1999-06-073913REPS612901999-06-07Mr SPEAKER(Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 12.30 p.m., and read prayers.Committees61296129612912:31:006129Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSONFB6WentworthLP10—On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present the committee's report entitled Report 21—Five treaties tabled on 16 February 1999 together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the committee.Ordered that the report be printed.FB6Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSON—I am delighted to be tabling this report which contains the results of the review by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties of the following proposed treaties: a treaty on extradition with South Africa; a treaty with Sweden on mutual assistance in criminal matters; an agreement with New Zealand on the status of visiting defence forces; and two defence agreements with the United States—the first concerning the reciprocal provision of logistic support, services and supplies, and the second concerning communications services.In each case we support the proposed treaty and we recommend that binding treaty action be taken. Our comments on the extradition treaty with South Africa represent a continuation of our support for the negotiation of modernised extradition arrangements. The key element of these arrangements is that the country requesting extradition has only to provide the other country with a statement of the conduct of the alleged offences by the accused, this being a far more flexible and effective basis for conducting an extradition than the traditional arrangements which require the provision of evidentiary material sufficient to demonstrate a prima facie case against the accused. It is important to note that the treaty with South Africa, like all modern arrangements, balances this kind of flexibility by allowing the requested country to refuse extradition in circumstances where either the extradition or the punishment arising from any conviction would infringe the civil, political or human rights of the accused person.The treaty on mutual assistance in criminal matters with Sweden, we think, also represents an improvement to our international network of law and justice arrangements. Mutual assistance treaties like this play a very valuable role in ensuring that law enforcement agencies are able to extend their reach far beyond their own national borders, because without such arrangements the task of investigating and prosecuting trans-border criminal activity—and there is no shortage of that these days—is complicated immeasurably.The proposal to conclude a status of forces agreement between Australia and New Zealand is another step in maintaining the longstanding and close defence relationship between these two nations. We could hardly argue that this agreement is a central plank in our defence relationship with New Zealand, but the establishment of a standard scheme for the rights and obligations of visiting forces will secure, we think, a firm footing for at least two of the important elements in any healthy defence relationship—that being the exchange of personnel and participation in joint exercises.In our view, Australia's national interest will also be well served by the two defence agreements we considered with the United States. The agreement on the reciprocal provision of logistic support, services and supplies—this is known as the Acquisition and Cross-servicing Agreement—is a standard form agreement that the United States is seeking to negotiate with all of its major defence partners. The agreement establishes rules for the reciprocal provision of support and services in `combined exercises, deployments, operations and unforeseen circumstances and exigencies'. It will update an agreement that was initially signed between Australia and the United States in 1990 during the Gulf War.The second of those agreements with the United States is the Agreement on Defense Communication Services. This clarifies the division of responsibility between the two countries for the provision of online communication services between the Australian Defence Force and the United States military—in effect, the communications across the Pacific Ocean. This agreement is substantially the same as the agreement that was signed in 1989 on the same subject, and it really only involves an annual expenditure by Australia of some $10,000.Both agreements, we think, contribute to our broader strategic relationship with the United States. They are important to the extent that they clarify our mutual understandings, expectations and requirements in these matters of some detail and hopefully avoid any misunderstandings over small matters. I take this opportunity to thank my committee colleagues from both sides of the House and, indeed, the Senate for their continuing commitment to the work of this committee. (Time expired)12:36:006130Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—I am pleased to speak on the tabling of this report of the Joint Committee on Treaties. It is the 21st report presented by the committee since its creation in May 1996 and it is our fourth report to this parliament since the government was formed after the last election. That is a pretty impressive record, made even more important by the role played by the committee now.Nearly all proposed treaty actions stand referred to the committee for consideration before they are ratified. This means that the parliament, and through it the wider community, has an opportunity to review and make recommendations on proposed treaties before the government takes action that will bind Australia at international law. The process has been introduced to give a level of openness and transparency in treaty making. There was a lot of concern and a Senate report which indicated that did not exist before the committee was established, and I think most members of the parliament would now agree that this has been a good process and one that we need to continue and give more consideration to.The value of the committee was demonstrated most vividly during our recent review of the draft Multilateral Agreement on Invest ment. There was widespread community concern about the draft MAI and the committee's public hearings took that information on board. It was quite evident that both the left and the right spectrums of Australian political debate had general concerns about that treaty. In the end, the committee found that there were certainly flaws in the proposal, and also flaws in the process of how it began and how it was put before the parliament and the people of Australia. From an international level, it could have been done a lot better and in a much more open process. The committee report recommended that.Another of our committee reports which generated a bit of concern was Report 19, the 5th Protocol to the General Agreement on Trade in Services. I think that concern is a bit ill-conceived, in the sense that the protocol represents what is called a `stand-still' offer and there are no real obligations on Australia. It gives our financial services an opportunity to trade in a broader perspective than they do now. I think it will be seen that way in the longer term.The member for Wentworth has tabled the report today which deals with five treaties, being: extradition of criminals with South Africa; a treaty with Sweden on mutual assistance in criminal matters; an agreement with New Zealand on the status of visiting defence forces; and two defence agreements with the United States—the first concerning the reciprocal provision of logistic support, services and supplies, and the second concerning communications services. In each case we have expressed support for the proposed treaty and recommended that the government take binding action to bring them together.The first two treaties, on extradition with South Africa and on mutual assistance on criminal matters with Sweden, deal with making sure that we do everything possible to make sure that our authorities have the best possible situation for capturing criminals that operate in either country and bringing them before courts. The cross-servicing agreement with the United States and the New Zealand status of forces agreement basically tidy up issues of defence force situations where they might lend each other something and want to make sure they get those things back; and the communications agreement with the United States replaces and modernises an existing agreement on online communication services between the Australian Defence Force and the US military.They are all treaties which I think we should be involved in, and that is the recommendation of the committee. The committee has worked very well. Although we might start off sometimes not being in agreement, by the time of the reports we have come together in a bipartisan spirit on those committees. (Time expired)10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The time allotted for the debate has expired. Does the honourable member for Wentworth wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion?6131Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSONFB6WentworthLP10—I move:That the House take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—In accordance with standing order 102B the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.Bills6131r6566131Consideration resumed from 7 December 1998.12:42:006131Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.Mr Speaker, I first raised the issue of equal superannuation rights for same sex partners on 10 December 1996, during an adjournment speech. I am pleased to have this opportunity today, thanks to the support of the Chief Opposition Whip, the member for Watson, to give the second reading speech on my private member's bill, the Superannuation (Entitlements of Same Sex Couples) Bill 1998. I of course would prefer a full debate and vote on this issue but that is something some in the government seem determined to prevent. A full debate would have given supporters, such as the member for Melbourne Ports, who is the seconder to this bill and campaigned very hard for its success, a chance to make a contribution to the debate. It would also have allowed the member for Bradfield, who is here today and who has indicated his support—and indeed, the member for Parramatta—to make a contribution to this debate so that we could examine this issue. But that will have to wait for another day.In my adjournment speech in 1996, I was shocked, as I am now, that a country such as ours, which prides itself on principles of equality and `a fair go for all', still possessed legislation that contravened basic human rights. When I first raised the issue of equal superannuation rights for same sex couples, some members of this House thought this was an obscure issue. Of course, an injustice to any individual—or a section of society—is an injustice which undermines the equity in that society as a whole.The campaign to end discrimination has gathered substantial momentum. There has been sustained lobbying from individuals, community organisations, trade unions, The Body Shop and the superannuation industry. Today, I am finally able to give the second reading speech to this private member's bill, the Superannuation (Entitlements of Same Sex Couples) Bill 1998. It has been a long time coming, but that does not mean that it is not important. It is important because of the importance of superannuation both to individuals and to national savings.The Keating Labor government introduced massive reforms to the superannuation sector, providing many Australians with access to superannuation for the first time. The Labor government put in place measures that ensured minimum employer contributions for all Australian wage and salary earners. These initiatives mean that more than 93 per cent of full-time employees, 67 per cent of part-time employees and 59 per cent of casual employees are now covered by superannuation. The success of these initiatives makes it even more important that the fruits of universal superannuation are exactly that—universal.I have argued throughout this debate that my bill is not about introducing special rights for gay and lesbian couples. It is about introducing equal rights, rights that every other Australian worker would be perfectly entitled to expect. This private member's bill allows for a gay or lesbian worker to properly provide for their surviving partner and children in the event of their death, which is a perfectly reasonable expectation for any couple. As the legislation currently stands, gay and lesbian couples are clearly discriminated against. The explanatory memorandum to this bill outlines that this discrimination includes:. on retirement of the contributor, refusal to pay a joint pension for the contributor and his or her same sex partner;. on retirement of the contributor, refusal to pay a lump sum benefit in respect of a same sex partner;. on the death of the contributor, refusal to pay death benefits to a same sex partner, either by reversionary pension or lump sum benefit;. on the death of the contributor, failure to investigate or acknowledge the claim to dependency of a child of a same sex couple when the contributor is not the biological parent of the child; and. on the death of the contributor, payment of death benefits to the estate of the contributor rather than to the same sex partner as a dependant.Current superannuation legislation allows only two possible ways in which a same sex partner can access their partner's superannuation. The first possible way is if the partner can prove financial dependence. It is not necessary to prove financial dependence if you are in a heterosexual relationship. The access to your partner's superannuation is accepted regardless of your own financial position. Therefore, people in same sex relationships are discriminated against if both partners are working and contributing to the nation's economy by earning their own living.The other way that death benefits can be accessed is if the partner is named the sole beneficiary in the member's will. The estate can then be named as a death benefit nominee. However, apart from limited access to what should be a right, this also presents a number of problems. Instead of easily accessing the payment, the surviving partner may have to wait for probate, and the payment is therefore likely to be taxed at a rate of up to 21.5 per cent instead of being mostly tax free. Furthermore, the beneficiary will have to stand in line behind any creditors to the estate.I want to give the parliament an example that is very real and very tragic—the example of Greg Brown. Greg and his partner, Robert Corva, had been in a relationship for over 10 years when Robert passed away in 1993. Mr Corva had been employed by the Department of Defence for 17 years and had therefore contributed to the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme. After Mr Corva died, Mr Brown was unable to access his partner's superannuation funds. But he was a fighter, so he took up the challenge. The case went to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in 1995, which found:There is no doubt that the applicant and Mr Corva had a close marriage like relationship and that they conformed to the requirements of section 8A in all respects except for their gender. Yet the 1992 amendments, which were designed to remove discrimination on the ground of marital status, provide no redress in relation to the form of discrimination which is illustrated by this case.In other words, despite the 1992 amendments which removed discrimination on the grounds of marital status, discrimination for same sex couples still applied.Greg Brown did not stop there. He took his case to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, which handed down its decision in November of last year. The commissioner, Chris Sidoti, in declining Greg's complaint found that, while Greg had suffered from discrimination, this discrimination was legal under current legislation. Just think about that for a moment. Imagine taking a case to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission in Australia in the late 1990s and being told, `Yes, you're being discriminated against, but it's legal discrimi nation.' Surely this House should not find that situation acceptable.Commissioner Sidoti undertook to examine the Superannuation Act in relation to its effect on nullifying or impairing equality of opportunity in employment or occupation. That report, entitled Superannuation entitlements of same sex couples, was tabled in this House last Thursday having been forwarded to the Attorney-General in April. The report considered the Superannuation Act 1976, the Defence Force Retirements and Death Benefits Act 1973, the Superannuation Act 1990 and the Military Superannuation and Benefits Act 1991. Commissioner Sidoti found:In denying to surviving same sex partners of superannuation fund members an entitlement to benefit, these acts contravene the prohibitions on sexual preference discrimination in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Labour Organisation Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention (ILO 111), both of which are scheduled to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 .This report represents a thorough examination of the issues involved. It makes clear that this discrimination is not intentional but derives from the narrow definition of `spouse'. Indeed, when in 1992 the minister gave his second reading speech to amend the Superannuation Act 1976, he stated that the `key criterion for eligibility of a surviving spouse . . . will be the existence of a permanent and bona fide relationship'. There was no discussion at this time about whether it was intended to exclude same sex couples. Ignorance is no longer an excuse. The need for reform has been made all too clear. All that is required is political will on behalf of this parliament.Commissioner Sidoti recommended that legislation be amended to allow surviving same sex partners to benefit in Commonwealth superannuation schemes. Indeed, the report recommends that amendments be made to the Superannuation Legislation (Commonwealth Employment) Repeal and Amendment Bill 1998, a bill currently before the Senate, to ensure that the enactments arising from the legislation are consistent with human rights. This report exposes the political nature of opposition to my bill.As I stated earlier, my first pursuit of reform was to encourage the government to amend the legislation. I raised the issue in parliament and wrote to the Prime Minister seeking support. On 25 May 1998, the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and leading Lyons Forum member, Mr Chris Miles, replied on behalf of the Prime Minister. He stated:the government is not inclined to amend the superannuation and taxation legislation at this time to recognise same sex partners as dependants and spouses for the purpose of superannuation death benefits.He continued:I note that, under the current law, same sex partners would be a dependant if they are financially dependent on their deceased partner.Surely the HREOC report must tell the government how wrong they are and how much reform is needed.Since I introduced this bill we have seen a groundswell of community support for law reform. The issue of recognition of same sex relationships has received coverage on programs as diverse as the ABC's World Today and Mike Gibson's morning radio show on Sydney radio station 2GB. The Australian Financial Review columnist Christopher Pearson, not known for his radical or Labor-supporting views, wrote a column about my bill on 3 May. He noted the inadequacies of the government's superannuation legislation amendment bill in addressing the problem, stating:The federal government has recently introduced a stop-gap measure. In future super funds will be able to accept `binding death benefit nominations'. In practice this will mean that a fund member can nominate his or her estate as beneficiary and provide for a surviving partner in the will. It doesn't mean nominating the partner directly because the act's anachronistic definition of a `dependant' remains unchanged. Another unsatisfactory aspect of this piecemeal reform is that death benefits transferred via the contributor's estate seem likely to attract different tax treatment.If you do not accept what I have to say about the need for reform, listen to Christopher Pearson, listen to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, listen to the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia. All of them support recognition of same sex relationships in superannuation legislation.The community outrage at the discrimination currently suffered by people in same sex relationships has recently seen The Body Shop join the campaign. The Body Shop distributed information and collected signatures on petitions calling for my bill to be debated and put to a vote. The Body Shop campaign attracted the support of a range of community organisations, including the Australian Education Union, the ALSO Foundation, People Living with HIV/AIDS (Victoria) and the Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby in Victoria and New South Wales. The launches of The Body Shop campaign in Sydney and Melbourne, which were organised by the member for Melbourne Ports, were attended by coalition MPs in both places. The information distributed by The Body Shop stated:Why is The Body Shop involved? Our mission statement reads: "To passionately campaign for the protection of human and civil rights." We believe that current laws discriminate against same sex couples and that it is important for politicians to address this issue now! Not because we have a `gay and lesbian agenda', as some would accuse, but because equality in the law for all Australians is significant to all Australians.The Body Shop hit the nail right on the head. This is not about a gay and lesbian agenda, it is not about special rights and it is not about gay marriage; it is just about treating people fairly and equally. It is about an economic level playing field, which those people who believe in the free market should understand. How can we be serious about encouraging savings and self-funded retirement when the current legislation discourages a significant section of the working population from placing their funds in superannuation?It has taken me 2½ years to get to this point today, delivering the second reading speech for this bill. I hope that this bill will receive unanimous support and end superannuation discrimination. I am able to give this speech because of the overwhelming support this bill has received from community groups, unions and principled private sector organisations such as The Body Shop. These groups maintained the campaign for reform as the govern ment continued to prevaricate, to delay and to suggest that there was no need for legislative change. However, 2½ years of waiting is nothing compared to the waiting and the heartache that many in the gay and lesbian community have been forced to undergo whilst dealing with the inequities of our current superannuation system. These men and women have had to take up lengthy and costly legal battles at a time when they should be allowed to grieve in private, at a time which should be a time of respect.I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the courage of people such as Greg Brown. Greg continues to pursue change even though he will not be a beneficiary himself. He said to me after The Body Shop campaign launch in Melbourne that he did not want anyone else to go through his pain. This is an issue of human rights. Equal rights, regardless of sexuality, is as fundamental a human right as equal rights regardless of class, gender or ethnicity. It is vital that the government show the same bipartisan support as we recently saw in New South Wales, where the New South Wales Legislative Assembly carried, without dissent, support for same sex rights. I encourage support for this bill, and I seek leave to table the replacement explanatory memorandum.Leave granted.(Time expired)10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Is the motion seconded?WF6DANBYMr Danby—I would like to second the motion.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Bills6134r716Consideration resumed from 8 March.613412:58:006134Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—I move:That the bill be now read a second time. I first introduced the Employee Protection (Wage Guarantee) Bill 1999 into this parliament in March 1998. I reintroduced the same bill into the House one year later, almost to the day, in March this year. I did so because the entitlements of Australian workers remain as unprotected now as they were 12 months ago—indeed, as they were the first time I raised this issue in the parliament over three years ago—and that is something that I believe should concern us all.The Employee Protection (Wage Guarantee) Bill 1999 aims to guarantee the wages and entitlements of workers in the event of their employer's insolvency by requiring employers to participate in a wage protection insurance scheme. It is a bill about seeking justice for Australian workers. It is a bill about restoring equity to an important element of Australian industrial relations law. It is about seeing through one of the most important social and labour market reforms yet to be undertaken or effectively addressed by any Australian government.When it comes to the pursuit of a social reform agenda, this country has a record of which we can all be proud. We were one of the first nations in the world to introduce workers compensation, and we were the first to grant child endowment payments to mothers and introduce long service leave for workers. Yet when it comes to guaranteeing workers' entitlements against an employer's insolvency, Australia is not only behind, we are out of the race. We are the only country in the developed world without, at least in some parts of its borders, a system that either guarantees workers' entitlements against an employer's insolvency or provides them with the utmost priority against all other creditors.Despite the obvious need for legislative reform to guarantee the entitlements of workers, when my bill was first introduced into the House last year it received no support at all from the government. But you could not say that I was surprised. However, I was encouraged into thinking that perhaps my bill might be a catalyst for reform. Shortly after my bill progressed to its second reading debate, the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business announced that he would begin a process of reviewing the matter of insolvency and the loss of workers' entitlements by referring it to the Labour Ministers Council for discussion. That process began on 1 May last year at the LMC's meeting in Wellington, New Zealand, but unfortunately, it has been pretty much downhill all the way since then.Whatever faint optimism—and faint it was—I might have harboured in May last year quickly dissipated. It soon became obvious that the minister's referral of this matter to the Labour Ministers Council and the process of review on which it embarked was not much more—as with many things the Howard government gets involved in—than an opportunity to be seen to be doing something, rather than purposefully moving forward with a direct goal in mind, that being the ultimate protection of workers' entitlements.It is now over a year since that meeting took place in Wellington. It is now also six months since the LMC met again in Melbourne to consider the report on guaranteeing workers' entitlements prepared by the Department of Labour Advisory Committee, or DOLAC—a report which was referred, along with an additional report from the New South Wales state government, to MinCo, the Ministerial Council for Corporations, for its consideration. What have we had since then? Absolutely nothing.In an answer to a question on notice of mine, which I received on 9 February this year, the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business said the following with regard workers' entitlements and the LMC's meeting in November:The ministers from jurisdictions of all political persuasions agreed to further consider workplace relations policy issues arising within their own jurisdictions and report back to the next meeting, expected to be in May next year—meaning, of course, 1999—on what actions might be pursued.May has well and truly gone, and the Labour Ministers Council did indeed meet in Melbourne on 19 May.So what sort of discussion took place on guaranteeing workers' entitlements? The minutes from that meeting sum up the dialogue that took place on the subject in just five lines. They devoted five lines to the debate. It was obviously debated with much depth and attention. It is almost like the issue just does not exist. It is almost like hundreds of workers around Australia are not robbed of their legally owed entitlements each year because of employer insolvency. It is almost like the Cobar miners were not reduced to taking food parcels from charities because they had been robbed of their entitlements and did not qualify for social security because of the assets that they owned.In fact, the reason that the subject received such a cursory mention at the Labour Ministers Council meeting was that, since referring the matter to MinCo, the Labour Ministers Council has decided to wash its hands of the issue, as if to say, `It's not our problem; it now belongs to MinCo.' And it is true: the Ministerial Council for Corporations has discussed the matter. At its meeting on 15 April, the Treasurer suggested that two changes to the Corporations Law should be made: one, that criminal penalties should be created and levelled against company directors who deliberately avoided paying workers their entitlements; and, two, that the `related party and insolvent trading transaction provisions' in the Corporations Law be strengthened. This would mean that directors would be in breach of the insolvent provisions in the law if they entered into a commercial arrangement that led to their company becoming insolvent.But these changes to the Corporations Law alone will not be enough. For example, a penalty for a director's improper conduct will not bring any employee's entitlements back. For real reform to take place we need to see changes in federal industrial relations law take place as well. For real reform we need the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business and the Treasurer to drive this debate at a national level, rather than letting the issue drift off to the sidelines where it will gradually die under ministerial reports, recommendations, referrals and more red tape.It would be foolish of me to hold my bill up as the one and only avenue for the govern ment to take in order to protect workers' entitlements. Certainly I see the reintroduction of my bill as an opportunity to highlight a problem that continues to fester across the country, despite strong and compelling evidence for the government to address it rapidly and with conviction. I know there are other options open to us, and I would support any of them over my proposal if the government chose to pursue them and if they were to have the same end result; that is, that workers would never again want for their legally-owed entitlements after an employer's insolvency.One method the government may like to consider is making lending institutions pay for the privilege of retaining their position of priority over other creditors, including workers, in the event of company insolvency. Contributions to a wage guarantee fund by the banks would make up a large share of the money needed for a scheme like this