungur Qld 4503Albany Creek High School Old Northern RoadALBANY CREEKQLD4035Bray Park State High School Lavarock RoadBRAY PARKQLD4500Dakabin State High School Marsden RoadDAKABINQLD4502Pine Rivers District State High SchoolGympie RoadSTRATHPINEQLD4500GLADSTONE AREA GROUP APPRENTICES LIMITED9 Hilliard Street, Gladstone Qld 4680Barallaba State High SchoolPO Box 24BARALLABEQLD4702Biloela State High School Cnr Scoria Street and Gladstone RoadBILOELAQLD4715Chanel College 11 Paterson StreetGLADSTONEQLD4680Gladstone State High School PO Box 260GLADSTONEQLD4680Miriam Vale State High School Roe StreetMIRIAM VALEQLD4677Moura State High School Gillepsie StreetMOURAQLD4718Tannum Sands State High SchoolPO Box 58TANNUM SANDSQLD4680Theodore State School PO Box 168THEODOREQLD4719Tooloola High School PO Box 109GLADSTONEQLD4680GOLDEN WEST GROUP TRAINING SCHEME INCORPORATED (Roma project)90 Charles Street, Roma Qld 4455Shop 5, Dalby Plaza, Cnr Archibald & Condamine Streets, Dalby Qld 4405Allora State School 21 Warwick StreetALLORAQLD4362Assumption College Locke StWARWICKQLD4370Bell State School90 Dennis StreetBELLQLD4408Cecil Plains State School PO Box 41CECIL PLAINSQLD4407Charleville School of Distance EducationParry StreetCHARLEVILLEQLD4470Charleville State High School PO Box 314CHARLEVILLEQLD4413Chinchilla Christian School 88 Oak StCHINCHILLAQLD4413Chinchilla State High School Tara RoadCHINCHILLAQLD4413Clifton State High School C/- Post OfficeCLIFTONQLD4361College Of The South WestPO Box 181ROMAQLD4455Crows Nest State School1 Littleton StreetCROWS NESTQLD4355Cunnamulla State School (Secondary Department)PO Box 74CUNNAMULLAQLD4490Dalby Christian School Mary StreetDALBYQLD4405Dalby State High School Nicholson StreetDALBYQLD4405Dirranbandi State SchoolC/- Post OfficeDIRRANBANDIQLD4486Goondiwindi State High School PO Box 301GOONDIWINDIQLD4390Inglewood State SchoolChilcott StreetINGLEWOODQLD4387Injune State SchoolPO Box 12INJUNEQLD4454Jandowae State SchoolPO Box 60JANDOWAEQLD4410Killarney State School Acacia StreetKILLARNEYQLD4373Miles State High School PO Box 21MILESQLD4415Millmerran State School19 Simmins StreetMILLMERRANQLD4357Mitchell State SchoolPo Box 65MITCHELLQLD4465Oakey State High School Campbell StreetOAKEYQLD4401Pittsworth State High School PO Box 18PITTSWORTHQLD4356Quilpie State School Quarrion StreetQUILPIEQLD4480Quinalow State SchoolMSF 444 QUINALOW VIA JONDARYNQLD4403Roma Middle State SchoolPO Box 623ROMAQLD4455School Of Total Education Freestone RoadWARWICKQLD4370 St George State High School PO Box 209ST GEORGEQLD4487St John's Catholic School (Roma)PO Box 41ROMAQLD4455St Joseph's School 112 High StSTANTHORPEQLD4380St Mary's College Nicholson StDALBYQLD4405Stanthorpe State High School PO Box 318STANTHORPEQLD4380Surat State School 55 Robert StreetSURATQLD4417Tambo State SchoolMitchell StreetTAMBOQLD4478Tara State School (Secondary Department)22 Binnie StreetTARAQLD4421Taroom State School PO Box 201TAROOMQLD4420Texas State School 1 Fleming StreetTEXASQLD4385The Scots And P.G.C. Colleges Oxenham StreetWARWICKQLD4370Wallumbilla State SchoolHigh StreetWALLUMBILLAQLD4428Wandoan State SchoolPO Box 103WANDOANQLD4419Warwick State High School PO Box 67WARWICKQLD4370GOLDEN WEST GROUP TRAINING SCHEME INCORPORATED (Toowoomba project)Block `C', Toowoomba TAFE, Margaret Street CampusCentenary Heights State High SchoolSouth and Ramsay StreetsTOOWOOMBAQLD4350Christian Outreach College Cnr Hume and Spring StreetsTOOWOOMBAQLD4350Concordia Memorial College 154 Stephen StreetTOOWOOMBAQLD4350Downlands Sacred Heart College 72 Ruthven StTOOWOOMBAQLD4350Fairholme College FairholmeTOOWOOMBAQLD4350Harristown State High School South StreetTOOWOOMBAQLD4350Lockyer District State High SchoolPO Box 226GATTONQLD4343St Joseph's College 54 James StreetTOOWOOMBAQLD4350St Mary's Christian Brothers College127 West StTOOWOOMBAQLD4350St Saviour's College Neil StreetTOOWOOMBAQLD4350St Ursula's College 38 Taylor StTOOWOOMBAQLD4350The Glennie School Herries StTOOWOOMBAQLD4350Toowoomba Christian College New England HighwayHIGHFIELDSQLD4352Toowoomba Grammar School Margaret StreetTOOWOOMBAQLD4350Toowoomba State High School Stuart StreetTOOWOOMBAQLD4350Toowoomba West Special SchoolGladstone StreetTOOWOOMBAQLD4350GYMPIE STATE HIGH SCHOOLS AS A MEMBER OF COOLOOLA SCHOOLS CONSORTIUM1st Floor, Old Town Hall, Five Ways Roundabout, Gympie Qld 4570Christian Outreach College 173 Old Maryborough RoadGYMPIEQLD4570Gympie State High School PO Box 22GYMPIEQLD4570Imbil State SchoolEdward StreetIMBIL QLD4570James Nash High School Myall StreetGYMPIEQLD4570Kilkivan State School Council StreetKILKIVANQLD4600St Patrick's College Church StreetGYMPIEQLD4570IPSWICH YUPI PROGRAM INCORPORATED5 Foote Lane, Ipswich Qld 4305Ipswich State High School PO Box 26IPSWICHQLD4305Laidley State High School Alfred StreetLAIDLEY NORTHQLD4341Lowood State High School Prospect StreetLOWOODQLD4311Toogoolawah State High School PO Box 21TOOGOOLAWAHQLD43131998-99 JOBS PATHWAY PROGRAMBROKERS AND SCHOOLS IN SOUTH AUSTRALIASchool NameAddressTownStatePost CodeALLSTAFF TRAINING CONSULTANTS PTY LTD5th Floor, 25 Leigh Street, Adelaide SA 5000Enfield High School Grand Junction RoadENFIELDSA5085Gepps Cross Girls' High School Grand Junction RoadGEPPS CROSSSA5094Gepps Cross Senior School15 Marmion AveBLAIR ATHOLSA5084Ross Smith Secondary SchoolHampstead RoadENFIELDSA5085 Valley View Secondary SchoolWright RoadPARA VISTASA5093Windsor Gardens High School Mckay AvenueWINDSOR GARDENSSA5087ASK EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING SERVICES14 Blacks Road, Gillies Plains SA 5086Booleroo Centre High SchoolPO Box 42BOOLEROOSA5482Gladstone HighMain North RoadGLADSTONESA5473Jamestown High SchoolPO Box 111JAMESTOWNSA5491John Pirie High SchoolSenate RoadPORT PIRIESA5540Orroroo Area SchoolWest TerraceORROROOSA5431Peterborough High SchoolQueen StreetPETERBOROUGHSA5422St Mark's CollegeThe Terrace ExtensionPORT PIRIESA5540BAROSSA CLARE AND GAWLER EMPLOYMENT TRAINING COMMITTEE (Gawler/Barossa project)Lot 5, Little Paxton Street, Willaston SA 5118Cambrai Area School CAMBRAI SA5353Faith Lutheran Secondary School Magnolia RoadTANUNDA SA5352Nuriootpa High School Penrice RoadNURIOOTPA SA5355Trinity College North Alexander AveEVANSTON SOUTH SA5116Xavier College Kentish RdGAWLER SA5118BAROSSA CLARE AND GAWLER EMPLOYMENT TRAINING COMMITTEE (Lower North project)Lot 5, Little Paxton Street, Willaston SA 5118Balaklava Area SchoolBox 41 BAKAKLAVASABurra Community School 7 Bridge TerraceBURRA SA5417Clare High School Elliott StreetCLARE SA5453Eudunda Area School Morgan RoadEUDUNDA SA5374Kapunda High School West TerraceKAPUNDA SA5373Riverton High School Oxford TerraceRIVERTON SA5412YORKE PENINSULA EMPLOYMENT73 Taylor Street, Kadina SA 5554Adrossan Area School 7 West TerraceADROSSAN SA5571Kadina Memorial High School Doswell TerraceKADINA SA5554Maitland Area School Junction RoadMAITLAND SA5573Minlaton High School 2 North TerraceMINLATON SA5575Moonta Area School Blanche TerraceMOONTA SA5558Port Broughton Area School Harvey StreetPORT BROUGHTON SA5522Snowtown Area School Glen Davidson DriveSNOWTOWN SA5520Yorketown Area School PO Box 104YORKETOWN SA5576EASTSIDE SA INCORPORATEDUnit 2, 54 Sydenham Road, Norwood SA 5067Annesley College89 Greenhill RoadWAYVILLESA5034Blackfriars Priory School 17 Prospect RdPROSPECT SA5082Charles Campbell Secondary SchoolPlayford RoadNEWTOWNSA5074Christian Brothers College 214 Wakefield StreetADELAIDE SA5000Concordia College 45 Cheltenham StreetHIGHGATE SA5063Glenunga International High SchoolConyngham StreetGLENUNGASA5064Loreto College 316 Portrush RdMARRYATVILLE SA5068Marden High School Marden RoadMARDEN SA5070Marryatville High School Kensington RoadMARRYATVILLE SA5068Mary Mackillop College 28 Phillips StreetKENSINGTON SA5068Norwood Morialta High SchoolMorialta Road WestROSTREVORSA5073Open Access CollegeMarden RoadMARDENSA5070Pembroke School 342 The ParadeKENSINGTON PARK SA5068Prescot College2 Koonga AvenuePROSPECTSA5082Prince Alfred College Dequetteville TerraceKENT TOWN SA5067Pulteney Grammar School190 South TerraceADELAIDESA5000Rostrevor College Glen Stuart RoadWOODFORDE SA5072Seymour College546 Portrush RoadGLEN OSMONDSA5064St Aloysius College 53 Wakefield StreetADELAIDE SA5000 St Dominic's Priory College 139 Molesworth StreetNORTH ADELAIDE SA5006St Ignatius College2 Manresa CrtATHELSONTESA5076St Mary's College 253 Franklin StreetADELAIDE SA5000St Peter's Collegiate Girls Stonyfell RoadSTONYFELLSA5066The Church Of England Collegiate School Of St PeterHackney RoadST PETERS SA5069Wilderness School 30 Hawkers RoadMEDINDIE SA5081EMPLOYMENT OPTIONS INCORPORATEDUnit 3, 221A Dutton Road, Mount Barker SA 5251Birdwood High School Shannon StreetBIRDWOOD SA5234Blackwood High School Seymour StreetEDEN HILLS SA5050Cornerstone College 68 Adelaide RdMOUNT BARKER SA5251Eastern Fleurieu High School11 Callington RoadSTRATHALBYN SA5255Heathfield High School 99 Longwood RoadHEATHFIELD SA5153Kingscote Area School 5 Centenary AvenueKINGSCOTE K.I. SA5223Marbury School 160 Mt Barker RoadALDGATE SA5154Mount Barker High School 2 Wellington RoadMOUNT BARKER SA5251Mount Barker Waldorf School Sims RoadMOUNT BARKER SA5251Mount Compass Area School PO Box 54MOUNT COMPASS SA5210Oakbank Area School Main RoadOAKBANK SA5243Parndana Area School Wedgewood RoadPARNDANA K.I. SA5220Seaford 6-12 School Grand BoulevardSEAFORD RISE SA5169Victor Harbour