to operate. Or if the Prime Minister is unwilling to make all members of the corporate community participate in a scheme such as mine, perhaps he could allow exemptions to those who entered formal arrangements to place money covering their employees' entitlements in trust.Another idea is an unclaimed moneys fund, as currently operates in New South Wales as well as in Queensland, which could be used to augment a wage earner protection scheme. In these states, where an employee has left their job and the employer has been unable to find the person to make those payments due, the full amount must be paid to the Treasury. Such moneys are then held in trust and can be claimed by the relevant employees at any time.However, remuneration is not always claimed and the money is paid into consolidated revenue. Such money could be used to complement a wage-earner protection fund. It would not provide enough money to completely cover such a fund, but it would at least ease the burden on any other principal approach. There are more than enough options, including those included in my bill, for the Treasurer or the minister for workplace relations to take the bit between their teeth and to run with it. But their lack of progress over the last 12 months goes to reveal how little they support any genuine reform in this area.Providing a direct contrast to the coalition's approach, the New South Wales state government, in its submission to MinCo on this matter, recommended not only that the Commonwealth adopt a wage-earner protection fund but also that it do so as quickly as possible. It stated:It is not suggested that Australia wait the approximate 18 months it might take to establish a system for the collection and analysis of information about lost employee entitlements but proceed to establish without delay a fund to pay unpaid employee entitlements.It is untenable that Australia continues to fail to develop and implement a scheme to meet the serious industrial and social difficulties that arise in practical terms on a regular basis. To maintain a void in this area is in stark contrast to most of the world's developed nations with which we are often compared.I find it genuinely discouraging and frustrating that we have a minister for workplace relations that is more than willing to chase after his pet projects—such as plotting the downfall and destabilisation of Australia's trade unions—and yet when it comes to a reform that is crying out to be made, he does not just drag his feet; it is as if he is wearing concrete boots.I take heart that at least there is one member of the government's side, the member for Parkes, who has the courage to come into this House and speak up on behalf of the rights and entitlements of ordinary workers in his electorate. But he is the only one. The member for Parkes said recently in this House:I stand here to request that we look at different ways of providing security of income for workers in Australia. We should not let this thing stagnate.The impact of a situation like this on Cobar really serves to clarify the need for us to go forth and find a resolution to this problem.I welcome the member for Parkes's comments. He has seen at close hand the devastation that occurred in Cobar when the workers from the Ashanti owned goldmine were left high and dry without their entitlements. Not only did it devastate those men and their families but it ripped the heart out of that town, and it is an experience from which it is still recovering.I know there are others on the government's side who would agree that something needs to be done about this problem—they have said as much to me outside this chamber—but, as yet, they do not have the courage of their convictions to come in here and voice their support for the record and, in doing so, chastise the minister for workplace relations and the Treasurer and perhaps get them motivated into action. And that is a continuing source of disappointment for me.This is a problem that occurs in each of our electorates—that hundreds of workers are robbed of their entitlements each year is not news to any of us. Just last week I heard of four middle-aged women from the electorate of the member for Warringah, all former employees of the Manly War Memorial Club, who had been left without any entitlements following the insolvency of that club. What do you say to a person who has given all their working life when they break down on the phone when talking about how they are going to face the future?The club had become insolvent last year but the receivers have only recently notified the women that they will not be getting one cent of their entitlements. This is just one story. There are hundreds of others to be found every day, every week and every month, in every town in every state of Australia.I urge all members to consider this issue and to voice the need for reform so we can move more quickly and stop this unnecessary and poisonous problem from continuing. My bill is just one suggested method of dealing with a matter which I agree is complex and one that must be solved with consultation with groups representing employers and employees alike. But it must be solved.At the moment there appears to be no real impetus behind the government's attempts to find that solution. No state or territory can go it alone; it requires leadership and direction at a federal level. That no one in the government appears willing enough to display that leadership and embark on such a road is to condemn thousands more Australians to being robbed of their legally owed entitlements each year, and that is a national shame.Mr Deputy Speaker, I know that at the conclusion of my speech you are going to move the motion that this debate be adjourned. Unfortunately, as with the member for Grayndler when he introduced his private member's bill, there will be no further time allocated by this government for a debate of this important piece of legislation. This bill is not something that was considered lightly; it was something that took many months to write and prepare, in conjunction with the clerks and with the assistance of an independent QC brought in from South Australia. It is a bill that I can honestly say is owned by the parliament. Sure, I did the work behind it and introduced it, but it is our bill. It is put forward to protect our workers and our constituents and, more importantly, to make sure that we can hold our heads high in the years to come.This action first began in my electorate when 680 workers lost their jobs with a firm called Exicom without receiving a penny. A man came into my office in tears about how he was going to pay his mortgage, or his rent, and how he was going to live when he was not going to get one cent of the bit of money that he was entitled to. From then on I have raised it continually. I believe that we, on both sides of the House, have an obligation as parliamentarians not to make a political issue of this but to take the lead and to start acting as other nations around the world have. We have been left behind in this field. It is about time for us to stand up as elected representatives and be accountable to the constituents we represent and, more importantly, to the workers of this nation who all they have to offer is the sweat of their brows and the work of their hands. They should not be robbed of what is their due right. If a person steals and is caught, he is imprisoned. If a worker is robbed of what he is legally owed, not a thing is done about it. We must have this bill debated in this parliament. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Is the motion seconded?83KROXONMs Roxon—I am delighted to second this motion and hope to speak on it in a future debate.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Private Members' Business6138613813:14:006138Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—I move:That the House:(1) endorses the continuing protection of the law to prevent discrimination in the workplace;(2) acknowledges the disproportionate impact of unfair dismissal laws on the confidence of small business employers to employ additional people to their work force;(3) condemns the continuation of unfair dismissal laws for businesses employing fewer than fifteen people; and(4) calls on the Senate to reverse its opposition to the removal of unfair dismissal laws.As the debate about this issue has gone on across the country, parties on both sides have endeavoured to encourage a point of view that favours their argument, and that is natural in a political process. What this has meant, of course, is that the small business community, which is a smaller community than the work force community, has become very sensitive and quite fearful of the impact of the unfair dismissal laws. It has also meant that employees have taken advantage of unfair dismissal laws to push their cases in such a way that is quite inappropriate and quite outside the terms of protection normally offered to employees.For example, under the government's current laws, there are a number of measures that must be within any federal award, and they are known as the 20 allowable matters. They are down to 19 now because of universal legislation covering superannuation, and occupational health and safety also being covered by nationwide legislation; therefore those matters, which one would think would be in there, have not been maintained. The 20 allowable matters include:. classifications of employees and skill-based career paths. ordinary time hours of work and the times within which they are performed . . . . rates of pay . . . rates of pay for juniors, trainees or apprentices, and rates of pay for employees under the supported wage system.These matters are embedded in the industrial law of Australia and are the protection for the average employee. The safety net also covers:. piece rates, tallies and bonuses. annual leave and leave loadings. long service leave. personal/ carer's leave, including sick leave, family leave, bereavement leave, compassionate leave, cultural leave and other like forms of leave . . . These are currently covered by the industrial laws of Australia. It is not the intention of the government to remove these 20 allowable matters as part of the unfair dismissal process. Also covered in the safety net are:. parental leave, including maternity and adoption leave. public holidays. allowances. loading for working overtime or for casual or shift work. penalty rates. redundancy pay and notice of termination. stand-down provisions. dispute settling procedures. jury service. type of employment, such as full-time employment, casual employment, regular part-time employment and shift work. pay and conditions for outworkers, but only when compared with those specified in a relevant award or awards for employees who perform the same kind of work at an employer's business or commercial premises.. provisions incidental to the allowable matters and necessary for the effective operation of the award . . . That seems to be a catch-all that is guaranteed for employees in Australia today, yet we find the Senate is unwilling to say that those matters and those matters alone should be the core for small businesses with fewer than 15 employees. It is not prepared to move to the point where unfair dismissal is removed, as all reference to unfair dismissal is removed, from the federal statute.Not only are these the 20 matters allowable; there are broader laws that cover the whole situation: race, colour, sex, sexual preference, age, physical or mental disability, marital status, family responsibilities, pregnancy, religion, political opinion, national extraction or origin, the employment being with a religious institution, the dismissal is in good faith to avoid injury to religious susceptibilities, refusing to negotiate in connection with, make, sign, extend, vary or terminate an Australian workplace agreement—all of those matters are protected and all employees are protected under the current law and by the processes this government has put in place. Employees cannot be dismissed for those things, yet we have the continuing farce of the Senate saying that it wants to prevent the removal of unfair dismissal for small businesses.Probably the Labor Party would go on to say, `It doesn't really matter too much because it is not a real cause for concern out there.' Let me assure my colleagues opposite that it is a matter of concern. The estimate from Rob Bastion, from COSBOA, that there would be `50,000 additional jobs if this unfair dismissal for small businesses with 15 or fewer employees were to be removed' is right. It needs only one instance in a fairly small community. I have an example that concerns a lady from my electorate who came to me earlier this year. She is a contract food supplier at a club in Gosford. She lives in my electorate and travels there every day. She had a casual employee. `Oh'—says the Labor Party—`not covered.' Yes, Labor Party, not covered, but still a matter of threat and contention. Even though that employee had resigned, in their own writing and by agreement with their employer, they later decided that this might be a matter that could be looked at by the court. So they took the matter along to the Industrial Relations Court for a determination.The judge had a look at it and said, `I don't know whether it affects me or not; I don't know whether it affects this person or not. I had better have a think about this.' So he put the case to one side for three months. He called it over again and, on the second appearance before the court, he said, `I don't think it really does apply to me but I am going to investigate it anyway.' This was a casual employee. All the circumstances were wrong, according to the Labor Party, but this lady, to finish up the case, ended up paying the former employee, who had resigned of her own volition, $2,300 plus $800 for her legal representation plus some court costs. There was stress, concern and difficulties. How will a contractor in these circumstances have any chance of mounting an appeal because somebody had made a poor decision about whether it was the right jurisdiction or not? The Labor Party does not seem to understand these things. There is not a huge amount of resource built up within a small business ready to invest in an unexpected or at-whim court case raised by somebody who has resigned of their own volition.I will give just a few statistics about the nature of small businesses in Australia. Forty per cent of small businesses are owned or operated by women; 60 per cent by males. The level of education of those people: 36 per cent have gained a basic or skilled vocational qualification; 27 per cent have gained a degree or a diploma; and four per cent have not completed the higher secondary school level. We are dealing here with average Aussies. We are not dealing with people who have a huge staff of highly competent, highly paid people—as there are in the trade unions—with huge resources to fight these instances. We are talking about ordinary Aussies, people with ordinary educational qualifications who are prime targets for an employee who, on a superficially frivolous basis or at whim, decides to screw their employer.That one example I have given to the House epitomises a number of similar cases that I have had, all of which have had one or more similar characteristics—and all of which are claimed by those opposite to be not affected by unfair dismissal. Maybe they should not be, but the threat and the process of threat, the encouragement that an individual receives from their workmates or from an ambitious union official just makes it impossible for the small business person to pit themselves against that type of competition.The small business person finishes up by going out of business. They do not have those funds stored. They cannot draw on resources. So the very person who supplies employment finishes up by not being able to supply employment; they go broke or move out of the business. The word spreads across the small business community to the point where there is absolute fear in that community that they cannot be caught with an unexpected bill, the going rate of which is $10,000 a hit—and that is the going rate: $10,000 for each unfair dismissal case. Taking all of the factors into account, that is what it will cost a small business person.I appeal to members opposite to have some commonsense in this matter. This is not a matter that is discriminatory. I think you are trying to appeal to a declining union membership—one only has to look at the fact that union membership has halved over the last 20 years. That is the only basis of your decisions. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Is the motion seconded?84BST CLAIRMr St Clair—I second the motion, Mr Deputy Speaker.13:24:006140Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—The contribution just made by the member for Mitchell could have been quite an interesting speech, except for the fact that the honourable member has already delivered it 25 times in this House. I am sorry to report that, with the passage of time and repetition, it does not get any more impressive or any more factual.The truth is that the employment patterns for small business in Australia are a product of demand conditions. Employment survey after employment survey, economic research after economic research has consistently shown that small business employment patterns are a product of market expansion. If there is a greater demand for the product, the company employs more people. That is the golden rule in the small business sector. In each of those surveys, those demand side conditions have far outweighed any of the supply side factors such as unfair dismissal laws. So the member for Mitchell is engaged in an act of political point scoring instead of economic factual analysis. Also, this number of 50,000 jobs being threatened by the Senate's rejection of the government's unfair dismissal changes is an invention. It is an invention by this government in pandering to a certain kind of small business in trying to pursue a political point instead of economic reality.This is a government that talks about mutual obligation. So why doesn't it apply mutual obligation principles to unfair dismissal laws? I say this to the honourable member for Mitchell: sure, employers have the right to dismiss staff where it is warranted, but they also have a responsibility to do it in a way which is consistent with a decent and civil society. In consideration of unfair dismissal laws, the Labor Party asks for nothing more than that, just as I am sure the average Australian citizen asks for nothing more than some decent procedures in the workplace when looking at these provisions.This is one of the features exhibited by members like the member for Mitchell. Economic libertarians have forgotten that the workplace is not only a matter of economic efficiency; it is also part of society. People have a responsibility as employers to be decent and civil in dealing with their employees.Members of parliament know that to be true. Each of us in this place employs a small number of people and we would know that these current unfair dismissal laws, the ones that this government is trying to overturn for small businesses, are eminently fair and reasonable. It is simply a matter of identifying a problem with a staff member, counselling where necessary, cautioning where it is needed and, if appropriate, undergoing a bit of assistance. If none of those things work after several attempts, then of course that person can be dismissed fairly—fairly and decently—in the workplace. I would have thought for people in society, people trying to live up to some basic standards of human decency, that is not an unfair procedure. Members of parliament know that to be true in our own workplace, in our own role as employers, and we should not expect any different standard in any other workplace in this country.This attitude is all part of the coalition's very negative agenda on industrial relations and employment policy. They see industrial relations solely as an exercise in punishment. As I mentioned earlier, they are trying to pander to a certain type of small business. Thankfully, that type of small business is not in the majority. The average small business in this country is after market expansion. It is after product creation. It is after the creative content that will give it a market advantage.The Australian Labor Party has no objection to the working of a market economy; it is just that we expect some decent social standards to go with it. Those businesses in Australia that are after creative content and market expansion are being disappointed by this government year after year. Small businesses in information technology, those in the multimedia or design sectors have seen the all important research and training budget in Australia run down by the Howard government.I am indebted to the member for Dobell for supplying me with this graph. It shows the secular decline in education and research effort in the Commonwealth budget under this government, all starting in 1996. For those small businesses who are after product creation and market expansion, the most important and constructive thing that the federal government should be doing is expanding education and research funding in this country. But all we have had budget after budget are funding cuts.The Labor Party, in contrast to the government, has a very positive agenda for the small business sector. This should not be a matter of punishment in the workplace. It should not be a question of laissez faire unfair dismissal laws for small businesses. It should be a matter of economic reality matched up against decent social standards. The role of government is not to punish; the role of government is to create and to help small businesses create their products and their market expansion. So why isn't the Howard government introducing small business research and training scholarships to help small business get the economy of scale and funding support they need for their product development and their market expansion? Why aren't you doing those things instead of cutting back budget after budget?Why aren't you removing payroll tax in your much vaunted tax reforms? Why don't we remove payroll tax in this country and replace it with a retrenchment tax? As workers are retrenched or dismissed there should be a government levy drawn from small business to help fund the costs of retraining for the new skills that are needed in the new economy. Why isn't the government doing something to fulfil its 1996 election promise to eliminate red tape in the small business sector by 50 per cent? I would have thought that instead of eliminating red tape they are creating red tape with the recent agreement on the GST package. Imagine the nightmare, the nightmare on Main Street, as small businesses try to work out the red tape consequences of a GST on a whole chicken or a piece of chicken and all the other complications that have been raised in question time in recent sitting periods.There is a positive agenda that has gone missing—a positive agenda for the small business sector has gone missing. It should be an agenda about product creation and market expansion. It should not be an agenda about punishment in the workplace and laissez faire unfair dismissal laws. The positive agenda is being promoted by the Labor Party. Of course there is a lot of work to be done, because this government has only one policy, one idea, in employment policies for small business—that is, to eliminate all the unfair dismissal laws for businesses with fewer than 15 employees. You need to do a bit better than that because the average small business in Australia knows that that economic research is true—that is, they employ more people when they have a greater demand for their products. How do they get the demand for their products other than through macro-economic conditions? They create new products and they market them more successfully to expand their enterprise in a very constructive way.I would have thought that these things were available to the government. The member for Mitchell has been in this place for a number of years—25 years in fact. It is unfortunate that he has narrowed down his political interests to this one issue, and he is barking up the wrong tree on that. He has the wrong agenda on the wrong idea for the wrong attitude on employment policy. He should listen to what I have had to say and what the member for Hunter has had to say on these policies as Labor's small business spokesperson. He needs to do a lot better than this tawdry motion he has brought before the House. There is a constructive, creative agenda that has gone missing under the Howard government. As someone who once rose to the dizzy heights of parliamentary secretary to the minister for small business, he should have been promoting these ideas in this private members forum in the House. He should have had a constructive agenda instead of moving onto a speech he has given many, many times but with no greater information or economic reality than what we heard earlier today.13:33:006142Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—When the member for Werriwa got to his feet, I thought I would be hearing a very intelligent debate on this particular issue. But there is one thing for sure: the Labor Party certainly do love their chickens because they have tended to bring the subject into every debate in this House for the past week. What we are talking about today is unfair dismissal. I am sure that members here today would agree that the greatest public policy challenge facing all levels of government at the moment in Australia is unemployment.It is a problem that is not isolated to one particular segment of Australian society. It is a problem about which any person—regardless of whether that person comes from a particular ethnic background or position, or geographic location—would find it very difficult to say that they had not met one person who at one stage was unemployed or remains unemployed. With such a predicament, it is not hard to see why unemployment is the bane of Australian society, but it is also a perennial problem of public policy in Australia. One would have thought that the previous speaker, the honourable member for Werriwa, and members opposite would have had a consensus on this insidiousness of unemployment and that there would have been a similar consensus to fix the problem. But not so. In fact, in the days of a revisionist, politically opportunistic Australian Labor Party—under the leadership of the member for Brand—the case is exactly the opposite. It is a pity that that is the case.Australia today is experiencing one of the strongest economic conditions for a generation. Figures released last week show a 4.8 per cent growth rate to the March quarter. We have had six consecutive quarters of growth above one per cent. It has never been matched by any other period in Australia's history. This has all been achieved in an international economic environment that has great uncertainty. Our region at the moment is in economic, social and political turmoil, yet Australia manages to defy this and produce a growth rate which is, to quote the Treasurer, `practically the highest in the developed world'.The member for Werriwa comes in here and speaks about a market economy and demand, but he was at the economics committee the other week when Saul Eslake, one of the country's leading economists, gave evidence. The member for Werriwa showed a graph, so I would like to take the liberty of showing him this one, `Job advertisements versus monthly employment growth'. It is absolutely staggering. Here we have job advertisements going up but employment growth is declining. Why is it declining? Even Saul Eslake was at a loss to explain those particular figures.One of the things pointed out there is an amazing contradiction, and I would like to point it out to the member for Werriwa: here we have a ripening economic environment and great prospects but people are not putting on new employees. Why aren't they putting them on? One survey found that 72 per cent of small businesses feel confident about the business environment over the next six months, but they are not putting on people. In such a solid economic environment, one would have thought that those opposite would have had bipartisan support for some of these problems that would alleviate the unemployment situation, but that is not the case at all. When it comes to creating another 50,000 new jobs in Australia, those opposite just condemn it.The motion before the House today reflects the Howard government's repeated frustrations at the Senate's obstructionism which is led by the Labor Party opposite. In moving this motion, the member for Mitchell is mindful of the need to provide protection for employees in the workplace. He outlined that there should be protection. There is protection, and I am very supportive of that. Similarly, he is also correct in pointing out the disincentive that current unfair dismissal laws have on the ability of young people to be employed and also on employers, particularly small business, to employ people.The government's unfair dismissal bill has sought to inject balance into the current legislation, but `balance' and `Labor Party' just do not seem to belong in the same sentence. The Labor Party and their union mates, as the member for Mitchell mentioned earlier, are living at the turn of the century with that mind-set, but time has marched on. If the ALP had anyone other than their union buddies to consider, they would support this and they would see that this is a very sensible measure.Small business does want to employ people, but it is stifled at the moment. If you honestly think small business enjoys going through a termination process, you are wrong; it does not. Having worked in the personnel industry, I believe that a termination process is probably one of the most stressful things any small business owner, operator or employee can go through. For this reason, I urge members to support this motion. (Time expired)13:38:006143Roxon, Nicola, MPMs ROXON83KGellibrandALP00—It must be very perplexing for our guests in the gallery listening to the debate on this motion to be certain that we are in fact talking about the same motion. If you were listening to this debate, I think it would be difficult to understand that we are talking about a motion moved by the member for Mitchell suggesting that unfair dismissal laws should be changed to enable small businesses with 15 employees or less to dismiss their employees pretty much with gay abandon.SD4CADMANMr Cadman—That is not true.83KRoxon, Nicola, MPMs ROXON—It is true. The member for Mitchell, who unfortunately is revealing his ignorance every time he speaks on these issues, is not clear. He talked about 20 allowable award matters. He talked about the industrial relations court. He does not understand that there no longer is a federal industrial relations court. There has not been for three years. It is not an issue to do with allowable award matters. These provisions exist in the statute. They exist quite independently of federal awards. Quite frankly, the member for Mitchell used examples and circumstances which simply no longer exist.The legislation that was proposed by this government and which the member for Mitchell is seeking to support and put back on the agenda is actually about creating two classes of employees in this country. We all already know there are enough difficulties with the categories of employees that exist. We know there are differences—full time, part time, casual, casual for less than 12 months. There are also a number of other categories developing with shift workers and contract workers. If the motion is picked up, as suggested by the member for Mitchell, this legislation would create a further underclass of employees who, by virtue of the fact they are employed by someone with less than 15 employees, will not have the protection of a decent unfair dismissal regime.In having spoken to the member for Mitchell previously on these issues, I know he has shown great concern for the hesitation that small businesses have in employing new employees. We share that concern. The issue here is, unfortunately, the difference between perception and reality. I agree with the member for Mitchell and probably a large number of members on the other side of this House that there is a perception in small business that it is difficult to dismiss employees even in circumstances where we would all agree it should be possible. Unfortunately, that perception does not reflect the reality and the status of the current law. But it is a percep tion which is fed constantly by members like the member for Mitchell and the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, who finds it physically impossible to attend any forum where there might be small business people without telling them that unless these laws go through they are going to be at risk if they employ new people.The reality is—and every member opposite knows this, although they hate to admit it—that there is nothing difficult about putting an employee on probation. When they are employed all that it takes is for that employer to say, `You are on probation.' Tell them that they are on probation for two months or three months or six months. That gives any employer ample time to work out whether or not their employment relationship is going to be satisfactory. If not, they can then terminate an employee without a reason.I did have to chuckle when the member for Mitchell painted a picture of the poor small business person facing the `angry or ambitious union official' seeking to take a small business for a ride as being the great disadvantage that small business suffers. Unfortunately—and perhaps this is something that is difficult for the union movement—small businesses are not a hotbed of union activism. This is an unfortunate reality. What is more likely to be the circumstance in an unfair dismissal case is that a dismissed 15 or 16 year old or perhaps an 18 or 19 year old—it may be their first job, they may be living out of home and maybe with no money because they have been dismissed—is faced up against a small business. Keep in mind a small business in this situation could be McDonald's because it could be a single franchise that employs less than 15 people, and under this government's proposed legislation casuals will not be included when you count 15 people. So that young person will be making a claim against McDonald's. When you weigh it all up in those circumstances, it is a very different debate.We would welcome some serious debate about employment. We would welcome a debate that dealt with unfair dismissal in a way that looked at fair and decent standards for working people, not this constant rhetoric that actually feeds small businesses' concerns. (Time expired)13:43:006145St Clair, Stuart, MPMr St CLAIR84BNew EnglandNP10—It is obvious that our colleagues on the other side have never been involved in small business. I said the other day that the Labor Party is, as usual, out of touch, out of date, out of small business and out of government. You can understand why the unions do not have a stronghold in small business. It is because you do not represent the working people. The Labor Party does not want to see small business succeed. It never has wanted to see small business succeed. One of the reasons, as I mentioned, is that they want to try to get control by their union members in small business. They would like to see it fail. There is no doubt about that at all.For the future of job creation in this nation we need a vibrant and profitable small business sector and one that can decide without fear who it can employ. The present unfair dismissal laws are preventing that from happening. As I go around my electorate of New England—and I am sure my colleagues will find the same thing as they go around, if they do go around, their electorates—the single issue that is raised with me more often than not over the prevention of people being employed is of course Labor's unfair dismissal laws.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 1.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 101. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate may be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.Statements by Members614561456145Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—I rise to congratulate Campbelltown Council, the New South Wales government and the Western Suburbs Rugby League Club on the magnificent opening yesterday of the new Campbelltown Stadium. This is a facility that allows Campbelltown to catch up on the massive population growth of the seventies and eight ies and to establish a sports stadium of first-class quality.The local state member, Michael Knight, Minister for the Olympics, deserves special congratulations along with his colleague Craig Knowles for delivering money from the state government. Most of all, it is a facility for the community, not just for rugby league but also for athletics and many other forms of sport throughout the south-west of Sydney. Yesterday the stadium was christened wonderfully by Western Suburbs in their 18-12 point win over Balmain, confirming that Wests should stay in the National Rugby League competition as a great force, especially given their wonderful catchment in the south-west of Sydney.While on the subject of sport, I have a word of caution—that is, to protest on behalf of all the cricket lovers in my electorate about the poor coverage from Channel 9 on Friday night of the World Cup out of England. The Australia v. India matched was twice announced at 9.30 by Ray Martin as coming live from the Oval. In fact at that stage, if you were listening to the radio, you would have known that Australia was already 1-103. The match had been going for 90 minutes. It should not have been a delayed telecast and, worst of all, there should not have been false advertising by Channel 9—not once but twice by Ray Martin as he tried to convince people this was live cricket. It was not. (Time expired)61456145Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUSCU4HindmarshLP10—I would like to note that today is almost the 25th anniversary of the Turkish invasion of Cyprus. In the 25 years since the invasion of Cyprus, the Cypriots have had to put up with the continued occupation of over one-third of their territory. Despite the pronounced will of the international community through numerous resolutions, and the willingness of the Greek Cypriot side to negotiate in good faith, there has been no solution to the Cypriot problem.In my state of South Australia, the Greek Cypriots have been urging this parliament to do something to help all the Cypriots, both the Turkish and Greek Cypriots, to live as an independent nation without occupation. In the last few seconds remaining to me, I would like to pay tribute to Costas Marinos who, for the last 25 years, has continued his fight for justice in Cyprus. I know that this parliament endorses his fight, and the energy, truth and passion that he has put into that fight.61466146Irwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN83ZFowlerALP00—Last Sunday, along with the honourable member for Prospect, I had the pleasure of attending the opening by the Prime Minister of the Cardinal Stepiwac Nursing Home which forms part of the Cardinal Stepiwac Village at St John's Park in the Fowler electorate. The village was developed by the Croatian-Australian Association on land provided at a concessional rate by the Wran Labor government. The completion of this much needed facility is a credit to the Croatian-Australian community. More than three-quarters of the total cost of the project was contributed by the community, and I congratulate everyone involved.There is a need for more hostel and nursing home facilities at the village. However, programs which once supported such projects have been suspended. The Croatian-Australian community is willing to contribute the lion's share of the cost but, without seed funding and licensing arrangements, further developments may not proceed. This would be tragic for the growing number in the community who desperately need the services provided by the Cardinal Stepiwac Village.The nursing home fills a unique need. As occurs with dementia sufferers of non-English speaking backgrounds, people revert to their mother tongue. This cuts them off from care and treatment in mainstream facilities. Cultural specific facilities can ensure better and more dignified care for dementia sufferers. I would urge the government to reconsider the provision of funding and licensing arrangements for facilities such as Cardinal Stepiwac Village.61466146May, Margaret, MPMs MAY83BMcPhersonLP10—Today I want to pay tribute to a very special resident in my electorate of McPherson. It was my pleasure recently to help celebrate Linda Annie Gray's 100th birthday on 24 May. Together with Mrs Gray's son John and daughter-in-law Mary, I was privileged to participate in this great occasion and share with Mrs Gray some of her great memories over the last century.Mrs Gray's great-grandfather, Captain Hungerford of Farley Castle in England, brought the first British troops to this country. Over the last century, Mrs Gray has seen many changes and believes the two biggest events that have impacted on her own life have been the advent of the aeroplane as we know it today and the birth of television. Mrs Gray recently undertook a trip to Sydney by plane to visit family, and the experience has left her with some wonderful memories of modern day air travel.Television has been a great passion since its invention but, sadly, these days with failing eye sight Mrs Gray does not watch programs as often as she used to. However, she is a prolific reader of large print books from her local library and enjoys a good romantic novel. Mrs Gray lives alone in her own apartment on the beach at Burleigh Heads. She has maintained her independence with the help and assistance of her son and daughter-in-law and a number of community organisations. Once again, Mrs Gray, my sincere best wishes and congratulations on having reached your 100th birthday. I wish you good health and happiness.61466146Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—I would like to draw to the attention of the House an important speech by the Commissioner of Taxation, Mr Michael Carmody, on 24 March this year. In his speech, he referred to the partial exemption of food from the GST and he said:Non-compliance is inevitable. In the UK, fish and chip shops selling both fresh and cooked fish typically report that 30% of their sales are cooked fish (taxable) and 70% are fresh (tax-free). Anecdotal reports indicate the reverse is closer to the truth: 70% cooked and taxable and 30% fresh and tax-free.I also imagine that fish and chip shop owners don't particularly like the VATman standing in the business all day to observe the true picture—but that is the only viable type of compliance check where distinctions on food are made. The reality is, of course, that ensuring practical compliance by businesses in these circumstances is impossible.At one level you can get a laugh out of the overseas examples. But the costs to business and the community in the form of our additional administration costs are not quite so funny.However, there is perhaps a subtle but potentially more dangerous cost to all this.Ask yourself this question. What do you think will be the impact on attitudes to compliance with the GST and, perhaps other taxes, of introducing rules that inevitably will be subject to ridicule and that almost encourage people to become comfortable with entering into arrangements to exploit them?That is precisely what we are seeing with the government's formula. It is a nightmare on Main Street. (Time expired)61476147Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—I rise to have recorded in the House my support for the Superannuation (Entitlements of Same Sex Couples) Bill 1998 and, in doing so, I wish to congratulate the member for Grayndler for bringing this bill on. I support this bill not because I see it as an issue of homosexual rights, nor do I in any way wish to give further legitimacy to gay marriages, but because I see it as a human and economic justice issue.The worst case that I have in my electorate is of two women—neither are homosexuals, they are sisters. They lived and worked through a period where women were paid less than they are today and less than men. They worked through a period where women, once they married, were forced effectively to leave the work force. Each reached the zenith of their employment and professional careers, and now they are treated as lesser human beings than others, and certainly had they chosen to marry.All men may not be created equal but let us in Australia at least consider that all taxpayers, if nothing else, should be equal. I would hope that at some point this parliament has the courage to debate this bill, let alone bring on this very necessary reform.61476147Sidebottom, Peter, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM849BraddonALP00—I am dismayed at reports a racist group, an offshoot of the despised Ku Klux Klan, is said to be trying to establish a foothold in Australia. This frightening prospect has literally hit home to me in recent days. The north-west coast of Tasmania is purported to be the Australian headquarters for an invidious American based white supremacist group known as the North Georgia White Knights. I condemn everything members of this group stand for and am horrified they have turned the national spotlight on my electorate. It has been reported that the leader of the White Knights is planning to come to Tasmania to help recruit more members. I say to him: you and your Klan are not welcome.I implore the federal government to do everything possible to help ensure racist Klan activists do not enter our country undetected. We live in a free and democratic society, but it is a society where there is no place for racial intolerance and the type of racial hatred they try to incite. It cannot be tolerated. It is difficult to believe we are approaching a new millennium with slogans from the White Knights like: `Racial purity is America's security' and `We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children'.In language abandoned even by other hardline Klan groups, the White Knights say they are opposed to `taxpayer funded support of nigger savages'. It is ironic, is it not, that members of the so-called White Knights say they have now gone to ground in Tasmania because they feel threatened by media exposure they have had of late? I am sure none of us would mind if we never heard of them again. (Time expired)61476147Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr RONALDSONXT4BallaratLP10—I would like to pay tribute today to Tony `Plugger' Lockett. I make no apologies at all for being parochial this afternoon. At 10 past one yesterday, Plugger, who is a Ballarat boy, not a Sydney boy—we have lent him to Sydney for a while—smashed Gordon Coventry's record. To his wife Vicki, to Courtney and Chloe his children, to Howard his father and to Liz his mother, congratulations. Plugger, of course, played with the North Ballarat Football Club. He is a great Australian. It was a great day yesterday. Plugger, on behalf of all of us, well done.61486148Ripoll, Bernie, MPMr RIPOLL83EOxleyALP00—I congratulate the Queensland state government on their recent decision to reverse the corporatisation trend in Queensland and return the Queensland Corrective Services Commission to public control. Whilst the previous government and other state governments seem intent on giving up control of the state prison system, the Beattie government shows an understanding that the government must control any organisation with such a vital public role.This decision comes as welcome relief for all public employees whose change fatigue and workplace anxiety have long been ignored. This too is good news for the community who have seen government institutions dismantled by the introduction of the profit motive into all areas of public administration. Queensland cannot afford to settle for the cheapest prison system money can buy. How can Borbidge and Cooper claim to be tough on crime when their decision was also a calculated political manoeuvre to drastically reduce their ability to intervene in prisons, therefore reducing their responsibility for failures? I look forward to Peter Beattie's old-fashioned approach to responsible government in Queensland. The Beattie government will not run scared from their obligations; instead, they will take a positive role in public administration.I know too that government responsibility must be re-established in other corporatised sectors in Queensland. I note with most concern the conduct of Work Cover since its removal from government control. This vital protector of all workers has failed to act responsibly as either an insurer or an employer since being free of government authority. Every worker in Queensland would be relieved to see the Beattie government take back control of this important public administration.61486148Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—The people of Magnetic Island for some 15 years now have been wanting to see a safe harbour built on that particular island. All sorts of things have been thrown in the face of the construction of that harbour and we still do not have it. Only a couple of weeks ago the Minister for the Environment and Heritage gave the final environmental clearance, and it looked set that Magnetic Island was finally going to get a safe harbour.However, over the weekend it was revealed that the state member for Townsville whose electorate includes Magnetic Island and who has been supporting that particular project in fact has been writing to the Premier of Queensland behind the scenes to oppose it. First of all Mike Reynolds was against it, then he was for it and now he is against it again. Is he the Premier's representative in North Queensland or is he a weathervane? If the member for Townsville chooses factional loyalty over community interest, he betrays the trust of voters and his responsibility to our city.61486148Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—I rise on the issue of the closure of the analog telephone network on 1 January 2000. I note the Howard government has altered the agreement between Vodafone and the Commonwealth. This declaration gives effect to the Treasurer's decision to lift foreign ownership restrictions, effectively removing Labor's 51 per cent Australian ownership policy of the mobile telephone network. In doing so, the government has taken effective local control of Australia's mobile telephone networks out of our hands. Further, this decision has given Vodafone an estimated half a billion dollar windfall.Notwithstanding this outrageous concession to Vodafone, the government refuses to permit the continued existence of the analog network after 1 January 2000, fearing publicly declared threats of legal action by Vodafone. For a matter of $100 million to $200 million compensation to Vodafone, Australia could still enjoy real competition with the continued existence of the analog telephone network. We give Vodafone a huge windfall by releasing them of their contractual obligation to be at least 51 per cent Australian owned with absolutely no compensation to the Australian public.This is the end of real competition for mobile telephone systems in Australia. In the United States, there is analog and digital. Australians have no choice in which system to use. They must use digital. Too bad for the farmers, too bad for the fishermen who use mobile telephones offshore, too bad for the 400,000 hearing-aid users. (Time expired)10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 2.00 p.m., in accordance with standing order 106A, the time for members' statements has concluded.Ministerial Arrangements614914:00:006149Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I inform the House that the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business and Leader of the House will be absent from question time this week. He will be travelling to Switzerland to attend the meeting of the International Labour Organisation and to the United Kingdom for discussions with United Kingdom ministers. The Minister for Employment Services will answer questions relating to Mr Reith's ministerial portfolio, and the Deputy Leader of the House, Mr McGauran, will act as Leader of the House in his typically competent style.Questions Without Notice614961496149Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Does the minister recall informing the House last week that the automotive industry had not agreed to new diesel emission standards before the tax deal was negotiated with the Democrats, stating, `They certainly had not told the government or anybody else that they had'? Minister, is it not a fact that the document which you yourself tabled—a memo from the National Road Transport Commission dated 25 May 1999—states in relation to new diesel emission standards that the motor industry `supports the adoption of the proposed standards'? Minister, will you explain why you have not misled the House?6149Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—There has been no misleading of the House whatsoever in regard to this matter. The issue of consultation with industry in relation to emission standards has been something that has been going on for quite some time.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Do they support it?DT4CREANMr Crean—Do they support it?4K4Mr ANDERSON—There is a big difference between them indicating what they might be prepared to support and the government adopting a final position.61496149St Clair, Stuart, MPMr St CLAIR84BNew EnglandNP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister's attention been drawn to a recent study demonstrating a fall in living standards of children in single income families? Are these findings accurate, and what action is the government taking to restore the balance?6149Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for New England for his question. My attention has been drawn to a NATSEM study on income distribution which was released today. This report covers the period from 1982 until 1995-96. It shows that children living in couple families where only one of their parents worked faced a $24 a week fall in their average family income. The report also shows that children living in two income families experienced a $43 a week increase in their family incomes over the same period. These conclusions come as no surprise to me, and they come as no surprise to the government. That is because our view is very much in line with the conclusions of this report, and it is because of that that we decided before the 1996 election to propose a number of family tax initiatives that were designed to address the very problem that has been unearthed by the NATSEM investigations. That is why we proposed the family tax initiative which, for the first time in about 15 years, sought to reverse the trend against single income families.We have sought to do it not at the expense of two income families, but we have done it in the teeth of a lot of opposition and criticism from the Labor Party and from other sections of the Australian community who seem to believe that giving choice to parents about the caring arrangements for their chil dren when their children are young represents some attempt at social engineering and turning back the clock to a time when overwhelmingly mothers in the Australian community were not in the paid work force. We are not about social engineering. We are not about turning back the clock. We are about giving effective choice to Australian families. We are about giving more choice to the mothers and fathers of Australian children so that they, and not the government, can make a decision as to whether both parents are in fulltime work or when children are very young one elects—mother or father—to be at home full time to care for them.That is why the family tax initiative for the first time in 1996 recognised the need to reverse this trend. We did it by the introduction of a special increase in the tax-free threshold where one family member was out of the full-time work force and where one of the children was under the age of five years. That translated into very significant additional help for those families. But we were not content to leave it at that: we went even further in the tax plan that the Labor Party is about to vote against. One of the things the Labor Party will do when it votes against our tax plan is vote against justice for single income families in Australia. What it will be doing is saying that you should not have a tax system that recognises the right of families in this country to elect against paid child care and to provide parental child care in place of paid child care.We believe in choice. We do not believe in telling people what to do. We believe in giving those people choice. Under our new proposal, under the proposal the Labor Party intends to vote against, it will be possible for a single income household with one child under five years to have a tax-free threshold of $13,000 as a minimum. The Labor Party does not like that. The Labor Party does not like the choice that is involved in that. The Labor Party is prepared to turn its back on the findings of the Harding report—not surprisingly, because this report covers what period? It covers the period 1982 to 1995-1996, and I wonder who was in power then.61506150Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—The report showed it was a massive improvement in the condition of the poor—that is what it showed.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The Leader of the Opposition will come to his question or resume his seat.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—I will follow up my previous question to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Minister, again, do you recollect the NRTC report saying:Vehicle manufacturers in the road transport and bus industries support the adoption of the proposed standards.Do you recollect saying to me a week later, on 3 June, that the Leader of the Opposition:. . . 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.Minister, do you simply not know what is going on in your portfolio or are you embarrassed about having slipped one over the Democrats?6150Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. In relation to this matter, as I have stated quite openly, a set of reviews on emission standards has been under consideration for some time. The motor vehicle industry and the trucking industry had indicated a series of options which they might have been prepared to work with. However, they did not support the outcome that was previously—I beg your pardon, let me phrase this more correctly—they had indicated some willingness to consider some options that were being looked at. But on 4 June, which is since the House last met, I have had this letter from the National Road Transport Commission. It reads in part:You will be aware that the Commission has been working for some time with the National Environment Protection Council on a review of vehicle emission standards. This work has been progressed by the Motor Vehicle Emissions Committee. A few weeks ago, the Motor Vehicle Emissions Committee advised the Commission and the National Environment Protection Council, of a set of options for consideration.Their proposals were qualified in a number of cases by questions regarding the availability of low sulphur diesel fuel. For technical reasons, the emission standards under consideration are heavily dependent—upon being able to access fuel of the appropriate quality.I note that the environmental proposals outlined in the Tax Package will accelerate the availability of low sulphur fuel, and as a consequence provide for the acceleration of vehicle emission standards, particularly for light and medium diesel vehicles. These are now proposed to meet Euro 3 from 2002/3, rather than Euro 2.Mr Beazley interjecting—4K4Mr ANDERSON—Yes I did.Mr Beazley interjecting—4K4Mr ANDERSON—So the Leader of the Opposition, regrettably, calls into question the integrity of the National Road Transport Commission. The letter goes on to say:This is an important change as this segment is the largest numerically and operates mainly in urban areas where emission levels are most relevant.The package—now—also provides for Euro 4 in 2006/7 which was not previously under consideration.At the meeting of the National Road Transport Commission this morning, Commissioners expressed strong support for the new vehicle emission standards. The proposals to accelerate the introduction of low sulphur diesel fuel will provide for a significantly earlier introduction of diesel emission standards than was previously considered possible.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—I ask the minister to table the document from which he was just quoting.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Was the minister quoting from a document?4K4Mr ANDERSON—Yes.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Is the document confidential?4K4Mr ANDERSON—No, I am quite happy to table it.61516151Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer advise the House of any recent economic indicators? What do these signify about the ongoing strength of the Australian economy?6151Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Cook for his question and his interest in the Australian economy. Recent indicators show increasing confidence in the Australian economy. A survey of 180 chief executives by the Australian Centre for International Business at the universities of Melbourne and New South Wales indicates business leaders are expressing a level of optimism not seen since the Asian financial crisis in 1997. Expectations amongst chief executives indicate that they are preparing for strong growth in both local and overseas investment opportunities over the next six months.The ANZ job advertisement survey was released today in relation to May. It shows that, according to the ANZ Bank, job advertisements rose by 1.3 per cent in May. This is the highest level since the Labor recession of 1990. Compared with May last year, the number of job advertisements was up 17.9 per cent and the last three quarters have seen consistent rises: 0.8 per cent in March, 1.7 per cent in April. According to the ANZ Bank, recent trends in job advertising, based on previous experience, are consistent with net new jobs growth averaging 18,000 to 20,000 per month over the next three months.Mr Tanner interjecting—CT4Mr COSTELLO—I take the interjection from the member for Melbourne who welcomes such good growth in the Australian economy.YU5TANNERMr Tanner—The figures are bodgie now.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Oh, you do welcome good growth in the Australian economy.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The speaker will address his remarks through the chair.