High School Yankalilla RoadVICTOR HARBOUR SA5211Willunga High School Victor Harbour RoadWILLUNGA SA5172Yankalilla Area School Main RoadYANKALILLA SA5203HETA INCORPORATED (Central East project—Specialist services for people with a disability)47 Waymouth Street, ADELAIDE SA 5000Banksia Park High School 610 Milne RoadBANKSIA PARKSA5091Cavan Education Centre1 Jonal DriveCAVANSA5094Charles Campbell Secondary SchoolPlayford RoadNEWTOWNSA5074Gepps Cross Girls' High School Grand Junction RoadGEPPS CROSSSA5094Gepps Cross Senior School15 Marmion AveBLAIR ATHOLSA5084Glenunga International High SchoolL'estrange StreetGLENUNGASA5064Golden Grove Secondary School Adey PlaceGOLDEN GROVESA5125Kensington Centre3 Shipsters RoadKENSINGTONSA5068Marden Senior CollegeMarden RoadMARDENSA5070Marryatville High School Kensington RoadMARRYATVILLESA5068Modbury High School Pompoota RoadMODBURY NORTHSA5092Norwood Morialta High SchoolMorialta Road WestROSTREVORSA5073Norwood Senior School 505 The ParadeMAGILLSA5072Open Access CollegeMarden RoadMARDENSA5070Para Hills High School Beafield RoadPARA HILLS WESTSA5096St Mary's College 253 Franklin StreetADELAIDESA5000Valley View Secondary SchoolWright RoadPARA VISTASA5093HETA INCORPORATED (Central North West project—Specialist services for people with a disability)47 Waymouth Street, ADELAIDE SA 5000Croydon High School Torrens RoadCROYDON SA5008Le Fevre High School 90 Hart StreetSEMAPHORE SOUTH SA5019Mount Carmel College 33 Newcastle StreetROSEWATER SA5013Taperoo High School Gedville RoadTAPEROO SA5017Woodville High School Leslie StreetWOODVILLE SA5011Woodville Special School513 Torrens RoadWOODVILLE SA5011NORTHPOINT TRAINING AND PLACEMENT INCORPORATED34 Commercial Road, Salisbury SA 5108Banksia Park High School610 Milne RoadBANKSIA PARKSA5091Gleeson CollegeSurrey Farm DriveGOLDEN GROVESA5125Golden Grove High SchoolAdey PlaceGOLDEN GROVESA5125Kildare College96 Valiant RoadHOLDEN HILLSA5088 Kings Baptist Grammar CollegeKetithcot arm DriveWYNN VALESSA5127Modbury Heights High SchoolBrunall DriveMODBURYSA5092Modbury High School Pompoota RoadMODBURY NORTH SA5092Our Lady of the Sacred Heart College496 Regency RoadENFIELDSA5085Pedare Christian College Surrey Farm DrvGOLDEN GROVE SA5125St Paul's College792 Grand Junction RoadGILLES PLAINSSA5086Thomas More College23 Amsterdam CrescentSALISBURY DOWNSSA5108Torrens Valley Christian School1227 Grand Junction RoadHOPE VALLEYSA5090Tyndale Christian School London DrvSALISBURY EAST SA5109RIVSKILLS INCORPORATED5 Keally Street, Berri SA 5343Brown's Well District Area SchoolPARUNA SA5311East Murray Area School PMB 1KAROONDA SA5307Glossop High School Sturt HighwayGLOSSOP SA5344Lameroo Area School 1 Bews TerraceLAMEROO SA5302Loxton High School Bookpurnong RoadLOXTON SA5333Renmark High School Thurk StreetRENMARK SA5341Riverland Special SchoolLoader StreetBERRISA5343Swan Reach Area School PO Box 31SWAN REACH SA5354Waikerie High School Blakes RoadWAIKERIE SA5330SALISBURY HIGH SCHOOL COUNCIL INCORPORATEDFarley Grove, Salisbury North SA 5108Craigmore High School Uley RoadCRAIGMORE SA5114Fremont/Elizabeth City High SchoolPhilip Highway ELIZABETH SA5112Gawler High School Barnet RoadEVANSTON SA5116Kaurna Plains SchoolRidley RoadELIZABETHSA5112Para Hills High School Beafield RoadPARA HILLS WEST SA5096Para West Adult Campus23 Craft StreetDAVOREN PARKSA5113Parafield Gardens High School Shepherdson RoadPARAFIELD GARDENS SA5107Paralowie R-12 School Halba CrescentPARALOWIE SA5108Salisbury East High School Smith RoadSALISBURY EAST SA5109Salisbury High School Farley GroveSALISBURY NORTH SA5108Smithfield Plains High School Beaumont RoadSMITHFIELD PLAINS SA5114SERVICE TO YOUTH AND COMMUNITY INCORPORATED80 Currie Street, Adelaide SA 5000Adelaide High School West TerraceADELAIDE SA5000Bowden Brompton Community Workshop High School85 Torrens RoadBROPMTON SA5007Brighton High School 305 Brighton RoadNORTH BRIGHTON SA5048Croydon High School Torrens RoadCROYDON SA5008Findon High School 40 Drummond AvenueFINDON SA5023Henley High School Cudmore TerraceHENLEY BEACH SA5022Le Fevre High School 90 Hart StreetSEMAPHORE SOUTH SA5019Mount Carmel College 33 Newcastle StreetROSEWATER SA5013Seaton High School Glenburnie StreetSEATON SA5023Siena College 176 Crittenden RoadFINDON SA5023St Michael's College 15 Mitton AveHENLEY BEACH SA5022Taperoo High School Gedville RoadTAPEROO SA5017Thebarton Senior College Ashley StreetTORRENSVILLESA5031Underdale High School 39 Garden TerraceUNDERDALE SA5032William Light Secondary CollegeErrington StreetqPLYMPTON SA5038Woodville High School Leslie StreetWOODVILLE SA5011SOUTH EAST INSTITUTE OF TAFEWireless Road West, Mount Gambier SA 5290Allendale East Area School C/- Post