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Mr Speaker, I apparently misrepresented him; he does not welcome good jobs growth in the Australian economy. This is equivalent to an annual growth rate in employment of about 2¼ per cent. So we see a return in confidence in the business sector coming out of the Asian financial crisis. We are seeing good jobs growth in the Australian economy. We now have unemployment at the lowest it has been in a decade—the lowest it has been since Labor's recession in 1990-91. Good economic results, of course, are not built on bad policy. It has been necessary over the course of the last three years to lock in low inflation and low interest rates, to lock in a budget surplus and to start reducing debt.UU5HORNEMr Horne—How's the foreign debt these days?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Paterson will cease his persistent interjections.CT4Mr COSTELLO—And I am sure the member for Paterson will be glad to know that this government has paid off $24 billion of Labor's debt. When this government came to office, Labor had accrued new debt of $80 billion in its last five budgets, two of them presided over by the now Leader of the Opposition. Not only has this government put the budget back into surplus, we can now say we have paid off $24 billion of the Keating-Beazley Commonwealth government debt. And if this government's plans to privatise Telstra are put in place, we have the chance to completely eliminate the Keating-Beazley Labor debt and get the Commonwealth government debt free in the 21st century. They are the benefits of good economic policy. That will be seen in a strong economy and good jobs growth, and good jobs growth is what the coalition is committed to.61526152Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOTXW4DicksonALP00—My question is to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Minister, did you say on 29 May that the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme was not being abolished and refer to suggestions that it was being abolished as `a spin being put on the agreement to create an Energy Credit Scheme'? How does this square with the Democrats' assertion in their environment issues sheet—repeated by Senator Lees on Face to Face yesterday—that the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme has been abolished and will be replaced with an Energy Credit Scheme? Minister, who is correct? It means a lot to some people.6152Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I again remind all rural and regional Australians who happen to be listening to today's broadcast across the country that the starting point here is that the member for Dickson, who purports to speak on rural and regional interests for that side of the House, is against your having the benefits of tax reform and of cheaper transport costs. All that needs to be said in regard to this is that we have negotiated that the diesel fuel credits will be administered and preserved under the new Energy Credit Scheme when it comes into place.61526152Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. Can the minister inform the House of action the government has taken to deal with the international problem of people smuggling? In an environment in which Australia is increasingly becoming a target for smugglers, what else is the government proposing to further restrict opportunities for organisers of this gruesome trade?6152Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—I thank the honourable member for Robertson for his question. I guess he was seized of the importance of this matter when we saw over this last weekend the apprehension of a vessel entering our territorial waters—a vessel which may have been heading either to his electorate or to mine, although it has been suggested in some more informed comments that it may have been on its way to mine. The fact is that we have seen a very significant increase in the number of—Mr Horne interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Could the minister resume his seat. I warn the member for Paterson. I have already asked him to desist from persistent interjection.Opposition members interjecting—0J4Mr RUDDOCK—I am emboldened by the comments of the honourable members opposite on this issue because I heard an interjection that said that we were not doing enough. There are some opportunities of course for the opposition to be able to assist us in relation to doing what needs to be done. I will come to that in a moment. We have seen a significant number of illegal boat arrivals. There have been some 33 with some 738 people this year to date. That is quite significant. It is a matter of concern to the government.Opposition members interjecting—0J4Mr RUDDOCK—Yes, `gruesome' was a term that I used to describe the people smuggling that is going on, and I think it is a trade in human beings which ought to be seen in that light. The fact is that it is becoming increasingly sophisticated. There have been vessels capable of travelling at night in international waters, which has not been the case before. They are operating with the most sophisticated navigational devices. We are seeing a level of organisation associated with these matters which is more in line with those that have been used to access the United States of America and Japan.We are intent on protecting the integrity of our borders. There has been an increase in arrivals, not only by sea but also by air. We have responded in a number of ways to deal with those issues and I will mention them. Firstly, we have been acting very positively offshore in relation to these matters, as exemplified by the way in which we were able to deter the possible transport of some 2,000 people from Somalia to Australia. I want to commend the cooperation that my officials were able to engage from the international media to ensure that people were aware that they had no entitlement to access Australia or enter here unlawfully and that they were being grievously misled by the organisers.We have also been actively involved internationally in relation to China. I attended a conference at which I met with the Chinese vice foreign minister. I was able to engage him on these issues and obtain continued cooperation from China in relation to removals. We have also sent the secretary of my department to the Fujian province where most of these recent arrivals have come from to enable him to put clearly the matter before local officials and to ensure that they are actively involved, as I know China is, in trying to interdict vessels before they leave. The Prime Minister has established a high level task force to look at our own coastal surveillance arrangements. The report to him will enable us to consider further action in that regard. I have also mentioned that I am looking at increased penalties for those people who are involved in people smuggling. I am sure I will receive the utmost cooperation from the opposition in ensuring that, within legislation that is already in another place, we might be able to make amendments which will deal with this issue quickly.As others engaged me, I heard reference to prompt return. Let me finally say that the opposition could be well seized with the importance of facilitating some other legislation—that dealing with judicial review—because those people who exploit the opportunity to delay the departure of people who have no lawful right or entitlement to be in Australia are ensuring that the people traffickers are out there holding the view that, if they get people to Australia, they may be able to remain here. We need your cooperation in relation to that measure to ensure that we are able to deal with these matters quickly and expeditiously. I would hope that, in the spirit of cooperation and bipartisanship for which the Labor Party is so well known, we will see some cooperation tendered in relation to that matter shortly.61536153Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—I am certainly interested in the judicial review of that pregnant woman who was returned.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will come to his question.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Yesterday you claimed you had fulfilled your pledge to deliver the full $3½ billion of fuel cuts or resign, claiming, `I am on the money, on the mark.' Deputy Prime Minister, is it not true that even with the extra measures you listed yesterday to justify your position—rail and bridges—you are still off the money and off the mark to the tune of $600 million to $630 million a year?Mr Crean interjecting—6153Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNP10—Make up your mind. The Leader of the Opposition is wrong, wrong and wrong. He flip-flops on capital gains tax—page 61. We deliver. You can have the splash of colour, we have the substance, and we will deliver to export Australia—all of that and more.61546154McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHURVH4CorangamiteLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Forestry and Conservation. Is the minister aware of industry concerns regarding the completion of the remaining regional forest agreements by the 31 December deadline, particularly in my electorate of Corangamite and the Otways? What is being done to ensure that this deadline is met? Is the minister aware of any other influences that may put continuing forest operations in these areas at risk?6154Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLPForestry and Conservation; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—The timber industry in Corangamite and throughout Victoria, in such places as the electorates of Ballarat and Indi where I have visited in recent weeks, have definite concerns regarding the future of their jobs and their businesses. In the town of Colac, some 300 people attended a meeting with me—which was organised by the CFMEU—to express their concerns and, in particular, their fears and anger that the federal Labor Party are determined to scuttle the government's RFA legislation in the Senate. I attended a similar CFMEU meeting in Woodend in the electorate of Ballarat. In each case, all of the people were telling me how grateful they were to their local members in representing their interests by having me speak with them and understand their problems.During my visit in Corangamite, I also had discussions with executives of the Geelong based chipwood exporter, Midway Pty Ltd, which is owned by a consortium of Victorian sawmillers and is essential to the viability of the sawmills, as it exports their mill residues, the chips and the forest waste necessary to ensure healthy forest regrowth. Midway informed me that if it is not confident that the Victorian RFA process can be completed by this December it will cease purchasing product throughout Victoria in September of this year.The government has provided additional human resources to the process, and I have advised Midway that I am confident of completing all the conditional RFA processes by that time. However, I cannot guarantee the passage of the government's RFA legislation through the Senate—which is equally import ant to a firm like Midway, which creates jobs throughout country Victoria and also in the electorate of Corio.I am now in possession of the Labor Party's proposed amendments to clause 8 of the RFA legislation—and I can tell you I did not get them from the Labor Party, which shows how cranky some of their own people are with them. Not only do they propose that the completed WA RFA and all future RFAs, such as three in Victoria, four in New South Wales and one in Queensland, be subject to Senate disallowance but they further include 11 opportunities for litigation after that event, plus they place severe constraints upon any company damaged by the acts of a future government to receive compensation. In other words, these amendments are clearly designed to scuttle the whole national forest policy process and to remove any incentive, through resource security, to encourage investment in the future in the forest products industry.It is even worse because they have clearly shown their intention in their amendment to clause 3, where they add that there should be special arrangements for relocation and retraining of the workers in this forest industry, when—with the Prime Minister's permission—I have put all the focus on value adding industry development and keeping people in their jobs, in their towns and in their districts, and keeping the industry going.In South Australia recently—in fact, just last week—two longstanding Labor Party MPs, steeped in the traditions of the Labor Party, decided to cross the floor on an issue of grave importance to South Australia. Not for them the principle that their job is more important than their constituents' jobs and futures. In this parliament, five Tasmanian representatives and five Tasmanian senators are working against their state's best interests, as highlighted by the Deputy Premier of—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! Members on my left.SJ4Mr TUCKEY—By their squeals would you know them! Why don't you work for your own people for a change?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will return to the question.SJ4Mr TUCKEY—Now we have Victorian Labor MPs and senators doing the same thing. Where is the member for McMillan? He puts out press releases about the electorate of—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order as to relevance. What relevance has this got to the question he was originally asked, when the entirety of the Liberal Party in WA opposes him?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The minister was asked a question about regional forest agreements and the possibility of those passing through the chamber, and he was in that context quite relevant. I invite the minister to conclude his answer.SJ4Mr TUCKEY—Thank you, Mr Speaker. When he has a few Oxford mates to speak with about forestry—no worry for the workers.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will come back to the question.OK6NAIRNMr Nairn—Tell him about Michael O'Connor, Wilson.SJ4Mr TUCKEY—Michael O'Connor from the CFMEU knows where to get help—he has come to me. I would like to know what the member for Corio is doing in this process for truckies in his electorate.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. You have asked him to wind up. This has gone on for more than 10 minutes. It is about darn time.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. That is not a valid point of order. The minister had made reference to the member for—R36ALBANESEMr Albanese—See if you can mention a tree.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Grayndler is warned. The minister had made reference to the member for Corio in his opening remarks and I presumed was winding up on that note.SJ4Mr TUCKEY—Yes, I am, Mr Speaker. What I want to point out is that, without this RFA legislation, all the good work comes to nothing because people cannot invest. If people do not have the security to invest it is these people's jobs that then count. I want to know why the Labor Party has done a backflip on its own policy. I would say to you, Sir: don't workers' rights count anymore? South Australians Cameron and Crothers have the guts to put their people above arrant political opportunism.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, my point of order goes to relevance. This bloke is worth five per cent to us in Western Australia, so I am reluctant to shut him up, but he is way off the point.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The minister has the call.SJ4Mr TUCKEY—We have just had an example of how the Labor Party works.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—No, the minister will resume his seat.SJ4Mr TUCKEY—It is all about five per cent, not your own constituents' jobs.61556155Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Deputy Prime Minister, isn't it a fact that, as part of your $3.5 billion diesel promise to the bush, you undertook in the ANTS package to abolish the diesel excise on remote power generation? Is it not also a fact that, as part of your tax deal with the Democrats, you reneged on this promise?6155Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNP10—The opposition is wrong again. In terms of alleging that we have short-changed country Australia, we have not. Indeed, with respect to the Northern Territory, Darwin has been a very big winner thanks to the Grant Tambling clause in the matter.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. He was asked a question specifically about remote communities using diesel fuel generation. He is not answering it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Deputy Prime Minister has had all of 18 seconds on his feet—scarcely time to determine whether the answer is relevant or not. I call the Deputy Prime Minister.DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—Remote centres and remote and regional Australia are being assisted in many additional ways by the agreement reached between the Prime Minister and the Democrats, and this will be further detailed in the amendments which will come forward. We are doing something about reducing the transport costs, whereas you stand for keeping a massive regime of diesel fuel excise tax on rail and too much transport tax generally. We are going to reverse that. I am proud of what this government is doing for rural and remote Australia, including promoting alternatives to diesel power generation.IJ4SNOWDONMr Snowdon—You've dudded them!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for the Northern Territory is warned.DT4CREANMr Crean—You're off the mark again, Tim.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is warned.61566156Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Can the minister inform the House whether the government is planning to support the member for Holt for the position of UNESCO Director-General?6156Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for his question. There has been some speculation in this morning's media that the government would be supporting the member for Holt for the position of Director-General of UNESCO. I can confirm to the House that the government will indeed be supporting the member for Holt for that position.UNKNOWNHonourable membersHonourable members—Hear, hear!4G4Mr DOWNER—No `Hear, hears' from the member for Kingsford-Smith, I notice. We regard it as important that UNESCO be well led and that the next Director-General of UNESCO be an effective Director-General, and it is the view of this government that the member for Holt would be an effective Director-General. Putting party politics aside just for a nanosecond—if the Leader of the Opposition could bear me doing that—I think it is in Australia's interests that we promote somebody who had a long record as the foreign minister of this country and who, before that, held a number of other portfolios which are relevant to UNESCO's work. His experience as an academic is also relevant to that job. I think he will be a good Director-General should he be successful in being elected.It is time that the Asia-Pacific region had a Director-General of UNESCO, and there are at the moment four candidates from our region putting themselves forward. Whilst we have respect for those people, we do not think any of those people would do the job as well as the member for Holt. We regard the member for Holt as considerably better qualified for that position.There was a report, I think on the AM program, suggesting—and this was I think one of the more bizarre suggestions that I have heard in recent years—that somehow we were running the member for Holt for this position in order to place additional pressure on the Japanese Chairman of the World Heritage Committee in the lead-up to the consideration by that committee of whether Kakadu should be listed as in danger as a result of the Jabiluka mine. The World Heritage Committee will be considering this matter on 12 July. The election for the Director-General of UNESCO is not until three months later. There is absolutely no intention of the government, or for that matter I am sure the member for Holt or anybody else, to use this question of who the next director-general should be to put pressure on the current Chairman of the World Heritage Committee, who is the Japanese candidate for the position. It just does not make any logical sense; it is simply an absurd proposition. I think the member for Holt could take comfort from the fact that just about all members of this House will be behind him.XH4McGAURANMr McGauran—Who won't be?4G4Mr DOWNER—The member for Kingsford-Smith won't be. I hope that members of this House when they go abroad do put in a good word for the member for Holt for this position. Australia has no head of any similar United Nations agency. We are a founding member of the United Nations. We are something like the 12th biggest contributor to that organisation. We have always been a very active country in United Nations affairs and it would be appropriate that a long-serving and successful foreign minister of this country take that position.61576157O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Minister, for the benefit of members of the House and farmers in particular industries, could you clarify which of the following primary industry levies are GST liable: the rice levy, the wheat industry fund levy, the sugar cane research levy and the fishing industry levy?6157Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTrade10—If the honourable member had been following the debate on our tax reform package, he would understand the principle that there are not any taxes on taxes.61576157May, Margaret, MPMs MAY83BMcPhersonLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Given that two million Australians suffer from asthma, can the minister inform the House of the government's plans to assist asthma sufferers address their condition?6157Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—I thank the honourable member for her question and interest. As she mentioned, some two million Australians have asthma. We have the second highest mortality from asthma in the world, and it is particularly increasing amongst younger people. One in four children, one in seven teenagers and one in 10 adults have asthma. It costs the country somewhere between $580 million and $720 million, depending what assumptions you make. It is for this reason that the government has given a commitment to support a national asthma campaign for the cost initially of some $9 million over three years. We have four main things we hope to achieve from this. The first is the improved management of asthma. This is important because two-thirds of asthma deaths are premature and preventable. We hope to work with practitioners and patients to try to get a better continuity of care and get much better use of medication. The second thing we hope to do is to substantially increase education and awareness of asthma in the community. Thirdly, we hope to do research on asthma to have a look at what triggers the onset of attacks. Some attacks are life threatening. We do not have a clear understanding at all in the Australian context of what may trigger such an attack. Fourthly, we hope to undertake some monitoring to improve our understanding of the burden of asthma—at the moment in this country there is no clearing house for asthma data—and researchers tell us this will substantially help in the treatment of this condition.Finally, at the health ministers meeting in August, the Commonwealth will be proposing that asthma become Australia's sixth national health goal and target. There has been some opposition to this in some governments around Australia. In the last few weeks I have talked to a good number of state and territory health ministers, and I believe it will have strong support.61576157Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and follows the previous question by the member for Corio. Minister, are you aware that Senator Alston supplied an answer on 1 June 1999 to a question taken on notice in estimates, which states:Officers of the Treasury have advised that there is currently no settled policy for deciding which government levies are to be subject to a GST. Before a policy can be agreed on, discussions will have to take place with the states to ensure a consistent application to all similar levies and charges.How can you say there is a clear policy when the Treasury says there is none?Mrs Crosio interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Prospect occupies this chair from time to time, and her behaviour in the House does not currently reflect that.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Manager of Opposition Business and the member for Melbourne will exercise some restraint.6158Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTrade10—As I said in the previous answer, the principle is that you do not tax taxes, and that is the answer. That is the principle that applies.61586158Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—My question is to the Minister for Employment Services. Can the minister provide the House with any information regarding the Brisbane City Council's use of currently available employment service programs? How does this compare with the Brisbane City Council's application for and use of similar former programs? Have there been any criticisms of the Brisbane City Council's approach, and what is the government's response to those criticisms?6158Abbott, Tony MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPEmployment Services10—I thank the member for Moreton for his question. Work for the Dole is, of course, one of the signature programs of the Howard government and it is giving new hope and new opportunities to long-term unemployed people in Brisbane, as elsewhere. Unfortunately, even though people such as the member for Melbourne now admit that Working Nation was an expensive failure, there are still too many people associated with the Labor Party who hanker for the good old days.YU5TANNERMr Tanner—That's a lie! You're a liar!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Melbourne will withdraw that statement.OK6NAIRNMr Nairn—It should be unqualified.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I will determine whether it is qualified or unqualified, Member for Eden-Monaro. The member for Melbourne knows the obligation he faces.YU5TANNERMr Tanner—I withdraw that statement, Mr Speaker. EZ5Mr ABBOTT—I am advised by the member for Moreton that senior officers of the Brisbane City Council have told one of Australia's leading and most respected charities that the Brisbane City Council will not cooperate in putting together a Work for the Dole application because the Brisbane City Council has said that it is philosophically opposed to the scheme and that it wants it to fail. This is very sad for the 100 youngsters who would have benefited from this Work for the Dole project, and it illustrates appalling double-standards on the part of Brisbane City Council because between 1992 and 1996 the Labor controlled Brisbane City Council—QJ4THEOPHANOUSDr Theophanous—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Is it appropriate for the minister to be criticising the council on mere hearsay when he has no evidence. I think that is very inappropriate behaviour in this House.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Calwell will resume his seat. The Speaker has no reason to believe that there is anything insubstantial about anything the minister has said. I call the minister.EZ5Mr ABBOTT—Thank you, Mr Speaker. Between 1992 and 1996, the Labor controlled Brisbane City Council hosted no fewer than 3,300 labour market program places and, in the process, received $28 million in federal taxpayer funds.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will resume his seat. The chair earlier warned the member for the Northern Territory. He persists with interjections; he will excuse himself from the House under provisions of 304A.Mr Snowdon interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for the Northern Territory may wish to consult the Hansard greens at the conclusion of question time.IJ4SNOWDONMr Snowdon—But I have not spoken.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for the Northern Territory is asked to leave the House under standing order 304A and will do so.Mr Snowdon interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I name the member for the Northern Territory.Motion (by Mr McGauran) put:That the member for the Northern Territory be suspended from the service of the House.The House divided. [2.55 p.m.](Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 ——Question so resolved in the affirmative.Voting details are recorded in the Votes and Proceedings10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member is suspended from the service of the House for 24 hours.The honourable member for the Northern Territory thereupon withdrew from the chamber.EZ5Mr ABBOTT—Over four years, Brisbane City Council has hosted 3,300 labour market program places but has not put its hand up for a single Work for the Dole place.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. It goes to the question of relevance. The question specifically related to Work for the Dole. The minister has consistently said that Work for the Dole is not a labour market program. As far as I am concerned, he should return to the question which was about Work for the Dole and not successful Working Nation Labor Party programs.CK6HARDGRAVEMr Hardgrave—Mr Speaker, I simply raise a point of order following on from the member for Batman's contribution. I guess it has been some time since he heard the question, but I asked about current as well as former programs.