OfficeALLENDALE EAST SA5291Gordon Education Centre 191 Commercial StreetMOUNT GAMBIER SA5290Grant High School Hosking AvenueMOUNT GAMBIER SA5290 Kangaroo Inn Area School PMB 24MILLICENT SA5280Millicent High School Mt Burr RoadMILLICENT SA5280Mount Gambier High School Brownes RoadMOUNT GAMBIER SA5290Penola High School 43 Cameron StreetPENOLA SA5277Tenison College Shepherdson RdMOUNT GAMBIER SA5290WORKSKIL INCORPORATED1069 South Road, Melrose Park SA 5039Aberfoyle Park High SchoolTaylors RoadABERFOYLE PARKSABethesda Christian CollegeLynton AvenueSOUTH PLYMPTONSA5038Cabra Dominican College 225 Cross RdCUMBERLAND PARK SA5041Cardijn CollegeNew Honeypot RoadNOARLUNGA DOWNSSA5168Christies Beach High SchoolBeach RoadCHRISTIES BEACHSA5165Daws Road High School Daws RoadPASADENA SA5042Hallett Cove SchoolGledsdale RoadHALLET COVESAHamilton Secondary College 815 Marian RoadHAMILTONSA5043Immanuel College 32 Morphett RoadNOVAR GARDENS SA5040Mercedes College540 Fullarton RoadSPRINGFIELDSA5062Mitcham Girls High School Kyre AvenueKINGSWOOD SA5062Morphett Vale High School Lawrence StreetMORPHETT VALE SA5162Reynella East High SchoolHewlett Packard StreetREYNELLASA5161Sacred Heart College Senior SchoolBrighton RoadSOMERTON PARK SA5044Scotch CollegeCarruth RoadTORRENS PARKSA5062Seaview High SchoolSeacombe RoadSEACOMBE HEIGHTSSASouthern Vales Christian Community School140 States RoadMORPHETT VALESA5162Unley High School Kitchener StreetNETHERBY SA5062Urrbrae Agricultural SchoolFullerton RoadNETHERBYSAWarriappendi Alternative School 418 South RoadMARLESTON SA5033Westminster SchoolAlison AvenueMANONSA5043Wirreanda High School105 Richards DriveMORPHETT VALE CENTRALSA5162Woodcroft CollegeBains RoadMORPHETT VALESSA51621998-99 JOBS PATHWAY PROGRAMBROKERS AND SCHOOLS IN WESTERN AUSTRALIASchool NameAddressTownStatePost CodeCOMMUNITY WORKSKILLS INCORPORATEDLot 984, 983 Woodbrook Road, Karratha WA 6714Hedland Senior High School Roberts StreetSOUTH HEDLAND WA6722Karratha Senior High School Searippe RoadKARRATHA WA6714Onslow Primary School Third AvenueONSLOW WA6710Paraburdoo District High School De Grey RoadPARABURDOO WA6754Parnngurr Community School Rudall River National ParkCOTTEN CREEK WA6753St Cecilia's School 35 Sutherland StreetPORT HEDLAND WA6721St Luke's College Rosemary RdKARRATHA WA6714Struelly Community School Warralong StationPORT HEDLAND WA6721Tom Price District High School Milperra StreetTOM PRICE WA6751DERBY/WEST KIMBERLEY SKILLSHARE1 Clarendon Street, Derby WA 6728Broome Senior High SchoolFrederick StreetBROOMEWA6725Derby District High SchoolAnderson StreetDERBYWA6728Fitzroy Crossing District High SchoolPO Box 106FITZROY CROSSINGWA6765Halls Creek District High SchoolThomas StreetHALLS CREEKWA6770Kununurra District High SchoolCoolibah SriveKUNUNURRAWA6743La Grange Remote Community SchoolPO Box 574BROOMEWA6725 Looma Remote Community SchoolPMB 904DERBYWA6728One Arm Point Remote Community SchoolOne Arm Pointvia BROOMEWA6725Wangkatjungka Remote Community SchoolPO Box 23FITZROY CROSSINGWA6765Wyndham District High SchoolCoverley StreetWYNDHAMWA6740GERALDTON REGIONAL COMMUNITY EDUCATION ASSOCIATION INC24-28 Gregory Street, Geraldton WA 6530Carnamah District High School 48 McPherson StreetCARNAMAH WA6517Carnarvon Senior High School Cleaver StreetCARNARVON WA6701Dongara District High School 13 Cave WayDONGARA WA6525Geraldton Grammar School Bayly StreetGERALDTON WA6530Geraldton Secondary CollegePMB 102 GERALDTON WA6530Jurien District High School Hamersley StreetJURIEN WA6516Meekatharra District High School Savage StreetMEEKATHARRA WA6642Morawa Agricultural District High SchoolGill StreetMORAWA WA6623Morawa District High School PO Box 31MORAWA WA6623Mount Magnet District High SchoolPO Box 60MOUNT MAGNETWA6638Mullewa District High School Jose StreetMULLEWA WA6630Nagle College Sanford StreetGERALDTON WA6531Northampton District High School Stephen StreetNORTHAMPTON WA6535Shark Bay Primary School Hughes StreetDENHAM WA6537St Mary's School Johnson StreetCARNARVON WA6701Strathalbyn Christian College Verticordea DrSTRATHALBYN WA6530Tardun Christian CollegeC\- Post Office TARDUNWA6628GROUP TRAINING SOUTH WEST INCORPORATED123 Spencer Street, Bunbury WA 6230Bunbury Cathedral Grammar SchoolBussell HighwayGELORUP WA6230Bunbury Catholic College Rodsted StreetBUNBURY WA6230Busselton Senior High School Bussell HighwayBUSSELTON WA6280Coodanup State High School Wanjeep RoadCOODANUP WA6210Mackillop Catholic College Kelly DriveBUSSELTON WA6280Mandurah Senior High School Gibla StreetMANDURAH WA6210Margaret River High School Bussell HighwayMARGARET RIVER WA6285Pinjarra Senior High School Mclarty RoadPINJARRA WA6208Rockingham Senior High School Read StreetROCKINGHAM