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Moreton is not raising a point of order. The Speaker was about to rule on the member for Batman's point of order. The minister was asked a question about the Brisbane City Council and its attitude to labour market programs. I deem the minister to be in order and invite him to return to his answer.EZ5Mr ABBOTT—Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am advised that only 31 per cent of participants in Brisbane City Council's programs achieve positive outcomes compared with 45 per cent of Work for the Dole people going on to paid employment or training. I think it is time that members opposite stopped trying to sabotage Work for the Dole. It is time that the Brisbane City Council stopped playing party politics with the future of unemployed young Australians and started cooperating with community groups that want to benefit from this program.61596159Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is again addressed to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and follows the previous two questions asked of him. Minister, if there is no GST on taxes, are the rice, wheat, fishing or sugar research levies taxes or charges under the legislation?6159Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTrade10—As I answered in the last couple of questions, the first principle—and it is good to see the Leader of the Opposition listening—is that you do not impose a tax on a tax. The second question is a valid question: are those levies taxes or fees for service? As we work through the detail of the tax reform package—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister has the call. Members on my left.SU5Mr VAILE—Thank you, Mr Speaker. Let's just make it clear. The first point is: no taxes on taxes. The second point is that you have to assess whether they are a tax or a fee for service. If they are a fee for service, then it gets rebated back to the person who pays it as a business input.61596159Forrest, John, MPMr FORRESTNV5MalleeNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment Services. It goes to the issue of harvest labour, and the minister would be aware of the importance of this issue in terms of the provision of sufficiently skilled labour for the harvesting of horticultural crops across the nation. Could the minister please explain to the House what measures are being put in place to ensure that the demand for labour can continue to be met?6160Abbott, Tony MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPEmployment Services10—I thank the member for Mallee for his question and for his interest in this very important area. As the House knows, some of Australia's most important industries such as the citrus, grape, stone fruit and cotton industries critically rely upon seasonal labour. It is no secret that many growers have had trouble finding enough workers to harvest their crops. The government is determined to ensure that the labour requirements of these industries are met and that young Australians and working holiday-makers are more aware of the job opportunities that now exist in these industries, particularly because an experienced picker can earn up to $800 a week.To that end, the government has established a national harvest trail working group which will be chaired by the member for Hindmarsh. Other members are the member for Mallee, who asked the question, the member for Blair and the member for Hume. This working group also includes Mr Brian Caddy, Mr Don Carazza and Mr Bill Trevor representing area consultative committees of my department. It also includes representatives of the Macintyre Valley Cotton Growers Association, the MIA Council of Horticultural Associations, the Mildura and District Harvest Labour Committee and the Northern Victoria Fruit Growers Association. This working group will hold a series of public consultations on the labour needs of their industries. It will then make recommendations for the establishment of a national harvest trail to promote ongoing, year-round employment in these industries and to help boost Australia's tourist potential. I thank the members involved in this working group and those other fine Australians for the contribution they are making.61606160Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Treasurer. Treasurer, will you confirm that full implementation of the proposal to tax trusts as companies outlined in your original GST package has been factored into the budget surplus projections? Won't any further watering down of this measure cut into the surplus? Will you guarantee to deliver this measure in full?Mr Howard interjecting—6160Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The government's policy as announced in A New Tax System, ANTS, stands. The government is proceeding to implement that. In relation to those matters that are fully costed as part of ANTS, they have of course been taken into the budget position. As the Prime Minister says, it is really a luxury for the Labor Party to start asking questions about surpluses. It is an absolute luxury. I can tell you this, Mr Speaker: when I first became Treasurer of Australia, nobody got up and asked me questions about cutting into surpluses. It was all a question about what we were going to do about a $10.5 billion deficit, which the Labor Party opposed every dollar to us cutting.83UCOXMr Cox—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. The Treasurer has strayed away from the question. The Deputy Prime Minister on the Sunday program raised very real—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—No. The member for Kingston cannot raise this as a matter of relevance. I will rule on the relevance issue. The member for Kingston will resume his seat. The Treasurer was asked a question about trusts and their relevance to the surplus. I believe he has now concluded it.61606160Thompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON84CBlairLP10—My question is to the Minister for Aged Care. Is the minister aware of an article in Perth's Sunday Times about the standards of residential care? These standards are of interest to all Australians and certainly to residents in my electorate of Blair. Can the minister inform the House how the standards of residential care are being improved by the Howard government?6160Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLPAged Care10—I do thank the member for his question because the information I am about to deal with is relevant to people right across Australia and not only to those people in Perth. The fact of the matter is that the article that the member referred to shows that the accreditation agency established by the reforms of this government is in fact doing the job that it was set up to do. It is part of the appalling legacy of the Labor Party that was left behind that we have so many aged care facilities which, quite frankly, are not up to scratch. They are not adequate for the sort of care that we require for older Australians.The Labor Party tolerated standards—or, shall I say, lack of standards—that we simply will not tolerate. The establishment of the Standards and Accreditation Agency, which is doing its job, will ensure that the standards that are met are part and parcel of the excellent reforms that this government has put in place to ensure that care, when needed by elderly Australians, is properly given and given in a way that the individual benefits from that care.61616161McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, is it true as reported this morning that coalition MPs loyal to you have been telling other Liberal MPs, `If the coalition loses the next election it will be Costello's fault because'—Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The Manager of Opposition Business has the call. Members on my right.5I4Mr McMULLAN—Some are laughing and some aren't.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Manager of Opposition Business will come to his question.5I4Mr McMULLAN—I was in the middle but I was sort of interrupted.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I am inviting you to continue.5I4Mr McMULLAN—I quote, `If the coalition loses the next election, it will be Costello's fault, because he is now responsible for implementing the tax.' Prime Minister, is it also true as reported this morning that at least one Liberal MP has been briefed along those lines by your office?6161Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—From GST to Glenn Milne—a story of the Labor Party's tactics. Let me make a couple of things clear. Firstly, the question is hypothetical because the coalition does not intend to, and will not, lose the next election. That is the first thing. The second thing is that the Treasurer and I together are strongly committed to the cause of taxation reform. May I say that not only does policy ownership of the tax reform plan belong to the Treasurer, who has done a very remarkable job in putting that policy together, but also it is the policy of the government from the Prime Minister down. Suggestions that my office would have authorised anything critical of the Treasurer are quite wrong.61616161Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Community Services. The government has recently announced a number of initiatives to address the problem of homelessness. Can the minister advise the House what the government is doing to tackle this problem? In what ways will this benefit families and young people in the electorate of Macquarie?6161Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—I thank the member for Macquarie for his interest in youth homelessness and for his strong support for the government initiatives in this area. The government has now announced that an additional $45 million will be provided for services for homeless people. When you add this funding to the commitments made in the last federal budget, it means $90 million more for the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program over the next four years. That increase in funding is in line with the recommendations of the national evaluation of the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program. It will certainly provide much needed additional support for the people who are providing this excellent service.This funding is in addition to the amounts already announced by the government—$60 million over four years and $20 million each year thereafter—to support intervention to help young people who are at risk of becoming homeless. This will certainly help families stay together and to resolve their problems. This is quite a significant initiative, reflecting the Prime Minister's particular interest in these matters. This extension of funding will support another 100 priority areas, providing assistance in about 12,000 cases for intervention with young people and their families where homelessness is an issue. There will be around 30 regions identified in the first selection round and a further 45 in the second round where pilot projects will be implemented. I might add that all existing pilot projects under the youth homelessness program will be automatically included in the priority areas for the first selection round.The member for Macquarie I know is particularly interested in the fact that Senator Newman indicated that the Nepean-Blue Mountains-Hawkesbury area has been highlighted as one of those areas which will be a high priority under this program. In addition, the Nepean family integration project has been awarded one of the pilot programs, and this program will particularly assist vulnerable families who are facing homelessness issues. This government is indeed committed in a real and practical sense to assisting families and young people facing homelessness, and our financial commitment demonstrates that we are prepared to work with the states to ensure that there is a range of suitable programs across the nation to assist young people facing homelessness problems.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Personal Explanations616215:11:006162Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNER—I do indeed.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNER—During question time the Minister for Employment Services stated that I had described the Working Nation program as an `expensive failure'. That is absolutely untrue.15:11:006162Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNP10—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the Deputy Prime Minister claim to have been misrepresented?DG4Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHER—Yes, I do.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.DG4Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHER—It relates to a Channel 9 interview on boat people yesterday. I said, `Some 2,500 people were turned around and sent back and we'll be rigorous about this.' That in fact relates to the period 1990 through to 20 May 1999, not until just last year. I wish to place that before the House.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Prime Minister was making a correction. That is not quite the intention of personal explanations.Questions to the Speaker616261626162Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS5K6NamadgiALP00—Mr Speaker, under standing order 150, I would appreciate your assistance in getting an answer to question on notice No. 532, placed on the Notice Paper on 23 March, to the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services.6162Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will follow that matter up for the member for Canberra.61626162Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—Mr Speaker, I have a similar concern. Under standing order 150, I draw your attention to questions on notice No. 305 to the Minister for Health and Aged Care submitted on 7 December and No. 307 to the Minister for Aged Care. I have already brought this to the attention of the House. I still have not received answers. Could you ask the minister to respond to my questions?6162Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will follow those two matters up with the minister.61626162Edwards, Graham, MPMr EDWARDS83RCowanALP00—Mr Speaker, under standing order 150, I draw your attention to question on notice No. 252 asked on 2 December. I would appreciate your assistance in getting an answer.6162Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will follow that up on behalf of the member for Cowan.616210001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate ministers:61631384ZJ6Barresi Phil MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in ParliamentThe petition of concerned citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House that over 250 million children around the world work—many millions of these are working in exploitative and abusive situations. Many will not receive even a basic education, adequate health care, or the protection of minimum labour rights. Some will be imprisoned, bashed and even murdered. Treatment of children in this way is morally wrong and perpetuates a life of poverty for individuals and families involved.Your petitioners request the House take action to protect and promote the rights of all children, especially the right to receive a free meaningful education and to be free from performing any work that is likely to damage a child's physical, mental, spiritual, moral or social development. In particular, we request the House implement the following:Institute programs to raise public awareness about the exploitation of children as labourersUse its influence to remove the causes of child labour, including injustices and inequalities between and within nationsUse its position to urge all countries to ratify and enforce international conventions and laws regarding child labourTargeting of aid for basic education programs, particularly for child workersTargeting of aid for rehabilitation and societal reintegration programs for child labourersMr BarresiZJ6Mr Barresi(from 1,384 citizens)6163391K6Billson Bruce MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in ParliamentThe petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the need for changes to the Family Law Act of Australia and to the Child Support Scheme.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House enact the following changes.1. That the existing Family Law Act be scrapped and replaced by a more simplified version together with the minimum of rules and regulations necessary.2. That The Family Court be replaced by a Tribunal and that all matters resulting from divorce and family breakdown be heard before, and determined by a panel; the panel to be made up of persons qualified in matters arising from family breakdown. 3. That legal professionals be barred from appearing before the Tribunal resulting in vast savings to the disputing parties.4. That a modified fault clause be re-introduced to Family Law primarily designed to discourage adultery and to stop rewarding adulterers at the expense of deserted and innocent parties.5. That the Child Support Agency be scrapped and replaced by an appropriate administrative procedure within the Tribunal.6. That apart from cases of exceptional circumstances parental-child access become the inalienable right of all parents.7. That alternative counselling, (Government funded) be made available through the Churches and that much more emphasis be placed on mediation in resolving disputes prior to the commencement of legal proceedings.Mr Billson1K6Mr Billson(from 39 citizens)6163241K6Billson Bruce MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the need for change to the Family Law Act of Australia and the Child Support Scheme. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House enact the following changes:(1) That the existing Family Law Act be repealed and replaced by a simplified version.(2) That the Family Court be abolished and replaced by a simplified tribunal.(3) That legal professionals be barred from appearing before the tribunal.(4) That a modified fault clause be reintroduced to the Family Law Act.(5) That the Child Support Agency be abolished.(6) Parental child access become the inalienable right of all parents.(7) That counselling be government funded.Mr Billson1K6Mr Billson(from 24 citizens)6163746WF6Danby Michael MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.We the undersigned, draw the attention of the House to the discrimination experienced by same sex couples in the provision of superannuation benefits.Your petitioners therefore ask the House to reintroduce and pass the Private Member's Bill, entitled the Superannuation (Entitlements of Same Sex Couples) Amendment Bill, introduced into the House by the Member for Grayndler and seconded by the Member for Melbourne Ports.And your petitioners, as is duty bound, will ever pray.Mr DanbyWF6Mr Danby(from 746 citizens)61643437K6Entsch Warren MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in ParliamentWe the residents of Cairns—Queensland wish to draw to the attention of the House the Cairns 1999 Australian Peace March (held on 10 March 1999) for Tibet's independence to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the 1959 Tibetan National Uprising and the Dalai Lama's exile into India. It is also 50 years since the People's Republic of China commenced its military invasion of Tibet. The Chinese occupation of Tibet is one of the most brutal acts of human history. The Tibetan people lost their country and have been totally deprived of their human rights. The suffering of the Tibetan people continues and the human rights situation in Tibet is unchanged, with the latest report of the International Commission of Jurists confirming this.Therefore we the petitioners respectfully urge a motion to be tabled in Parliament to take action: To communicate with the government of the People's Republic of China regarding its occupation of Tibet and current human rights abuses of the Tibetans. To support the recommendation of the International Commission of Jurists for a referendum to be held in Tibet under United Nations' supervision. To show our sympathy and support for the citizens of Tibet, who now endure so much suffering whilst struggling to ensure the survival of their culture.Mr Entsch7K6Mr Entsch(from 343 citizens)6164365AK6Gash Joanna MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of the residents of the South Coast of New South Wales draws attention to the House how the increasing availability of drugs in our community is threatening the lives and quality of life of local residents and their families, and that only through community cooperation and leadership will this problem be tackled.Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House requests that the Federal Government take action to override the state laws by enforcing Zero tolerance in regard to drug taking and drug distribution. Mrs GashAK6Mrs Gash(from 365 citizens)61647983NHall Jill MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.These petitioners of the Division of Shortland and adjoining areas are deeply concerned at any plans to further privatise Telstra.Further privatisation of Telstra will result in the loss of thousands more Telstra jobs, worsening services to regional and rural Australia, and the loss of up to $1 billion a year for all Australians earned from Telstra profits.We believe these profits, both now and in the future, should be set aside to secure improved educational opportunities for our children, increased research and development funds for our scientists and doctors, and more money for rural and regional Australia.Your petitioners therefore respectfully request that the House reject any further sale of the Commonwealth's shares in Telstra and that the annual profits from Telstra be used for the benefit of all Australians.Ms Hall83NMs Hall(from 79 citizens)61646083NHall Jill MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:We, the undersigned petitioners of the Division of Shortland and adjoining areas, are deeply concerned at the prospect of the introduction of a Goods and Services Tax (GST).A GST is unfair since everyone pays the same tax on goods and services, regardless of their ability to pay. A GST would also tax essential everyday items such as bread, fruit and vegetables, milk and eggs, making life more difficult for struggling Australians.Under a GST, big business benefits and will pay less tax because the full tax burden is passed to consumers, particularly people on lower incomes. Such a tax would be detrimental to Australian families, small business operators and people on lower incomes.We therefore call on the House to reject any plans to introduce an expensive, inefficient and unfair system of taxation such as a Goods and Services Tax, and to ensure that our tax system is just, fair and enforceable with everyone—big business, small business, high income earners and low income earners alike—paying their fair share of tax.Ms Hall83NMs Hall(from 60 citizens)61655483NHall Jill MPTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The Petition of the undersigned shows we are opposed to the Government's funding cuts to Centrelink, which will mean the loss of 5,000 Centrelink jobs. This staff cut will mean increased waiting times, reduced access and reduced service levels for clients. It will place more stress on an already understaffed and underfunded service. It is an attack on our right to an efficient and accessible social security system.Your petitioners request that the House of Representatives should stop the Centrelink staff cuts.Ms Hall83NMs Hall(from 54 citizens)6165725HH4Jenkins Harry MPTo the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.This petition of certain citizens of the State of Victoria draws to the attention of the House our desire to see the Lalor Plaza Branch of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia in the electoral division of Scullin retained.We value the services provided by this branch of the Commonwealth Bank to our local community, and are opposed to its closure. We believe that the whole community, including local traders, benefit from retaining local bank branches open.Many of our residents are elderly and have been able to travel the short distance to the bank that is to be closed.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House communicate to the Commonwealth Bank of Australia its wish for the Bank to continue to play a vital role in the Thomastown and Lalor East community by retaining this branch.Mr JenkinsHH4Mr Jenkins(from 725 citizens)616527HK6Lindsay Peter MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in ParliamentThe petition of certain citizens of Australia draws attention to the House that the advertising provisions of Therapeutic Goods Regulations are being misinterpreted so as to inhibit price competition of Schedule 3, 4 and 8 (prescription) medication. The National Health Act prohibits price competition of subsidised medicine.The petitioners respectfully urge the House to amend the advertising provisions of the Therapeutic Goods Regulations to allow the publication and supply to the general public of a catalogue by a Pharmacy containing prices of prescriptions and other products.The petitioners also respectfully urge the House to amend the National Health Act to allow discounting of the patient contribution. [currently $3.20 for pensioners and $20.30 for general patients]Mr LindsayHK6Mr Lindsay(from 27 citizens)61651140JK6McClelland Robert MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in parliament.I strongly oppose construction of a nuclear reactor in Sydney. Nuclear activity generates radioactive emissions and radioactive waste for which Australia has no repository. A nuclear accident has implications for all of Sydney. Such facilities should not be located in Australia's largest city.Your petitioners pray that the House will join them in opposing increased nuclear activity in Sydney.Mr McClellandJK6Mr McClelland(from 1,140 citizens)616522JK6McClelland Robert MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House: 1. That only citizens (born or naturalised) should be allowed to vote in the forthcoming referendum regarding whether or not Australia should become a republic. Those who have not yet become citizens of Australia should do so by a given date, perhaps a month or two before the voting day, or else they lose the right to cast a vote. 2. All politicians, Federal and State, have the same superannuation rules as the rest of the citizens of this country. 3. All politicians, Federal and State, enjoy the `perks' of the office they hold as long as they are employed in their respective political jobs but once they retire, resign, voted out or any other such circumstance the `perks' enjoyed while in office should cease. The only exception to the above should be Prime Ministers who should continue to receive the `perks' for a maximum of 3 years after they cease to be so employed.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House take a course of action which would bring about the alteration of the above present practices. Mr McClellandJK6Mr McClelland(from 22 citizens)616650FI4Morris Allan MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House that a Goods and Services Tax on reading material is a tax on knowledge and learning. It will increase the cost of education, which will particularly disadvantage low to middle income earners, add to the administrative costs of education institutions leaving fewer resources for education itself and have a negative effect on the publishing and book selling sector.The majority of Australians oppose a GST on reading material. Your petitioners request that the House does not proceed with legislation for a Goods and Services Tax.Mr Allan MorrisFI4Mr Allan Morris(from 50 citizens)6166989KV5Neville Paul MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in ParliamentThe Petition of citizens of the Hinkler Electorate of Queensland, draws to the attention of the House our strongest support for the abolition of any move or intent by the Federal Parliament to invoke an age restriction on the use, registration or otherwise of any motor vehicles.Your petitioners therefore respectfully ask the House of Representatives to preserve the freedom of all Australians to drive any age of motor vehicle that they choose, and that the status quo remain.Mr NevilleKV5Mr Neville(from 989 citizens)6166197KV5Neville Paul MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives assembled in ParliamentWe, the residents of Australia draw the attention of the House to the dangers of the Voluntary Student Unionism (VSU) which we believe would cut vital services to all university students such as:Representation and advocacy to all studentsCatering and sporting facilitiesLegal, accommodation and job placement servicesSupport to University Clubs.Rural and regional campuses would especially be affected due to the large role student organisations have within these regional areas.Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will refrain from the introduction of Voluntary Student Unionism. Mr NevilleKV5Mr Neville(from 197 citizens)6166387QJ4Theophanous Andrew MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Australian Parliament assembled.Save Broadmeadows Community Legal ServiceWe bring to the attention of the House the Federal Government's plan to possible closure amalgamations or removal of the services from our Community Legal Centre which has given assistance to the community for 25 years.The undersigned petitioners therefore ask the Legislative House of Representatives to call on the Federal Government to protect every Victorian's right to equal access to the Justice system by continuing to fund Community Legal Centres which are community controlled, owned and independent of governments and which are accessible to all peoples within their local community.Dr TheophanousQJ4Dr Theophanous(from 387 citizens)Petitions received.Private Members' Business6166616615:17:006166Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—I move:That this House:(1) notes the discrepancies and contradictions in expert assessments of Australia's optimum population;(2) recognises the damage caused to the nation's social fabric by ill-informed and emotive comments on the nation's immigration program;(3) notes that population growth is ultimately a product of fertility rates and levels of net immigration, while acknowledging that Australia has a limited carrying capacity, both ecologically and economically;(4) notes that without a population policy Australia risks a continuation of the divisive scapegoating of minority ethnic groups; and(5) calls for the convening of a national population forum to consider and propose a population policy for Australia and the social and concrete infrastructure required to sustain that population.This motion was prompted by the unfortunate politics of recent times, where immigration and migrants have been so easily scapegoated as the cause of Australia's social and economic problems. I believe these forces were unleashed largely because of the lack of a sound long-term population policy. Without such a policy, governments have been susceptible to formulating reactive policies based on short-term political outcomes, rather than on a sound population framework that can be readily identified by Australians and our foreign neighbours.Immigration policy in recent years has seen this government react in an ad hoc way to the ignorance cynically fanned and manipulated by One Nation. Attempts have been made in the past to determine a population policy for Australia. Most recently in 1994 the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Long Term Strategies conducted an inquiry into Australia's population and carrying capacity. The committee did not come down in favour of any particular size for our population but recommended that:. . . the Australian Government should adopt a population policy which explicitly sets out a range of options for long term population change, emphasising that year by year decisions on immigration intake cannot be taken in an ad hoc fashion without recognising incremental effects downstream.Our demographers and environmental scientists have different views on the optimum population for this country. Estimates range from eight million to 50 million plus. Many neighbouring countries wrongly believe we are very few on a vast, richly endowed continent. Let us not forget the global population is expected to pass six billion this year and is headed for an estimated 9.4 billion by 2050. In 1950 the world population was 2.5 billion. Those figures alone suggest we need a population policy to inform ourselves and the world just what is our population capacity. Many economists argue for a large increase in our population in the interests of economic growth. Our fertility rate has dropped below replacement levels in the past two decades, but this we are told will not be a major problem for 50 years because of the reproductive boost the baby boomers provided during the 1980s and 1990s.On top of this the likely trends in Australia's population are: Australia's population will continue to grow; based on our below replacement and declining fertility rate, the current immigration intake and current immigration policies, Australia's population is likely to peak at around 23 million by the middle of next century; Australia's population will age; an increased proportion of Australian children will be born into poor families; Australians will become more culturally diverse; and there will be increased inequality in metropolitan areas and there will be increased economic disparity between metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas.The trends are there. The answers to those trends which are negative surely lie in proper social and economic planning. Such plans can most effectively be made if based on a sound foundation of the desired future population for our country. There are a range of issues we should be considering and only a properly constituted