WA6168Safety Bay High School Malibu RoadSAFETY BAY WA6169JOB FUTURES LIMITED (Perth project)383 Scarborough Beach Road, Innaloo WA 6018 Balcatta Senior High School Poincaire StreetBALCATTA WA6021Belridge Education Support CentreGwendoline DriveBELDON WA6027Belridge High School Gwendoline DriveBELDON WA6027Carine Senior High School Everingham StreetCARINE WA6020Churchlands Senior High School Lucca StreetCHURCHLANDS WA6018City Beach Senior High School Kalinda DriveCITY BEACH WA6015Clarkson High School Walyunga BoulevardeCLARKSON WA6030Craigie Senior High School Arawa PlaceCRAIGIE WA6025Duncraig Senior High School Readshaw RoadDUNCRAIG WA6023Greenwood Senior High School Coolibah DriveGREENWOOD WA6024Hollywood High School Smyth RoadNEDLANDS WA6009Ocean Reef Senior High School Venturi DriveOCEAN REEF WA6027Padbury Senior High School Giles AvenuePADBURY WA6025Perth Modern Senior High School Roberts RoadSUBIACO WA6008Scarborough Senior High School Newborough StreetDOUBLEVIEW WA6018Swanbourne Senior High School Narla RoadSWANBOURNE WA6010Wanneroo Senior High School Quarkum StreetWANNEROO WA6065Warwick Senior High School Erindale RoadWARWICK WA6024Woodvale High School Woodvale DriveWOODVALE WA6026Yanchep District High School Lagoon DriveYANCHEP WA6035 LIVING WITH BUSINESS207 Murray Street, City Arcade, Perth WA 6000Armadale Christian CollegePO Box 461 Admiral RdARMADALEWA6112Armadale Senior High School 169 South Western HighwayARMADALE WA6112Belmont Senior High School Fisher StreetBELMONT WA6104Canning Senior College Marquis StreetBENTLEY WA6102Cannington Senior High School 301 Sevendaks StreetCANNINGTON WA6107Carmel Adventist College Glen Isla RdCARMEL WA6076Cecil Andrews Senior High School Seville DriveARMADALE WA6112Clontarf Aboriginal College 295 Manning RdWATERFORD WA6152Como Senior High School Bruce StreetCOMO WA6152Divine Mercy College 20 Surrey RoadRIVERVALE WA6103Gosnells Senior High School Southern River RoadGOSNELLS WA6110John Calvin School 18 Robinhood AvenueARMADALE WA6112Kelmscott Senior High School Cnr Third Ave & Cammillo RoadKELMSCOTT WA6111Kent Street Senior High School Kent StreetEAST VICTORIA PARK WA6101Kewdale Senior High School President StreetKEWDALE WA6105Lumen Christi College Station StGOSNELLS WA6110Lynwood Senior High School Metcalfe RoadPARKWOOD WA6147Maddington Senior High School Dellar RoadMADDINGTON WA6109Penrhos College Morrison RdCOMO WA6152Rehoboth Christian School 94 Kenwick RdKENWICK WA6107Roleystone District High School Raeburn RoadROLEYSTONE WA6111St Norbert College 135 Treasure RoadQUEENS PARK WA6107Thornlie Christian College Lot 1570 Warton RoadSOUTHERN RIVER WA6110Thornlie Senior High School Ovens RoadTHORNLIE WA6108MIDLAND JOBLINKBuilding 5, Midland Enterprise Centre, 276 Great Eastern Highway, Midland WA 6056Balga Senior High School Markham WayBALGA WA6061Ballajura Community College Illawarra Crescent SouthBALLAJURA WA6066Bullsbrook District High School Chittering RoadEAST BULLSBROOK WA6084Cyril Jackson Senior High School 53 Reid StreetBASSENDEAN WA6054Eastern Hills Senior High School Keane Street EastMOUNT HELENA WA6082Foothills School 18 Victoria StreetGUILDFORD WA6055Forrestfield Senior High School Berkshire RoadFORRESTFIELD WA6058Girrawheen Senior High School Calvert WayGIRRAWHEEN WA6064Governor Stirling Senior High SchoolFord StreetMIDLAND WA6055Guildford Grammar School Terrace RoadGUILDFORD WA6055Hampton Senior High School Morley Drive EastMORLEY WA6062Helena College Bilgoman RoadGLEN FORREST WA6071John Forest Senior High School Drake StreetMORLEY WA6062John Wollaston Anglican Community SchoolCnr Lake and Centre RdsWESTFIELD WA6112Kalamunda Senior High School Canning RoadKALAMUNDA WA6076La Salle College La Salle AveVIVEASH WA6056Lesmurdie Senior High School Reid RoadLESMURDIE WA6076Lockridge Senior High School Benara RoadKIARA WA6054Mazenod College Gladys RoadLESMURDIE WA6076Mirrabooka Senior High School Nollamara AvenueNOLLAMARA WA6061Morley Senior High School Bramwell RoadMORLEY WA6062St Brigid's College 200 Lesmurdie RoadLESMURDIE WA6076Swan Christian High School 381 Great Northern HighwayMIDDLE SWAN WA6056Swan View Senior High School Salisbury RoadSWAN VIEW WA6056REGIONAL TRAINING SERVICES (Albany project)36 Cockburn Street, Albany WA 6330Albany Senior High School Burt StreetALBANY WA6330Denmark Agricultural District High SchoolSouth Coast HighwayDENMARK WA6333Denmark District High School Mitchell StreetDENMARK WA6333 Mount Barker Senior High School Woogenellup RoadMOUNT BARKER WA6324North Albany Senior High School Anson RoadALBANY WA6330St Joseph's College Martin RdALBANY WA6330REGIONAL TRAINING SERVICES (Bunbury project)33 Constitution Street, Bunbury WA 6230Australind Senior High School Break O'Day DriveAUSTRALIND WA6230Bunbury Senior High School Haig CrescentBUNBURY WA6230College Row School College RowBUNBURY WA6230Collie Senior High School Wittenoom StreetCOLLIE WA6225Donnybrook District High School Bentley StreetDONNYBROOK WA6239Harvey Agricultural Senior High SchoolSouth West HighwayHARVEY WA6220Harvey Senior High SchoolSouth West HighwayHARVEY WA6220Newton Moore Senior High School Hotchin StreetBUNBURY WA6230REGIONAL TRAINING SERVICES (Goldfields project)44 Lane Street, Kalgoorlie WA 6330Eastern Goldfields Senior High SchoolRevell Place (PMB 9)KALGOORLIE WA6430Kambalda Senior High School Salmon Gum RoadWEST KAMBALDA WA6444Leinster District High School Gledden DriveLEINSTER WA6437Leonora District High School Gwalia StreetLEONORA WA6438Southern Cross District High SchoolAntares StreetSOUTHERN CROSS WA6426REGIONAL TRAINING SERVICES (Narrogin project)36 Cockburn Street, Albany WA 6330Brookton District High School Tiller StreetBROOKTON WA6306Corrigin District High School Hill StreetCORRIGIN WA6375Gnowangerup Agricultural School Golf Links RoadGNOWANGERUP WA6335Katanning Senior High School Golf Links RoadKATANNING WA6317Kojonup District High School Blackwood RoadKOJONUP WA6395Lake Grace District High School 15 Absolon StreetLAKE GRACE WA6353Narrogin Agricultural College Williams RoadNARROGIN WA6312Narrogin Senior High School Grey StreetNARROGIN WA6312SOUTH METROPOLITAN YOUTH LINK7 Qaurry Street, Fremantle WA 6160Applecross Senior High School Links RoadARDROSS WA6153Hamilton Senior High SchoolPurvis StreetHAMILTON HILLWA6163John Curtin Senior High School Ellen StreetFREMANTLE WA6160Kwinana Senior High School Gilmore AvenueMEDINA WA6167Lakeland Senior High School South Lake DriveSOUTH LAKE WA6164Leeming High School Aulberry ParadeLEEMING WA6149Melville Senior High School Potts StreetMELVILLE WA6156North Lake Senior High School Torquil RoadKARDINYA WA6163Rossmoyne Senior High School Keith RoadROSSMOYNE WA6148Seton Catholic College Marchant RdSAMSON WA6163South Fremantle Senior High SchoolLefroy StreetBEACONSFIELD WA6162Warnbro Community High SchoolSwallowtail ParadeWARNBROWA61691998-99 JOBS PATHWAYPROGRAMBROKERS AND SCHJOOLS IN TASMANIASchool NameAddressTownStatePost CodeEMPLOYMENT NATIONAL LIMITED (Arthur project)Level 10, 140 Sussex Street, Sydney NSW 2000Burnie High School Fidler StreetCOOEETAS7320Circular Head Christian School Grant StreetSMITHTONTAS7330Devonport High School Best StreetDEVONPORTTAS7310 Don College Watkinson StreetDEVONPORTTAS7310Hellyer College PO Box 824BURNIETAS7320Latrobe High School Cnr Last & Percival StreetsLATROBETAS7307Leighland Christian School Leighlands AvenueULVERSTONETAS7315Marist Regional College Paraka StBURNIETAS7320Murray High School PO Box 399QUEENSTOWNTAS7467Parklands High School PO Box 573BURNIETAS7320Penguin High School Ironcliffe RoadPENGUINTAS7316Reece High School PO Box 606DEVONPORTTAS7310Rosebery District High School PO Box 20ROSEBERYTAS7470Sheffield District High School Henry StreetSHEFFIELDTAS7306Smithton High School PO Box 20SMITHTONTAS7330St Brendan-Shaw College 127 James StDEVONPORTTAS7310Ulverstone High School Leven StreetULVERSTONETAS7315Wynyard High School PO Box 212WYNYARDTAS7325Yolla High School Waratah HighwayYOLLATAS7325EMPLOYMENT NATIONAL LIMITED (Forester project)Level 10, 140 Sussex Street, Sydney NSW 2000Flinders Island District High SchoolThule RoadFLINDERS ISLANDTAS7255Launceston Christian School 452a West Tamar RdRIVERSIDETAS7250Launceston Church Grammar School Button StMOWBRAY HEIGHTSTAS7248Launceston Community College PO Box 1308LAUNCESTONTAS7250Queechy High School Penquite RoadLAUNCESTONTAS7250Ravenswood High School Warring StreetLAUNCESTONTAS7250Scotch Oakburn College 85 Penquite RdNEWSTEADTAS7250St Helen's District High School Circassion StreetST HELEN'STAS7216St Mary's District High School Eastcoast Vocational Education Centre MainST MARY'STAS7215St Patrick's College 282 Bass HwyPROSPECT VALETAS7250Star Of The Sea College William StGEORGE TOWNTAS7253PRODUCTIVITY PLUS TASMANIA (Bowen project)47 Davey Street, Hobart Tas 7000Bridgewater High School Mcshane RoadBRIDGEWATERTAS7030Campania District High School Union StreetCAMPANIATAS7026Claremont College PO Box 168CLAREMONTTAS7011Dover District High SchoolMain RoadDOVERTAS7116Elizabeth College256 Elizabeth StreetHOBARTTAS7000Geeveston District High School Arve RoadGEEVESTONTAS7116Glenora District High School Main RoadGLENORATAS7140Hobart CollegeOlinda GroveMOUNT NELSONTAS7007Huonville High Wilmot StreetHUONVILLETAS7109Rokeby High School 170 Mockridge RoadROKEBYTAS7019Rose Bay High School Kaoota RoadLINDISFARNETAS7015Rosny College PO Box 138BELLERIVETAS7018Tasman High