national policy forum could and should work its way through these challenges—a forum to lay to rest the furphies and red herrings, to properly investigate the country's carrying capacity, to challenge the assumptions and to most importantly investigate the environmental consequences of an increased population.We have heard for years about the potential of our inland regions, the need to reverse the move to the cities and coast. To generate both domestic and overseas markets and wealth, one needs skilled labour, raw materials and infrastructure. We just do not dump people in the regions and expect them miraculously to start contributing to our GDP. The rainfall and water storage of rural and regional Australia is just one, but perhaps the most important, limiting factor on any population growth. Water is the double-edged sword because, while it could nurture more production to supply and feed people, it is the agent of environmental destruction through salination.I draw attention to a recent article in the Sydney Daily Telegraph, which is important because the tabloid press for a change reported a crucial environment issue. It details a report the Prime Minister was given last December and tells how 30 per cent of the country's agricultural belt will be rendered useless by salt within 50 years. The Prime Minister has yet to respond to the report, and I urge him to do so, especially in light of placing all of our environmental eggs in the Telstra sale basket.What do we do if and when that is sold and what do we do if in fact, as should be the case, it is not sold? Environmental degradation and our ability to arrest it is a crucial element of planning a sustainable population for our future, our carrying capacity. Before we dam more water, we should surely work out ways to use what we have more wisely, and that includes irrigation practices and proper environmental flows to sustain the health of our river valley systems.Before we grow larger cities and towns, we should see what infrastructure is required and how that added population will impact on the environment, those inland river systems that have already been heavily degraded by the modest populations inland Australia already sustains. We need to look at our international responsibilities towards the world's refugees. We need to ensure families can reunite. We need to enrich our skills base while always giving priority to skilling our youth.The time has come to rise above what is perceived as politically popular to overcome the fear of doing anything because of ignorant noise that drowns out rational debate. We need cross-political consensus to counter the inevitable backlash if indeed it is decided after rational non-political debate to increase population significantly along with a significant upgrading of infrastructure.The Australian public has had enough of governments who find it difficult to see beyond the next election, with a three- or more often two-year plan being considered long term. As I look at issues being raised in the current inquiry of the committee of this House into Australia's infrastructure, of which committee I am a part, it strikes me that we need a national blueprint for our infrastructure that crosses state divides and prioritises a national agenda, say, 25 years ahead. But how can we do this without a population policy?Modern Australia was constructed on the back of an immigration program from day one in 1788, albeit with often tragic results for its original inhabitants and their descendants. The Anglo-Celtic flavour of that first immigration wave has been changed significantly in recent years by arrivals from other places. They all enrich the flavour of what we now call Australia, what our folks called Australia and what our children will call Australia—all different, but all Australian.But these days support for immigration is waning for a number of reasons. There is legitimate concern over environmental issues, but there are less than legitimate reasons for many of the other concerns about immigration. Unless we develop a policy based on fact, we will lose support for a rational immigration program and growth target and will be condemned to political tiptoeing through the minefield of ignorance. In his Parliamentary Library Research paper, `An Australian population policy', Gavin Jones says:As the country with the largest planned immigration program per head in the world with the exception of Israel it seems obvious we need to sort out our longer term goals for population size and growth.Decisions are also needed about whether we want to modify some of the distributional trends, such as enhancing the regional migration program, and particularly to remedy the ever-increasing tendency for the population to perch around the coastline, as if some centrifugal force was operating to empty out inland areas of Australia.I put it to the House that much of the negative debate on immigration in recent times would be erased or ameliorated if we not only more positively promoted the value of migrants to our lifestyle but set population targets in at least 20-year time frames. We also need to discuss in the national forum, I propose as part of this motion, the alleged strain non-European migration places on social cohesion.I put it to the House that it is hardly surprising that the immigrant generation, most often from cultures either ancient or many centuries old, would wish to continue their cultural practices and to gather in communities of folk from their own country. That surely poses no great threat to social cohesion, especially when the children of migrants quickly become whatever being Australian actually is. But the Australian culture we have now or will have in the future will be far different, and I would suggest far richer, from the Australian culture of our fathers or grandfathers.In the journal of the Australian Population Association, Geoffrey McNicoll says a population policy is `a coherent vision of the desired demographic future and a coordinated set of actions designed to move toward it'. I hope this motion sets us on that path. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Is the motion seconded?15:27:006169Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—I second the motion. This motion meets all of the criteria for a critically important issue facing Australians—that is, it is being debated on Monday, it is being debated in private member's business and it is also being debated before a near empty House.In Australia, on average, we add the equivalent of one Wollongong, or 220,000 people, every year. This is despite the fact that Australia is, in the words of Dr Geoff Pickup, the chief of the CSIRO's Division of Water Resources:. . . the world's driest continent. We also experience very significant climate variability . . . In some areas we are having a major effect on the quality of our water through pollution of surface water and of ground water.Is it any wonder that young people are cynical and disinterested in the political process when they see their parliamentarians and public commentators so consistently passing the buck on these urgent environmental issues or transforming what is a scientific and ecological issue into a fool's choice between Pauline Hanson on the one hand and Senator Nick Bolkus on the other? Over the past three years, Australia has been gripped by what has been described in some quarters as a race debate. In fact, it has been an argument about immigration, one of the major protagonists being Mrs Pauline Hanson and her acolytes. Sadly, the immigration debate will continue to be emotional, facile and irrational as long as this country continues to develop without a population policy.Based on our ecological and economic carrying capacity, how many people can this country support in the medium and the long term, which is of course a product of births, deaths and immigration? Until such time as demographers, we as politicians, business leaders, developers and the community generally appreciate that we have been living on environmental capital rather than interest, there is every reason for young people to be pessimistic about the environmental future that they inherit from the current generation. Unfortunately, we live in a selfish world. We live in a world of fundamentalist intolerance and vast ignorance of the biological and ecological consequences of our actions. Australia is very much at a turning point in its history, of which the population, immigration and cultural debate is but one significant manifestation.For too long in this country, as with a number of other developed nations, we have worshipped at the altar of growth and development without giving adequate regard to the consequences of our actions. This has left us a legacy of air, water and noise pollution, solid waste disposal, deforestation, exhaustion of soils, ozone layer depletion, global warming, acid rain, depletion of underground aquifers and loss of biodiversity—in other words, ecological deadlines to which we are now only beginning to adjust. It is us—it is human life—which more than anything else threatens the biosphere. In 1992, under the heading `The World's Scientists' Warning to Humanity', which was reaffirmed in 1997, 1,670 scientists, including 104 Nobel Laureates, representing over 71 countries warned:We must accept limits to population growth . . . The earth is finite. Its ability to provide for growing numbers of people is finite. Even at this moment, one person in five lives in absolute poverty without enough to eat. The earth's ability to absorb waste and destructive effluent is finite. Its ability to provide food and energy is finite . . . we are fast approaching many of the earth's limits with the risk that global systems will be damaged beyond repair.It took 100,000 years for world population growth to reach two billion; in the space of one lifetime we have exceeded five billion. Every second there are five people born and another two die. What, you might ask, Mr Deputy Speaker, does this have to do with Australia? It has everything to do with Australia. The most concise definition of popula tion policy is that of McNicoll from 1995, who said it is:. . . a coherent vision of the desired demographic future and a co-ordinated set of actions designed to move towards it.To say that I do not believe that Australia can ecologically sustain a larger population is not to argue that the country should be kept in an antipodean state. Business leadership needs to remember the words of the British strategist Paul Kennedy, who said that the 21st century will be `the era of brain power, not manpower'. Population is no longer required for a nation to attain security, influence or prosperity. In fact, it is likely that in the 21st century overpopulation will become a threat to all three objectives. Australia's economic prosperity lies not in increasing our population but in integrating our trade, economic and productive future with other countries, and in particular with those in our region. To this end, it was especially worrying to see former Prime Minister Paul Keating argue against limiting Australia's population on ecological grounds. Mr Keating, whose interest in science included the use of trampolines as a cure for cancer, accused those who would seek to limit Australia's population as having put a `house full' sign at the border.One of the world's great thinkers in this regard is, of course, Paul Erhlic. Erhlic suggested a formula for looking at the impact of population—and human life, in particular—upon our biosphere. Erhlic suggested that impact was a product of population multiplied by affluence multiplied by technology. Firstly, in terms of population, any steady growth in population is exponential in its impact on the environment and on resources. Secondly, in terms of affluence, we need to remember that as Australians we consume 100 times more energy per capita than does the average Bangladeshi. Thirdly, in terms of technologies, we need to adopt and assist in the development of less damaging technologies and also—as the government is currently doing—to do everything we can to encourage sustainable farming practices.Throughout the eighties Australia had the developed world's highest per capita growth in population, due largely to a large increase in per capita net immigration which roughly trebled from 1983 to 1989. Mr Barry Jones, the former member for Lalor and ALP President, made the observation in August 1997 that under the previous Labor government fixing immigration levels had much more to do with locking up the Greek vote or other ethnic votes than with regard for Australia's long-term population interests. Some people have argued that because Australia is a relatively empty continent we should take a world lead by having a substantially higher population. It is worth noting, in response to that, that less than 10 per cent of immigrants to this country come from the poorest countries. Less than 10 per cent are refugees.I think we should also ask ourselves whether it is prudent to leave it to the world's least responsible and forward thinking nations to determine where world population is going. Also, standards should not be set by irresponsibly overpopulating nations. I suppose in one sense the real challenge for our country is not whether we have a president or a governor-general nor the content or nature of the preamble to the Constitution; the real question is how best we can govern ourselves as a federation in a world that is vastly different from what it was a century ago. We need to ask ourselves in terms of the next century just how many people can our country carry. It is possible we can carry more. We may be able to carry less, but until people give some attention to Australia's long-term interests based on its economic and ecological carrying capacity—as I said in my introductory remarks—the whole immigration debate and other things will continue to be facile, emotional and ill informed.I would particularly like to remind the House of the excellent report which was presented to the parliament in 1994 by the Standing Committee on Long Term Strategies, under the chairmanship of the Hon. Barry Jones, entitled Australia's population `carrying capacity': one nation—two ecologies. It recommended, and I strongly support this:The Government should establish a Cabinet Committee on Population, chaired by the Prime Minister, to take specific responsibility for population policy in distinction to immigration policy, to create a publicly accessible database on population issues and published material intended to improve the quality of public understanding and political debate on the subject.Finally, I encourage any members who are interested to join the all-party group on population planning and development, of which I am the co-convenor. I also encourage anyone who wishes to to join Australians for Ecologically Sustainable Population, of which I am a proud member. (Time expired)15:37:006171Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLISDH4ThrosbyALP00—I congratulate the member for Calare for bringing this motion before the House. Population as an issue generates little interest in this parliament. As members might know, I have had for many years an interest in the question of population and development and am currently one of the vice-chairs of the Asian Forum of Parliamentarians on Population and Development. This group of international parliamentarians attempts to raise awareness amongst members of parliament of the challenges of population and development and, in this way, to bring pressure on the executive to fund programs related to the whole area of population and development.Australia supported the position of the 1994 United Nations International Conference in Cairo that all countries have a responsibility to stabilise their population as quickly as possible, and the need for all countries to develop population policies. However, as pointed out in the December 1994 report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Long Term Strategies on Australia's Population Carrying Capacity, policy growth via immigration is commonly seen as not being in conflict with this injunction, being more population transfer than population growth.Recently in the Hague, at a conference entitled `Cairo + Five' many delegates lamented the fact that other countries had not done enough to reach the targets they often enthusiastically set in Cairo five years previously. Another area of concern is the so-called Asian economic crisis and the serious impact on programs in countries such as Indonesia, which could have long-term implications. Unfortunately, at a time of economic downturn, it is usually population programs that are among the first cut.In October of this year the Day of Six Billion People will be commemorated. Australia's 18 million hardly makes an impact on this, with some mega-cities throughout the world reaching this population; nevertheless, the all-party Group on Population and Development of this parliament, chaired by the member for Bradfield, hopes to commemorate this event and, while drawing our colleagues' and indeed the general population's attention to the question of population and development, hopefully we can look at our own long-term strategies in this country.Because Australia has never had a population policy, we talk about immigration, but a population policy should be seen as different from an immigration policy—even if immigration is a determinant of that population policy. The challenges faced by many countries throughout the world, especially in Asia, Africa and Latin America, are not evident in Australia. Indeed, sometimes it is embarrassing, at international conferences dealing with the population issue, to admit that many of the problems faced in so many countries are not faced in Australia. Yet Australia cannot be isolated from the whole question of population and we have a responsibility to fund population and development programs, especially in our part of the world.It has been a matter of personal regret to me that we have cut funding over recent years to the United Nations Fund on Population and Development and the International Planned Parenthood Association. Especially disappointing was Australia's total cut in funding to the International Union of the Social Study of Population. This is one of the few agencies devoted to research into population issues. But overall, after many years of sending a positive message that we were interested in population and development issues and prepared to back this up with funding, we are now sending a negative message that we are not interested.The motion from the member for Calare concentrates on Australia's optimum population. It is time that we had a proper debate on population in this country, a debate removed from the rhetoric, claims and counter claims, and a logical look at future population and, indeed, a population policy.The question of immigration is always emotive and full of exaggerations and distortions. There is always the tendency to blame the latest influx of migrants on whatever social, political or economic difficulty the country is experiencing. That is why item (4) is so important:. . . notes that without a population policy, Australia risks a continuation of the divisive scapegoating of minority ethnic groups.I quote:These people are dirty and diseased. They practice their own religion, they don't mix, they break down work conditions in the country.I ask members: when was this said about the most recent arrivals—Australia in the 1950s or Australia in the 1980s? No, it was not said then. It was recorded in Professor O'Farrell's book, The Irish in Australia . He was talking about the Irish immigrants coming here between 1810 and 1820. It has always been the same—the latest wave of immigrants always receives the divisive scapegoating.There seems to me no doubt that Australia's carrying capacity could be much greater. Australia could house many more people, but this begs the question: in what capacity? There is a difference between what is possible and what is desirable. This perhaps is the crux of the debate. Some environmentalists argue that, given the nature of Australia and our lack of water, Australia is already overpopulated. As pointed out in the Long Term Strategies Report of December 1994, `some argue that Australia is basically a big desert unsuitable for human settlement'. With its small population, the need for an Australian population policy is not as immediately obvious as it is in developing countries where overcrowding and poverty are so often highly visible indicators of the problems of overpopulation.Given the relative insignificance of Australia's contribution to world population growth with Australia's estimated population of 18,813,000, it is necessary to base the arguments for an Australian national population policy firmly within the domestic context. With its extensive landmass and small population, Australia has historically tended to consider the issue of population levels and distribution as a challenge more than a cause for concern. During the 1920s and 1930s the dominant school of thought was expansionist and Australia's leaders enthusiastically exhorted the importance of population growth. The decline of population growth in the 1930s only exacerbated these concerns. The election of the Chifley government, and the appointment of Arthur Calwell in 1945 as the first Minister for Immigration, heralded a post-World War II embrace by Australian policy makers of expansionist ideals. Calwell enthusiastically advocated that. . . additional population is Australia's greatest need, for security in wartime, for full development and prosperity in peacetime, our vital need is more Australians . . . Australia can increase her population three-fold or more and still provide full employment and adequate standards of living for all.As quoted in the paper `Population Policy in Australia' prepared by Nicole Shinnick, under Calwell Australia had—for the only time in its history—a formal population policy, which was aimed at a level of two per cent annual growth. `Populate or perish' was the underlying theme. The postwar era was notable for the high levels of bipartisan support for population growth and high levels of immigration. This enthusiasm for population growth was to continue until after 1968 when concern over the possible implications of population growth began to be seen. In the 1970s a new mood of concern about population growth emerged, concurrent with rising environmental concerns.In another paper in March of this year it was argued that, as fertility and mortality rates fall, populations age. In Australia, as in other advanced industrialised countries, fertility and mortality rates have been falling for more than a century—that is, we have already experienced a century of ageing. For example, in Australia in 1870, 42 per cent of the population was aged less than 15 years and two per cent was aged 65 and over. In 1998, 21 per cent of the population was aged less than 15 years and 12 per cent was aged 65 and over. This ageing is not a new phe nomenon. We have been dealing with it for more than a century. But it is going to have implications, and it is interesting that ageing was not mentioned in the 1975 Report of the National Population Inquiry—the Borrie report. Indeed, the ageing of the population received only passing mention in this the most comprehensive report on Australia's population ever undertaken—and no mention at all in the concluding chapters relating to policy.Just as Australia is becoming one of the most culturally diverse nations on earth, it is inevitable that Australia will become a more aged population. We are already seeing the result of this as people are often retiring from work earlier and rightly demanding increased services in the community. With declining fatalities, this means that a smaller number of people in the work force will be supporting an increased population. As Australia's population ages, people will live longer and—some have argued—will be on average sicker in old age. This will be expensive, hence the debate about health policies and, indeed, superannuation. I quote from Nicole Spinnick's paper again:. . . given that population is such a pervasive factor in determining Australia's future, a population policy needs to incorporate many different factors. However, critical to the impact of a population is its size. A population policy needs at least a general aim in terms of planned population levels.Population is fundamental to the future of Australia, and a rational consideration of the issue is desirable. It is interesting that the paper referred to, the long-term strategies report, did not generate the debate it should have. (Time expired)UNKNOWNMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.617315:47:006173Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—I move:That this House acknowledges the strong and vital contribution made to the values which underpin Australian society by Irish immigrants and their descendants. We are not an Irish country but, with our own style, we have borrowed very heavily from the Irish. In fact, the impact that the Irish have had on this country is almost immeasurable. There is little, if anything, in our way of life which is untouched by Irish character or culture. In Professor Patrick O'Farrell's book The Irish in Australia , he talks of the assumed qualities of Australia's national character drawing heavily on the Irish—qualities he describes as `independence, lawlessness; stereotypes that were easy-going, anti-hierarchy and authority, generous fun-loving, boozy, and as game as Ned Kelly'. The old Irish saying that when God made time he made plenty of it is as well at home in Australia as it is in the Emerald Isle.In the days of convicts and transportation, the very reason for settlement was an expansion of imprisonment in Australia, with a large number of prisoners coming to this country from Ireland. From the English point of view, it was a continuation of their suppression of political rebellion, Catholicism and Irish culture. I quote—again from Professor O'Farrell's book—the interesting observations of the Reverend Samuel Marsden in 1807, who reasoned:The number of catholic convicts is very great in the settlement; and these in general composed of the lowest class of the Irish nation, who are the most wild, ignorant and savage race . . . men that have been familiar with robberies, murders and every horrid crime from their infancy . . . KV5NEVILLEMr Neville—Shame!CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—This has amazing colour. Freedom from imprisonment meant that the Irish could make their own living in circumstances much more lax than they had faced in Ireland. Once free, they could create in Australia a society that they wanted and achieve what they had wanted back in Ireland. Later, somewhat more voluntary migration of the Irish to Australia occurred due to oppression, poverty and, of course, the potato famine. My own family came here in 1844—as a result of the potato famine of the 1830s and 1840s—when William and Elizabeth Hardgrave arrived here with their seven sons.For these immigrants and many others, Australia offered a wonderful opportunity to create what they had been denied in Ireland. They created a land built on freedom of choice, of religion, of culture and of cultural expression, where free speech, politics and choice were treasured and essential. In Australia, they were free of the constraints which told them forcibly it was bad to be Irish. Australia offered them a chance to break free and be themselves, and they offered Australia a lifestyle of their making. They were able to contribute to a land of freedom and a land of plenty, where ordinary people could achieve what they wanted. Professor O'Farrell puts it quite rightly:Australia was their chance to realise frustrated Irish ambitions.Continuing through the years, the Irish have had their input in Australia's education systems, religion, politics and traditions. There are so many who have come to this place—and so many who have been prime ministers of this country—who quite rightly claim Irish heritage. The Irish spirit has also translated into Australia terms. The `craic' has become the close `give the shirt off your back' mateship which has helped build this nation. Australians have embraced Irish culture throughout our history. Over a third of Australians claim Irish heritage. But, above all, the Australian identity has grown from the identity of the Irish who made Australia what she is today. Australians have grown into their own particular way of displaying and celebrating their Irishness. Take the Wild Colonial Boy : you could not get an Australian folk song more Australian, but it is really an Irish folk song in its inspiration. Irish culture has been integral in the parts of music, bush dances, square dances and folk songs which were translations of the ceilidhs of Ireland into an Australian atmosphere.It was against that background that, as the Chairman of the Parliamentary Friendship Group between Australia and Ireland, I was very honoured when the Governor-General, His Excellency Sir William Deane, approached me to write a letter on behalf of all members of the parliament to Her Excellency Mary McAleese, the President of Ireland. During his recent visit, he took this letter with him. The letter wished the people of Ireland well in their aspirations and reminded them that Australia had benefited greatly from the Irish and that from the Irish came our Australian ways of good humour and standing up for what is right. It also made the observations that we in Australia know the values of freedom, equality and a fair go for all and that so many of these values came to us from Ireland, through the Irish who settled here. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am sure you will join with other members of the Parliamentary Friendship Group between Australia and Ireland in wishing the people of Ireland an end to their troubles. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Is there a seconder for the motion?KV5NEVILLEMr Neville—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.15:52:006174Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—I rise to support this motion acknowledging the strong contribution made by Irish immigrants and their descendants to the values which underpin Australian society. Having been christened John Paul Murphy and having a grandfather who was born in Dublin in 1856, I speak with considerable pride on this motion.At least one-sixth of Australians today come from Irish ancestry. Irish migration to Australia has been almost continuous since 1791. Between 1830 and 1914, some 30,000 Irish immigrated to Australia. In 1981, Irish immigration dropped to one-ninth of all ethnic groups, given the increase in other nationalities.During Australia's colonial past, Protestantism dominated the political and cultural framework. Within this psyche came a distinct anti-Irish and anti-Catholic sentiment. Quite wrongly, a perception arose that Australia was being flooded with ignorant, uncivilised and degraded `Catholic paupers'. Visions of notorious Irish bushrangers like Ned Kelly dominated people's view of the Irish. However, the truth is that there was significant migration of all types of Irish of differing classes, religions, and economic and social backgrounds. In time, the Irish element in Australia assimilated easily.I bring these observations by way of juxtaposition for this House. In particular, I note the significant cultural role of the Irish, wittingly or unwittingly, in Australian society. It is difficult to estimate the profound and significant contributions of the Irish to education and religion. To this day, the Irish-influenced Catholic Church maintains its own education system, from primary to tertiary level.My earliest memories of Irish influence date from my primary school days growing up in Dunedoo, New South Wales, where I was born. The local Irish parish priest was Reverend Father Tom Curran, who ruled with a rod of iron and regularly preached hour-long fire-and-brimstone Sunday sermons, even in the searing summer heat. Father Curran was a highly educated man who was widely travelled and respected not only by local Catholics but by the Dunedoo community at large. He also liked a Scotch and could give Patrick O'Hagan a run for his money when singing Galway Bay, Danny Boy or I'll Take You Home Again, Kathleen. One of my fondest memories of Father Curran carrying out his priestly duties was the day he visited our class at St Joseph's Convent School, Dunedoo. On this particular day, Father Curran picked up Sister Augustine's `sizzling' cane and managed to break it into pieces. We all thought he should have been instantly canonised and sent straight to heaven.The Irish influence in Australian politics is also of note. Approximately 40 per cent of members of my party, the Australian Labor Party, are of Irish descent. The initial reason for the strong affinity of the Irish for the Australian Labor Party was the perceived anti-establishment tendency. This attraction was in turn a function of the different social, ethnic and economic backgrounds of those of Protestant English and Catholic Irish backgrounds. Over time, the Irish have more fully assimilated and influenced Australian culture. I believe the greatest contribution of the Irish is their contribution to the sociodynamics of Australian culture, in particular the values for which Australia is famous as a destination for people of all nationalities, religions and creeds. Many of us take for granted the values which we call Australian. For me, the Australian values we hold most dear are the sense of fairness or giving each other a `fair go'. Mateship is also a value for which Australians are world renowned. These values came at a price, from the cultural legacy we owe to the Irish. I will now speak of some of those values.The first is pluralism. As the historian Patrick O'Farrell points out, it was the determination of the Irish Catholics in Australia not to be put down by the Protestant ascendance in 1915-21 which tipped the balance in Australian society away from exclusivity and homogeneity to a pluralist society. From this we have the tolerant racial and religious values we enjoy today. The second value is tolerance. Racial tolerance has been encouraged by Australian Catholics since early days. We owe our cultural legacy of this view to the religious-cultural dimension of the Irish in Australia. These values have made Australia a respected member of the world community. Tolerance is a value which I hold dear and will protect vigorously.The third is nationalism. The Irish in Australia saw Australia as their motherland, following the loss of interest in Ireland after the outbreak of civil war in Ireland in 1921. The fourth is the honouring of women in society. The Irish in Australia have played a dominant part in recognising the significant role of women in Australian history. Women such as Mary MacKillop, Anne Summers, Susan Ryan, composer Moya Henderson and Germaine Greer immediately come to mind. Even the Catholic patron saint of Australia is Mary Help of Christians.The fifth is social justice. As noted, the Irish legacy has seen the active participation of the Irish in secular affairs including the political life of Australia. The Catholic doctrine of `not living by faith alone' has seen active participation in the industrial life of this country as well as other social justice issues. All in all, we are indebted to the Irish for their contribution to making Australia the tolerant, pluralist, democratic society in which we live today. (Time expired)15:57:006175Lieberman, Lou, MPMr LIEBERMANXU5IndiLP10—I am very happy to join with other honourable members in this debate acknowledging the strong and vital contribution made to the values which underpin Australian society by Irish immigrants and their descendants. To see how significant the Irish contribution has been to Australia, we can look at the contemporary population mix in this country and note that one-sixth of Australians can trace their ancestry back to Irish origin—which is a remarkable amount in a country like Australia.The Irish, of course, have great characteristics. They are very good to be with, their hospitality is magnificent, and those Australian-born people of Irish descent have, I think, improved on the ability of their forefathers to offer warm hospitality and friendship. Just recently I was able to attend a function in my electorate where we were entertained by Irish music and Irish dancing. I must say that there was not one person at that function who did not enjoy the wonderful atmosphere that was generated by the culture and the music of the Irish singers. I did notice that they had advanced their style from what must have been the original Irish style of singing to a bit of rock-and-roll/Irish. That is an interesting mix, and only the Irish could do that.In my own electorate, many people are proudly of Irish descent, and we also have some very colourful people who claim to be direct descendants of Ned Kelly, the bushranger. The small township of Glenrowan in my electorate, which is near Wangaratta, is the site where Ned Kelly made his famous—or infamous—last stand.Just two or three weeks ago I had the pleasure of visiting a group of young unemployed citizens of north-east Victoria who were working in a Work for the Dole project. Their project was to restore some of the old buildings around the old railway station at Glenrowan where some of the famous last stand took place. I would commend to members and their families and friends that, on their way to and from Melbourne, they divert from the Hume Highway into Glenrowan and have a look at the magnificent exhibitions that are there to entertain tourists and to show them some of that history of Australia. Of course, most Irish citizens and pioneers who came to this country did not engage in law lessness, as Ned Kelly did, but it is true that it is part of Australian history and just another colourful example of some of those processes.The Irish people are very passionate, very friendly and have a wonderful sense of humour. They also have a sense of democracy. It has been a matter of grave concern for all Australians and people in the world to watch what has been happening with the terrorism of the IRA in Ireland, and we can only hope and pray that those problems will be permanently removed from Ireland, from its society and from its democratic government urgently. Unfortunately, I understand that in only the last few days there has been another problem with violence and brutality. I think that is one of the greatest challenges, and I know that Australian born people of Irish descent would share with me the wish that those things be dealt with once and for all and resolved so that the Irish nation, which is making huge progress economically, can achieve its full potential, which I believe has been held back because of the violence, insurrection and brutality existing for so many years in part of Ireland.But that does not deter us in the spirit of this motion, because we know that many aspects of Australian society are enriched because many Irish people have made Australia their home. We know that some of their forebears did not choose to come here. They were forced to come here as convicts and lived in dreadful circumstances. Only shock and horror can describe the injustices that they suffered back home and their experiences in the early settlement of Australia. But their toughness, their strong moral fibre, their determination and their strong sense of family overcame those problems and they became great citizens of this country. (Time expired)16:02:006176Burke, Anna, MPMs BURKE83SChisholmALP00—I rise in support of the private members motion before the House today. However, before I begin I would like to point out that when I approached most people about speaking on this motion they were taken aback a bit and asked me whether we did not have better things to do with our time. Nevertheless, I am pleased today to add my weight to this motion.Most of the history books and stats tell us that it is impossible to be precise about the extent and character of the Irish element in Australian history. Beyond the obvious, it was considerable and pervasive. Up to a third and no less than a sixth of Australians have Irish heritage. The Irish have made significant contributions, as all the members have stated today, particularly in political life—most notably from this side of the House—and in religion, education, business, commerce, sport, music, song and drama.Like many in this place, I am proud to claim Irish heritage. An article by Gerard Henderson, who seems to write a lot about the Irish, states:It is not so long ago that many Australians with an Irish background tended to keep their heads down. Before the immigration inflows after World War II, the Irish were the only significant ethnic minority.A strange thing to think about. The article went on:In those days, the term Irish was inevitably equated with Catholic. Nowadays, it is somewhat more fashionable to claim some Irish origins.I am also one of those people proud to claim Irish origins. I am also very proud to recognise my Swiss-Italian roots, which were recently celebrated at the 7th Hepburn Springs Festa. The thing about Catholics is that they tend to marry one another, and you will actually find a lot of Italian-Irish unions. Numerous great-grandparents and one very special grandmother were born in Ireland. I generally categorise myself as a Melbourne Mick, born of stock which still sticks with its ties to the roots of the Irish potato famine. A Melbourne Mick is not just a Catholic but one born and raised in the ethos of all that is Irish.My grandmother, I think, typifies all that is Irish in Australia. She was born in Ballsbridge in Dublin, Mary Walsh. She went to work in England during World War I and there met my grandfather who was serving with the Australian Army in England after World War I in the postwar clean-up. They sailed to Australia. She was in only her early 20s and then spent the rest of her 93 years here. She had 10 children. They produced at least 36 grandchildren that I could add up before I came down today and I have no recollection of how many great-grandchildren she has up to now. She died at the age of 93, but she never lost that accent. She was always Irish, but Australia was the greatest place on earth to live. She would never have wanted to live anywhere else. In those 73 years in Australia she actually went home only twice: once in 1961 when there was an enormous cold spell, and she turned around and came home and said that Ireland was too damn cold and she was never going back there again as long as she lived.Like many migrants to this place, her life was not easy in this country. In the Second World War, my grandfather joined up, leaving her to run a small shop and look after her 10 children. She never complained, she never whinged and she never looked for sympathy or handouts in all those years. She knew everything that was happening around her. She was adamant about listening to the radio and keeping up. And there was always room for one more or 20 more. I can remember eating in rotations at my grandmother's place. She would cook a roast and it would go on and on forever. She would feed the men first, then the pregnant women, then the older boys and eventually she would get down to the women and children. After about three hours, you would finally get a plate of roast lamb and vegetables in front of you—lots of potatoes and lots of good, strong cups of tea.But she was always there, she was always giving, and I think that typifies the Irish-Australian spirit that we are here to commend today. She did not have a sentimental bone in her body, though, and she would never accept or give presents. Any presents that were given to her were always given away, particularly flowers—they were always straight down to the church. Flowers were not for home; they were for other people. I think that is another thing about the Irish: there is always someone less fortunate than themselves. She had a deep and undying faith in her religion, and she was very pleased to give one back to God—my uncle became a priest. She typified the Irish. She was none too fond of the Queen, and that has been passed down to all the generations after her. This stoic approach to life, coupled with this sense of social justice, paints for me the picture of Irish life in Australia.The other small thing that I would have liked to have spoken about was the Irish famine, particularly the 4,000 orphan girls who came to Australia during the years 1848 to 1850. In December 1998, a memorial was erected in Williamstown to commemorate this group. It was 150 years after the date of the first arrival in Hobsons Bay. It was in memory of one million people who had died in Ireland during the great hunger of 1845 to 1852. It read:In praise of the courage of tens of thousands of dispossessed Irish who sailed to Hobsons Bay to build a new life.They did build a new life. Author Thomas Keneally wrote about the British sponsoring the Irish orphans. The Irish have in many respects framed the character of Australia, and I commend to the House the motion before us today. (Time expired)16:07:006178Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—Between 16 per cent and 30 per cent of Australians lay some claim to being of Irish descent, depending on whose source you want to use. I have links on both my father's and my mother's sides. A cursory glance at the list of members and senators in this place reveals at first blush that at least 55, or around 25 per cent, have surnames which could be of Irish origin. If you took female lineage and some more obscure surnames into account, there would be many more.Many Australians seem to enjoy the genealogical pursuit of tracing their Irish ancestors. Some put that down to romanticism, but I suspect it has something to do with the overwhelming legacy of Irish values that permeate the Australian psyche. These values have flowed on in a homogeneous society and have spread outside genetic lines. Hence our nation holds Ireland as one of its parent countries. This is not the time for a history lesson, but it is well known that Irish convicts were transported here, first to New South Wales, in the period 1791 to 1820. Some were Irish state prisoners, others were convicts tried in Ireland and still others were of Irish extraction tried outside Ireland.Notable amongst these were the rebel remnants of the 1798 and 1803 Irish rebellions, transported to New South Wales during the period 1797-1806. As my colleague the member for Chisholm mentioned, a lot of women came out here in the 18th century, and they made a significant contribution to Australian life. The women were not convicts of that period, but the convicts who did come here on average were 19 years of age, so they gave most of their adult lives to this land.In my first speech in this place, I paid tribute to the Sisters of Mercy and to the Christian Brothers, who taught me in my early days and who cultivated my love of history, literature and debate. They had very strong links to Ireland. Perhaps the most enduring characteristic the Irish have given their Australian descendants is that of a sense of humour and a healthy disrespect for authoritarianism.I remember my great friend John Ahern—father of Michael Ahern, a former Premier of Queensland—telling the story of the funeral he went to at Esk. This is one of the greatest Irishisms that I have ever heard. It had been raining the day before the funeral, and the grave had half filled with water. When the cortege finally got to the cemetery, they lowered the coffin into the grave but it floated. They tried to weigh it down with dirt, but it kept popping up through the sludge. Eventually someone had the good presence of mind to take the grieving widow away, and another fellow went to his buckboard and came back with a brace and bit and put holes around the coffin. Eventually they buried this poor man at sea. They finally filled the grave in and, as they all stood there looking down on this terrible mess, someone looked to the local Irish sage for some words of wit and wisdom. The sage looked down and said, `If I live to the day I die, and I bloody well hope I don't, I will never be buried in Esk to be drowned every day of me life.'This great sense of humour is one of the contributions of the Irish. They have also made contributions to the church, to the legal profession, to the police, to medicine, to railways and substantially to agriculture. In every area where there has been a cutting edge contribution to be made, there has inevitably been found an Irish linkage. It is an interesting dichotomy that, despite the fact that the Irish had great troubles with England in their own country—and those of Irish heritage have always had a healthy interest in and concern for these issues, as the member for Chisholm pointed out—it has never impinged on their loyalty to Australia or, for that matter, to its part in the British Commonwealth. Some would find this an inconsistency or contradiction, but I see it as the hallmark of great tolerance and loyalty to an adopted land.It is interesting to note that the first Anglo-Saxon prelate of the Roman Catholic Church to be knighted since the Reformation was an Irish-Australian Catholic, Sir James Duhig. Irishmen and those of Irish heritage have emerged at crucial times in Australian history. Another strange contradiction was that of an Irishman, Redmond Barry, judging another Irishman, Ned Kelly. Peter Lalor was an Irish rebel who led our first uprising and went on to become Speaker of the Victorian parliament. (Time expired)16:12:006179Sercombe, Bob,MPMr SERCOMBEQK6MaribyrnongALP00—Australia is undoubtedly the most Irish country in the world other than Ireland itself. As other speakers have indicated, up to one-third of all Australians—and I would suggest it is possibly higher than that—claim at least some Irish ancestry. I might add that I include myself, along with other speakers. From the First Fleet, through the terrible events surrounding the great famine and up until today, Irish men and women have made a great contribution to this country.Of course a great many of them, particularly in earlier days, did not leave Ireland in circumstances that were terribly good, from any point of view. In the excellent book, The Great Shame, by Thomas Keneally, which was published at the end of last year, a number of incidents are told. One that particularly took my attention was a quote from a well-known 19th century Irishman, Thomas Francis Meagher. He said:One scene I witnessed in the morning of my boyhood . . . left upon my memory an impression that can never be effaced. That scene was the departure of an immigrant-ship from the quay of my native city of Waterford . . . On the deck of the ship were huddled hundreds of men, women and children.. . . . . . . . .Young as I was, I had heard enough of the cruelty that had, for years and years, been done to Ireland, to know that her people were leaving her not from choice but from compulsion; that it was not the sterility of the soil, or any other unfavourable dispensation of nature, but the malignant hostility of laws and practices.From early settlement, the Irish influence has been fundamental to understanding Australia. Another great Australian author, historian Russell Ward, in his book The Australian Legend , which is a history of the development of Australian national identity, had the following to say about the convict era:The chief gains of the convict era were ideas of one man being as good as another, of the mateship of the chain gang, of rejection of authoritarian values, of acceptance of democracy.The Irish were at the forefront here, retaining their own values in protest against the values of their masters. These deeply entrenched Australian values are reflected through many, if not most, of the great legends of Australian society, be it Eureka, Burke's inland expedition, the Kelly episodes, the conscription debates of the First World War or the development of the labour movement in Australia with the trade unions and the ALP.Australian nationalism is closely linked to the Irish tradition. Certainly Australian republicanism is inextricably linked to the Irish tradition. The Australian tradition of pluralism and tolerance draws heavily on the Irish. In colonial Australia and into this century, as other speakers have indicated, the Irish were the largest non-British part of then multicultural Australia. They recognised the importance of pluralism and tolerance and of cultural and social difference as a basis for their own role in Australia's development.The Irish influence has been absolutely fundamental to modern Australia's acceptance of social diversity and of the importance of social justice based on fairness and equity. All of this has been vital in shaping a democratic and pluralist Australia, which has so successfully been enhanced by further waves of immigration from all over the world, particularly in the postwar period. Without the Irish tradition and the Irish maintenance of the importance of tolerance, pluralism and a sense of justice, I do not believe that Australia would have been as successful as it has in its post-Second World War immigration programs.The Irish have been great contributors to Australian society's best features. I believe that openness, a very high degree of enjoyment of life's simple pleasures, the provision of hospitality and the acceptance of all in our society based on equality are values that Australia inherits from our Irish tradition.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Grievance Debate6180Question proposed:That grievances be noted.618016:17:006180Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellALP00—Last week in this chamber when speaking on the budget, I talked about international poverty and social injustice. I said that the matter has two dimensions. One is the international dimension and the other is the way in which poverty and social injustice are increasingly issues in our society.It is pretty sad that so much of our contemporary political debate is focused very narrowly on economic indicators and not sufficiently on more social and human questions, including those about poverty and social injustice. Indeed, the words `social justice', which were prominent in the policy debates of the late 1980s and the early 1990s, appear to have disappeared from the public debate. Certainly they do not engender much interest in the media nowadays.Much of public policy and public debate has shifted away from what might be called a broad focus on the human consequences of human policy decisions to a much more narrow focus on economic indicators. That is not to say that economics or economic indica tors are not important; it says that we need to focus more on some of these social dimensions. It is time that we reintroduced the concept of social justice, especially in Australia, into our public policy discussions.Several years ago, in my book Understanding social justice: an Australian perspective, I attempted to sum up the issues concerned with defining social justice and what was important in trying to develop a socially just society. I understand that some people now feel it has become totally unfashionable to talk about social justice. One reason is that they feel within the context of a globalised economy the international pressures on the Australian economy are such that the capacity of the government to deliver social justice and programs concerned with the eradication of poverty has been significantly reduced.While it is true that the role of the state in different societies has been reduced to a certain degree as a result of economic globalisation, I do not think we should use this as an excuse to run away from our responsibility as legislators and policy makers to protect the most disadvantaged and needy in our community. If we get to the point where we use economic globalisation as a reason for not putting into place policies designed to protect the weakest and poorest members of our community—those who are suffering the most—we lose our whole rationale as a civilisation and a society.It is in this context that I want to address a couple of questions about what has been happening in Australia. Unfortunately, in the last few years, especially during the coalition government, we have had an increase in poverty and social inequality in this country. This increasing poverty and social inequality is reflected in the fact that the richest 200 people in Australia have increased their wealth by 20 per cent, according to the BRW review of a couple of weeks ago. However, those in the bottom ranks have actually reduced their incomes and, in particular, their access to important services such as education and health. I refer especially to certain areas of health not covered by Medicare, such as dental care. They have also reduced their access to welfare in emergencies.In the early 1980s in my own electorate of Calwell, the situation was one of significant poverty and inequality. As a result of programs put into place between 1983 and 1996, especially up to the early 1990s, we had a significant improvement in this situation. For example, school retention rates for children in the area of Broadmeadows increased dramatically, especially in the first nine years or so of the Labor government. We had a very positive situation in which, for example, we went from about 30 per cent of children who began high school finishing high school to something like 80 per cent—in fact, higher than 80 per cent—by the early 1990s. I regret to say that now the situation is going backwards. We now have a bigger drop-out rate in high schools from the young people in my electorate, especially that part of my electorate. And that is not unique to my electorate but is the case in many electorates where there are significantly economically disadvantaged people living and trying to make a life for themselves.That means the welfare agencies in our area are coming under increasing pressure. For example, the Uniting Church in my area, which provides food for the most disadvantaged people, people who in distressed situations come and seek assistance when finding themselves in emergency circumstances, is now unable to cope with the demand.Homelessness is also a very big issue. With the reduction in investment in public sector housing by both state and federal governments, we have a situation in Australia where the queues of poor people applying for housing have increased dramatically. That a society as wealthy as Australia should have so many homeless people—thousand and thousands of homeless people—in the queues, with only the most dramatic cases being able to gain access to Housing Commission accommodation,This is very serious. It is a matter that needs to be addressed. It is not a question that needs to be avoided. It is fair enough for the Treasurer to talk in glowing terms about a growing economy. But who is the economy growing for? Which sector is growing? What is happening to the homeless in our communi ty, to the poorer section in our community, to the long-term unemployed in our community?Every day we have the Minister for Employment Services telling us how wonderful some of his programs are. I can tell you that in my electorate people cannot even get on to those programs because of the cuts that have been made to the provision of services in this area of training; even in the area of Work for the Dole, people cannot even get on to the programs. There has been a reduction in Centrelink in my electorate. We have had several managers leave because of the enormous pressure being generated by so many people being in trouble in my electorate in that area of Melbourne—indeed, I believe this is also the case in similar areas in Sydney and other parts of Australia where we have real levels of poverty.As I said at the beginning, the responsibility to provide for the most disadvantaged in our community should rest with the government. The fundamental principles of social justice as outlined by philosophers such as John Rawls and others still stand. Notwithstanding the fact of globalisation, we in this community are still able to use resources to help that sector of the community. We have a responsibility as a society for that poor sector. We have a responsibility for these people. We should stop passing the buck between the state and federal governments and we should stop saying, `Well, in general the economy is growing; therefore, people in distressed situations don't need our help.' Those people—the long-term unemployed, the homeless, the unemployed youth and many others who are in distressed situations—do need our help. (Time expired)618116:27:006181Thompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON84CBlairLP10—Another area in which poverty is a problem is rural Australia. We need to do an awful lot to improve the fate of people in rural areas, and rural industries really do need some very close attention from governments. I rise today to discuss the fate and future of the University of Queensland, Gatton campus. This is a facility best known to members, and to Australians, in general as the Queensland Agricultural College. Traditionally, it has been known by that title for 102 years. The Queensland Agricultural College, as it was known, was amalgamated with the University of Queensland in 1990. In 1991 the Bulletin magazine ranked the Gatton campus of the University of Queensland, as it had become, as `the top tertiary institution for agricultural education in eastern Australia'. That is quite an achievement.In 1997 the university's Faculty of Natural Resources, Agriculture and Veterinary Sciences resolved to move all its activities to the Gatton campus. Some of its existing activities are spread all over the place, and I will mention those a little later. The idea was to establish the kind of world-class facilities that were obviously conjured up in people's minds when the idea of amalgamation with the University of Queensland was first mooted. Those world-class facilities, as outlined in 1997, should be worth something in the region of $22 million. It was only decided to proceed down that path after undertaking a total of seven reviews of the Faculty of Natural Resources, Agriculture and Veterinary Sciences.Just to run through some of the dimensions of that faculty, it consists of three schools with a staff of 410 and 2,346 full- and part-time students. Teaching and research programs are conducted presently at St Lucia and Gatton with field stations at Pinjarra Hills, an outer suburb of Brisbane, Redland Bay, another area very close to the centre of Brisbane, and Mt Cotton. In addition, there are veterinary clinics at four locations and St Lucia. Research is carried out at Longpocket and at CSIRO facilities at Cannon Hill and Toowoomba.To meet the plan to amalgamate all these disparate interests on one site at Gatton, $5 million a year was to have been spent at Gatton from 1991 onwards. Unfortunately, though, in that time the business school at the University of Queensland Gatton campus was transferred out. Instead of the growth that was promised, nothing has been transferred in to replace it. Over that time—that is, 1998-99—a total of 800 students were lost, 