School Main RoadNUBEENATAS7184Triabunna District High SchoolMelbourne StreetTRIABUNNATAS7190PRODUCTIVITY PLUS TASMANIA (Bowen project)47 Davey Street, Hobart Tas 7000Brooks High School PO Box 522MOWBRAYTAS7248Campbell Town High SchoolCnr Church And Bridge StreetsCAMPBELL TOWNTAS7210Cressy High School Main StreetCRESSYTAS7302Deloraine High School PO Box 84DELORAINETAS7304Exeter High School Glen-Ard-Mohr RoadEXETERTAS7251George Town High School Agnes StreetGEORGE TOWNTAS7253Lilydale District High SchoolMain RoadLILYDALETAS7268Newstead CollegeCypress StreetNEWSTEADTAS7250Scottsdale High School PO Box 225SCOTTSDALETAS7254Winnaleah District High SchoolPO Box 42WINNALEAHTAS72651998-99 JOBS PATHWAY PROGRAMBROKERS AND SCHOOLS IN NOTHERN TERRITORYSchool NameAddressTownStatePost CodeKATHERINE HIGH SCHOOL (Specialist services for people with a disability, people with a non-English speaking background and Indigenous Australians)Grevillea Road, Katherine NT 0850Katherine High School Grevillea RoadKATHERINENT0852N.T. Rural CollegePrivate Bag 155KATHERINENT0852N T INDUSTRY TRAINING BUREAU (Alice Springs project)144 Smith Street, Darwin NT 0801Alice Springs High SchoolPO Box 9174ALICE SPRINGSNT0871Anzac Hill High SchoolPO Box 8220ALICE SPRINGSNT0871Centralian CollegePO Box 795ALICE SPRINGSNT0871Our Lady Of The Sacred Heart CollegeBath StreetALICE SPRINGSNT0871St Philip's CollegeSchwarz StreetALICE SPRINGSNT0870N T INDUSTRY TRAINING BUREAU (Alice Springs project)144 Smith Street, Darwin NT 0801Casuarina Senior CollegePO Box 40196CASUARINANT5792Darwin High SchoolBullocky PointDARWINNT0810Dripstone High SchoolPO Box 41370CASUARINANT5792Driver High SchoolDRIVERNT5787Kormilda CollegeBerrimah RoadBERRIMAHNT0828Marrara Christian SchoolLot 2206 McMillans RoadBERRIMAHNT0828Nightcliff High SchoolRyland RoadNIGHTCLIFFNT0810O'Loughlin CollegeMueller RoadSANDERSONNT0812Sanderson High SchoolMatthews RoadDARWINNT0812St John's CollegeSalonika StreetSTUART PARKNT0820Taminmin High SchoolPO Box 21HUMPTY DOONT08366116(Question No. 580)5806116Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 11 May 1999:(1) Further to the answer to question No. 479 (Hansard , 31 March 1999, page 4100), in which he acknowledged that some employers willingly employ illegal workers, (a) which departments participate in the inter-agency Cash Economy Working Group, (b) what are its terms of reference, (c) how many times has it met since it was established and (d) what recommendations has it made to ensure that employers and employees meet their fair share of the tax burden.(2) Has the maximum penalty of $10,000 which may be imposed on an employer who is convicted of having knowingly employed unlawful non-citizens been reviewed; if so, (a) when was the last occasion it was reviewed and (b) is there a formula to review the penalty.(3) Since his appointment as Minister, has his Department recommended the prosecution of employers for knowingly employing illegal labour; if so, did the Director of Public Prosecutions refuse to act on the recommendations; if so, on what grounds.(4) Is it a fact that since 1988 only one employer has been convicted of being knowingly concerned in visitors working without permission but locations of illegal workers and overstayers increased to 12 679 in 1997-98; if so, (a) does this indicate a weakness in the Employer Awareness Campaign and (b) are his Department and associated enforcement bodies failing to rigorously pursue the possible prosecution of employers for disregarding the law.6116Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (a) The regular participants of the Inter Agency Cash Economy Working Group are the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (DIMA), Centrelink, and the Australian Taxation Office (ATO). Other government agencies, such as the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, attend as required.(b) In March 1997, the ATO, Centrelink, and DIMA formed an Inter Agency Cash Economy Working Group to examine opportunities for joint activities.The activities of the Inter Agency Cash Economy Working Group include:. investigating the possibility of undertaking joint prosecutions for taxation and social security offences;. outposting Centrelink officers to ATO sites;. improving cooperation and information exchange;. identifying potential joint activities.(c) Since its establishment in March 1997, the Inter Agency Cash Economy Working Group has met twelve times.(d) The Inter Agency Cash Economy Working Group is an informal working group. It is not a body tasked with recommending to Ministers. Agencies may take ideas and information from the working group and incorporate these into their portfolio responsibilities.The Inter Agency Cash Economy Working Group has played an active and critical role in fostering joint activities, extending co-operation and improving the exchange of information between the three agencies. It continues to develop new approaches and monitors the progress of those, which have been put in place.(2) (a) The amount of the maximum penalty of $10,000, which may be imposed on an employer who is convicted of having knowingly employed unlawful non-citizens, has not been reviewed since it became part of migration legislation in September 1994.(b) There is no formula to review that penalty.(3) Since my appointment as Minister, there have been no briefs to the Director of Public Prosecutions in respect of employers who knowingly employ illegal workers.Prosecution of employers who knowingly employ people with no work rights is possible under section 5 of the Crimes Act. Prosecutions, however, have rarely occurred because of:- reluctant supporting witnesses- insufficient evidence to prove "knowingly" or "intent" by employers- the chain of evidence required to meet prosecution standards.(4) I refer the honourable member to my answer of 31 March 1999 on the number of employers who have been convicted of being knowingly concerned with visitors working without permission.(a) The Department has been conducting the Employer Awareness Campaign (EAC) since 1992. The EAC encourages employers to check the work rights of prospective employees and provides them with information on how to do so.The EAC has been a valuable tool used by my Department to help those many responsible employers in Australia who remain committed to ensuring that they employ only Australians and workers with right to work.(b) I have previously indicated my Department's efforts at identifying and acting where people are working without authority. I am concerned, however, that under current law there is no obligation on employers to check the work rights of employees and that it is difficult to establish sufficiently well, for prosecution purposes, that employers may knowingly have recruited people without work rights.The Review of Illegal Workers I have commissioned will consider, among other things, the adequacy of provisions available to discourage employers from recruiting people without the right to work. The review will also examine the adequacy of information available to employers.6117(Question No. 602)6026117Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TannerYU5MelbourneALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 11 May 1999:Has the Commonwealth provided funding to Equal Vocational Employment Network (EVEN) Inc. and its associated organisation, Zenith Employment and Training; if so, (a) what sum did it provide in (i) 1996-97, (ii) 1997-98 and (iii) 1998-99, (b) on what programs, activities or products did EVEN and Zenith spend the funds and (c) was portion of the funds used to finance a proposed contract with the Eden Fishermen's Recreation Club under which EVEN/Zenith would assume responsibility for managing the club; if so, (i) what sums and (ii) on what items.6117Truss, Warren, MPMr TrussGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—The Minister for Family and Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(a) (i) $452,156; (ii) $497,600; (iii) $526,999.(b) In accordance with their service agreement, Equal Vocational Employment Network (EVEN) Inc. and its associated organisation Zenith Employment and Training, provided outcomes for people with a disability through employment preparation, job search, employment placement and post placement support.The Agency also provided specialist services to people with a disability from a Non English Speaking Background, and to school leavers.(c) (i) and (ii) Nil. 6118(Question No. 612)6126118Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 12 May 1999:(1) How many former crew members of HMAS Melbourne have initiated legal proceedings against the Commonwealth in connection with the HMAS Voyager disaster.(2) How many of claims (a) have been resolved in favour of the applicant, (b) have been resolved in favour of the Commonwealth and (c) are still unresolved.(3) What total sum in damages has been awarded against the Commonwealth.6119Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) 113 as at 24 May 1999.(2) (a) and (b) 1 case was resolved in favour of the plaintiff by the court, the other 17 resolved to date have been settled by agreement out of court.(c) 95 remain unresolved.(3) One, McLean at $696,450.00 plus costs. The remaining cases were settled out of court, and accordingly are not awards of "damages". Settlements have totalled $4,231,450.00.