20 teaching and support staff were lost and a further transfer of lower OP courses to the TAFE system is mooted, reducing the total number of students to 2,150 next year. That will be down from 3,346 in 1996.The college is a very important facility locally. It provides 1,900 jobs equivalents and generates a turnover of $22 million. It is the biggest single industry in the Lockyer Valley. The Vice-Chancellor of the University of Queensland, Professor Hay, has continually maintained since the college was restructured in 1996 that the veterinary science facility would be located in Gatton to offset the loss of those students which I spoke about earlier.There are three shires that are principally affected by the concerns over Gatton College—that is, the Laidley, Esk and Gatton shires. They are naturally working together to highlight the promises that have been made by the university in the time since it took control of the Gatton campus. They have written letters to the governing body of the university's Gatton campus, which included this statement:It is crystal clear to us that, without a serious build up of numbers, the Gatton campus will reach critically low numbers and its closure is inevitable.That is obviously a high level of concern. That concern is certainly shared by the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government in the coalition federal government. He has written to the Vice-Chancellor summing it up very well. He said:. . . to allow Gatton to wither on the vine will bring the University of Queensland into disrepute in regional Queensland and beyond. Such a reversal would be in the face of an emerging bi-partisan commitment in Australia to regional development. It would be inconsistent with our Government's commitment to rural and regional Australia.In that same letter he also reminded the Vice-Chancellor that securing a future for regionally based universities was an intent of the unified national system of higher education. I think that remains a very important goal that we need to keep in mind.I believe that the state and federal governments should take a greater interest in the issue and in the future of this higher learning institution which primarily deals with agriculture and the important resourcing of our growing rural industries. I say `growing' in an optimistic sense because, for some time now, far too many of those industries have been reliant on government assistance just to keep things ticking over until drought breaks and they can get back on their feet and that sort of thing. I believe that the state government should be paying particular attention because that is who owns the assets.When the former coalition state government was in power, they proposed the establishment of an animal health institute located under one roof at the Gatton campus. That was the announcement made by Minister Trevor Perrett. He suggested that we get the resources of the Department of Primary Industries, TAFE, Gatton and also the CSIRO under one roof at Gatton. Now that we have a new state government, that has apparently fallen through. They seem to have backed away. Instead, they are now talking about what they call a multi-locational campus at Gatton, St Lucia and Toowoomba. They are referring to the CSIRO as having possibly only part-time involvement. I do not know what that means, but it sounds very wishy-washy. If we want to have a multi-locational campus, I think we have probably got it already, because the DPI, St Lucia and all these places are very far apart. They are certainly multi-locational as they are.All of this brings back to my mind the initial intention, which was to establish this wonderful world-class facility. We have to get that back on the agenda. From reports I have had back, I believe that the Vice-Chancellor, Professor Hay, is keen on that. We must continue to support him in that endeavour and get the message out to the University of Queensland Senate. Why is this important? It is important not just because of the negative impact that all of this has on the whole region, which I obviously represent, but also because of the impact on rural industries in Australia and because of the fact that those industries are facing an incredible revolution as the impact of biotechnology, in particular, begins to be felt.I quote now from a paper called Biotechnology in Australia by Dr Peter French under the auspices of the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies. The paper states:It is clear from this brief overview that many of Australia's competitor countries are positioning their biological industries to take advantage of the biotechnology revolution. There is clearly not the same level of activity taking place in Australia currently. This should be cause for some serious concern and subsequent remedial action by government.Biotechnology is about to have a big impact on Australia. I have heard people say that it is going to have a bigger impact than did the silicon chip. In particular, it will impact on agricultural industries. I now refer to another article which quoted Trevor Flugge from the Australian Wheat Board. Referring to investing in biotechnology and in biotechnological research, he said:If we don't do that, in the long term—five, 10, 15 years—we will be at the mercy of multinationals as to what technology is available and, secondly, as to what you pay for it.That is obviously a concern. The University of Queensland has established its own Institute for Molecular Biology. This project has attracted $200 million in a very short space of time, but I think it is important to bear in mind that while we set out for the cure for cancer we must also look at the issues in relation to yield, in relation to the benefits that can come from genetic engineering and from biotechnology in the development of better crops, in the development of better ways to carry out farming and in the development of better food for people to consume. That I think is a very important issue, something that the Gatton college, under the University of Queensland, could certainly be a leading institute in following and something we should all be looking to invest a great deal of time and effort in. (Time expired)618316:37:006183Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—As we all know, this is the International Year of Older Persons, a time when we should be celebrating the contribution that older people have made to our country, a time when we should be looking at what their needs are and a time when we recognise their role in our society. To date, the major initiative of the Howard government for older Australians is to introduce a new tax, a tax that will attack the standard of living of older Australians and impact on every aspect of their lives.The Australian Bureau of Statistics household expenditure data has shown that 75 per cent of pensioners' total weekly budget will be affected by the GST. It will be hit by the Howard-Costello-Democrat GST. I really do not think that is the sort of thing we should be doing in this the Year of Older Persons. St Vincent de Paul declared last Friday that the modified GST, the Howard-Costello-Democrat GST, was `unfair' and `un-Australian' and would hit those older people in our community—the people we should be celebrating, and the people whose contributions we should be recognising.The compensation offered in the GST package is totally inadequate. Australian seniors will have to pay a GST on transport costs. Australian seniors will have to pay a GST on their electricity and on their telephone. The food debacle that the Costello-Howard GST is going to deliver to Australian seniors will only discriminate against them. They will not be able to buy a book without having a GST placed on it. This government is waging a war on older Australians. That is this government's contribution to older Australians—to wage a war on them.After question time today, I raised the issue that the Minister for Aged Care had not answered a question I placed on the Notice Paper on 7 December last year. This really shows the commitment of that minister to the seniors in Australia and in particular in my electorate. One part of that question asked:Is it a fact that proportionally the aged population of the electoral division of Shortland is among the highest in Australia but that its per capita nursing home/hostel bed rate is half the national average; if so, why?The minister has not seen fit to answer my question to date. I certainly hope she takes time out of her `busy day' to answer that question, to be accountable to the seniors who live in the electorate of Shortland and to the seniors who live within Australia, because throughout the country the nursing home/ hostel rate is inadequate.I am not satisfied with the GST being the only legacy that this Year of Older Persons will deliver to the seniors in Shortland. It is because of that that I decided I would make sure that the voice of the seniors in Shortland was heard. Michael Whiteside, a social work student at Newcastle University, has undertaken a project in Shortland. He has been working out of my office. He has had a placement in my electorate office. I would like to put on record my thanks to Michael for the fine work he has done. Michael is looking at the needs and concerns of the seniors who live in the Shortland electorate. I believe seniors have played such an important role in our society that we need to work out a long-term strategy to meet their needs.At the conclusion of this project, which Michael is so ably handling, we will develop a three to five-year plan aimed at improving the quality of life and making aspects of life more accessible to the senior people in the Shortland electorate. As part of this project Michael set up a steering committee. Once again, he has shown a lot of initiative in getting out into the community, listening to people and selecting the right people to be able to serve and guide the services for older people in the Shortland electorate. The steering committee consists of a representative from Home and Community Care; a former aged care assessment team worker, who is presently working with the community dementia unit; a representative from the Hunter Network, a central body for the various carer support groups in the area; a representative from Lake Macquarie City Council; a third-year social work student, who is Michael; and three concerned constituents from the Shortland electorate. We have also had input from the Wyong Shire Council.The chair of this committee is a woman, Laraine Dunn, who has had a long association with the fitness of the older community. She was instrumental in the Heart Moves program, which is a program designed at promoting fitness for seniors. Michael went along to one of the aerobics programs that Laraine runs. When he returned to the office he was very red in the face and he showed that the programs that these older Australians undertake and the fitness of these older Australians is at quite a high level.The purpose of this committee is to set goals and develop strategies to address the needs of seniors that Michael has identified in his project. Some of the information that we have received to date is that transport is a major issue within the electorate, particularly in the southern part where transport is run by a private bus company. This only goes to demonstrate the effect that the private sector running a monopoly service has on the senior population. If the legislation for the full sale of Telstra goes through, this will also disadvantage older people. They will have to pay more for that vital telephone service as it is imperative that older Australians have access to telephones.Along with the transport services in the southern part of the Shortland electorate, which is located on the Central Coast of New South Wales, poor timetabling and the vastness of the area also contribute to the problems of transport. There are also issues both within Wyong Shire Council and Lake Macquarie City Council that the local government needs to address, including the footpaths, guttering and other issues. It is a whole of government approach, and I think all areas of government need to look at the needs of our seniors.The community transport scheme offers an alternative to older Australians. It operates under the HACC program—a program which has been slashed by this government and which has been under pressure because there is a high demand for the service, the service is not growing and the service providers have had to prioritise their clients. That means that the seniors within Shortland are being denied access to the transport that they need. Those people living in the isolated areas are the ones who are most at risk. I am sure that many members on the other side of this House would like to see an extension of this scheme rather than a contraction. One of the outstanding groups within the community I represent is the Swansea Neighbour Aid Incorporated transport group which provides a vital shopping and transport service to the people of the area. The lack of resources and coordination of services within the area is a major problem, and it appears that the vast amount of money that this government is saving by pushing the policy of keeping seniors in their homes is not being put into services. It is imperative that, if people are to stay out of nursing homes and hostels, the services are there for them; it should not just be a cost cutting exercise. There is a critical shortage of hostel and nursing home beds within the Shortland electorate and this forces people into the public hospital system. This in itself creates a problem for the hospital system and for other people in the community who seek to gain admission to those hospitals.I would like to conclude by condemning the Howard government for its betrayal of the older people in our community. There are many older people who are very fit and active and still making enormous contributions to our community. Many of the voluntary organisations in our community would not be able to function without the input from older Australians. I would like to thank all those people in the Shortland electorate who have given many hours of their service freely. I make a commitment to them that, by the end of the Year of Older Persons, we will deliver the services they need and listen to their voices. (Time expired)618516:47:006185Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLP10—There are some in the opposition—and unfortunately we have just heard one; and it is purely coincidental that I should follow her and wish to speak on a number of the same issues—and there are certainly some in the wider community who like to put economic issues and policies in one box and then drum up arguments that social justice and social equity issues belong in another box. In truth, fairness, equity and social justice rely on sound economic policy and management. Our tax system must be adequate to meet Australia's social needs. It must not leave debt from our generation to our children's generation and it must provide for an ageing population. Labor and, I stress, some spokes persons in the charitable sector are unwilling to face up to these realities.It has taken the election of a Liberal government at the national level and also in my home state of South Australia to demonstrate how families, pensioners and the less well-off benefit when government debt is reduced and balance is restored to the nation's finances. As I have said in this place before, South Australia has suffered from Labor's double whammy. Prior to the 1996 federal election, the former government ran up Commonwealth debt by almost $80 billion in its last five years of office. The consequences of this fiscal mismanagement are manifest and far-reaching. Since 1996 the coalition has repaid more than a quarter of that debt and has set aside a further $9 billion just to meet the cost of the government's interest bill. That $9 billion could have been injected into our schools, public hospitals and services for the frail and the aged. Labor's legacy in South Australia has been even worse; it has been debilitating. Before it lost office in 1993, the former state government racked up more than $8 billion in debt. Given the population of South Australia, that has been a tragedy.The Howard-Costello team has worked hard over the past three years to meet its goal of no Commonwealth debt. But this is not debt reduction for the sake of debt reduction. If Australian families are to continue to benefit from the low home interest rates, we must persevere with sound economic management. Similarly, if small business is to be encouraged to borrow, to invest and to create employment opportunities, it is vital that the government continues with this sound economic management. It is high time that the opposition and those representing the charitable organisations started to accurately represent the facts about the positive impact that this debt reduction strategy and the proposed new tax package will have on families, pensioners and those with special needs.In her dissenting report to the committee looking into the new tax system, my colleague Senator Sue Knowles made clear her concerns that many of the witnesses appearing before the Senate committee had founded their submissions on information that was factually flawed. I can understand my colleague's frustration. During the campaign, I met with a representative from one charitable organisation. He told me at the time that no other candidate had had the time to meet with him but asked me to believe his version of the government's tax package while confessing that he actually had not examined the policy at all. He also argued that as a member of the government I would have no understanding of poverty. Sadly, he had no appreciation of the understanding I have of those in my electorate or for any personal experience I might have had during my working life prior to entering parliament.On a more recent occasion, I met with representatives of several charitable organisations which have in the past thanked me for my assistance in seeking financial support and for my promotion of them in my community newsletter. Most unfortunately, these individuals commenced by saying that they had come to see me because of the size of my margin. I remind the House that, if the size of my margin was all that preoccupied my mind, I would never have attempted to enter parliament in the first place, nor would I have worked on some of the issues that I have over the past six years.My aim has always been to do my best for my electorate and to do what is right for our country to make it a better place. Incredibly, these representatives did not know that this government had already legislated to ensure that the elderly citizens, those they claim to represent, now receive a pension payment of 25 per cent of male average weekly earnings, nor were they aware that the four per cent increase in pensions, including the 1.5 per cent real increase announced in the tax package, will over the period of the forward estimates ensure that the single pension rate stay appreciably above the 25 per cent of male average weekly earnings.Despite the availability of the Vos report, the tax reform legislation and the accompanying explanatory material since December last year, it is my experience that some charitable sector representatives are not properly briefed about the effect of the GST on those they claim to represent. It is a matter of fact that no GST will be paid by registered charities on purchases or non-commercial services. Similarly, it is clear to anyone who cares to look at the legislation that the fringe benefits tax cap of $17,000 of grossed up taxable value per employee is fair and allows a charitable organisation to maintain an employment cost advantage while removing the scope for abuse.I would like to make it clear that I admire much of the work done by the charitable sector in our community, but some individuals do themselves no favours in the wider community by inaccurately addressing the facts and by sometimes sounding like spokespersons for the ALP. Where were these people when Labor was in government and running up debt, debt owned by every Australian? I was grateful that Archbishop Faulkner invited me to address the Council of Catholic Priests on the subject of tax reform during the election campaign. Archbishop Faulkner demonstrated his preference for a balanced and informed debate on that matter, and I congratulate him for it.I wish now to draw the House's attention to the recent vote in the South Australian parliament on the leasing of ETSA. As the editorial in yesterday's Sunday Mail noted, the parliament's decision to proceed with the lease means that:We now have a fresh start for South Australia—a new mindset is in place to send us forward with renewed confidence. . . . This state of ours has a new lease of life. As Premier John Olsen aptly put it, we will be able to go into the next century with financial freedom for our kids.My state colleagues are deserving of the most sincere congratulations for their efforts to lease ETSA and to reduce Labor's State Bank debt. But it would be remiss of me not to acknowledge the crucial role played by two Labor MLCs—one could describe them as old Labor rather than new Labor. They played a crucial part in this debate. Trevor Crothers joined Terry Cameron to vote with the government. Like Norm Foster, a former member of the Legislative Council, they have shown themselves to be above party politics when it comes to the interests of the people of South Australia. They put the jobs of young South Australians ahead of their own.When faced with the choice of voting with the ALP, which had failed to produce an economically viable alternative to the leasing of ETSA, or to support the government, Mr Crothers very sensibly chose the latter. When pressed as to why he had voted against his party, the member simply stated that his vote was forced by necessity.It was with a similar sense of purpose that former MLC Norm Foster opted to cross the floor and vote with the Liberal state government in the early 1980s to ensure that the Roxby Downs mine proceeded. As a result, South Australia is home to the nation's largest private sector infrastructure project. Were it not for the courage of that sole Labor member to break ranks and support what he knew to be a winner for South Australia, we would not have the benefit now of a $3.5 billion project or the 1,500-plus jobs that it has generated.There are some lessons through all of this. In the lead-up to the sale of Australia National, two union leaders at the time, John Crossing and Rex Phillips, who represented the Public Transport Union, were prepared to work with me and to work with the government. Rex Phillips later lost his job, such is the way Labor pays back those who cross them. One would have to ask the question: will any Labor senator cross the floor and stand up for their own state? Will any Labor senator do what is right for their state and their country when it comes to a tough decision? I think not, but I would hope that that may be the case.There are times when one needs to take a bipartisan approach in this job, as the foreign minister has done today in announcing that we will support the member for Holt as he seeks to take up the position at UNESCO. I will be campaigning for him as the government's representative to UNESCO. That is perhaps an example of how the people of this country would expect us to take a more bipartisan approach, particularly when economic management is so important to this country. (Time expired)618816:57:006188Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—I want to raise a couple of matters during the grievance debate this afternoon. All of my fellow Australians are horrified at the serious allegations that have been made that a Chinese woman, Mrs Zhu Quing Ping, was deported from Australia whilst 8½ months pregnant and returned to mainland China. This was first raised by Senator Harradine and Amnesty International. China's one-child policy meant that the baby was going to be aborted, and indeed was.We are all reassured, following the calls for an independent inquiry, that Minister Ruddock has appointed Tony Ayers to conduct such an inquiry. I want to assure you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and the House that I have the absolute highest regard for Tony Ayers, a public servant who retired as Secretary to the Department of Defence but had loyally and diligently served the governments of the day of whatever particular flavour.I think the debate now has deepened with what has been revealed at Senate estimates by Senator Quirke, and that is that there has been an allegation that not only was this woman forcibly deported but drugs were administered prior to her boarding the plane. Indeed, on 60 Minutes last night there was a further allegation that she had pleaded with Australian Immigration officials to have the pregnancy—an 8½ month pregnancy—induced. Inducing pregnancies is not such a radical procedure. It is frequently done. In fact, doctors are known to induce babies, particularly around Christmas time, to facilitate their own holidays. But this now, I think, raises a whole series of questions that need to be answered. I need to say to my fellow Australians that—notwithstanding these additional allegations of drugging, the additional allegations of pleading to have the baby induced—both Minister Ruddock and the Prime Minister have rejected the calls by Con Sciacca, the shadow minister, to have a judicial inquiry.I think we need to set the parameters of the difficulties Tony Ayers will face as the person conducting the inquiry and why there should be a judicial inquiry. Firstly, Mr Ayers has to, I think, in his report satisfy everyone that he is able to account for every Australian official who was present at the time of deportation. One wonders, given that this is an internal inquiry of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, how he will be able to ascertain whether other people, either from law enforcement or other departments or other statutory organisations, were present. But that is what he will have to do to be able to provide an accurate accounting of everyone who was present.Given the serious allegation of drugging, will Mr Ayers have the capacity—as a judicial inquiry would—to do two things: firstly, compel witnesses to answer truthfully about what they know and, more importantly, offer those who volunteer information some protection that they will be not victimised by their respective departments or organisations? The Australian Federal Police in transporting a prisoner, say, from Canberra to Perth do not have the legal authority to drug such a person, nor should they. Mr Ayers has to say under what authority the department, as it appears, routinely drugs people when they are deported.I have to say that, as a member of parliament, I am delighted to assist many people to come to Australia who are related to people in my electorate. But it is also true that some overstay their visas and are properly deported. I am horrified that they may be drugged. I think it is outrageous. The shadow Attorney-General is here in the House, and I am sure he would say that there is no legislation that would cover drugging people in these circumstances, as it would be an invasion on the person. It would be torturous. If this is a practice, what is the head of power that is being used, and what are the protocols being established? What are the guidelines? I think Mr Ayers has to lay that out in his inquiry.Can I ask whether Mr Ayers will be travelling to China to interview this woman to get her side of the story. Will the Attorney-General be providing legal aid for her not only to respond to any questions put to her by Mr Ayers but, more particularly, to exercise any legal rights she may have had to resist this? Does Australian law protect women who are 8½ months pregnant from returning to a country where we know that pregnancy will be aborted? I cannot tell you the law, but I would like to think that if the matter got to the High Court they would have a strong view that this was illegal, that this would not be allowed to happen in an Australian democracy.I noticed that the shadow minister today has renewed his call for a judicial inquiry. I think every member of parliament—it does not matter whether you are on the opposition side or on the government side—would feel, under these circumstances that have given Australia such a bad name, that I think have left every member of parliament with a bad taste in their mouth, that there should be a completely open and full judicial investigation that can compel witnesses to answer, compel departmental officers to tell the truth and that can provide protection for any witness.I think the worst possible outcome in this matter would be that Mr Ayers finds that he has insufficient power to properly prosecute his responsibility in this inquiry. As I have said, I have a personal regard for Tony Ayers. I think he is one of the best public servants that this country has produced. But we need to make sure that he has all the power and all the authority. I do not know what we have to do to appeal to the Prime Minister and to the minister that we want the fullest and the most vigorous open investigation of these matters.For my part, not only is this issue of the 8½ months pregnancy so distressing but so also is the idea that we are administering, even under proper medical supervision, drugs to people whom we are deporting. I think it is awful. If you are a New South Wales policeman, you would not be allowed to do that. If you were transporting someone from Broken Hill to Sydney, you would not be allowed to do that. The Australian Federal Police would not be allowed to do that. Surely we need to have a vigorous system of catching people who are illegal immigrants here, or who overstay their visit, and properly returning them to their country; but not at the risk of newborn children and, particularly, not by invading the person. Departmental officials refused to deny the allegations that Senator Quirke had drawn up in the estimates commit tee. They said, `No, we cannot answer that.' They did not say, `We do not drug people,' or `We would not drug a pregnant woman.' An aeroplane would not accept a passenger, except under the most extenuating circumstances, who is 8½ months pregnant—and yet here we have government officials putting this woman on an aeroplane. (Time expired)618917:07:006189Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRNOK6Eden-MonaroLP10—Today I want to raise a couple of issues in this grievance debate specifically relevant to my electorate. Firstly, I want to draw to the attention of this House a most despicable campaign by the Wilderness Society in the south-east part of my electorate. It is a campaign where they have written to schoolchildren telling them an absolute litany of lies about the forest industry. Their letter—and I have here today a copy of one written to Eden High School—makes no less than a dozen statements that are totally untrue. By using these false statements, the Wilderness Society attempts to scare and to instil fear into those people subjected to this sleazy campaign—that is, the schoolchildren. Many of these schoolchildren, I might add, have had to experience the job losses of their parents caused by the lopsided forest debate and the so-called restructuring of a sustainable industry. How dare the Wilderness Society tell these schoolchildren that:Daishowa . . . is poised for a massive expansion into the south coast forests of New South Wales.How dare they say the expansion:. . . would see hundreds of thousands of hectares of old growth forests, wilderness areas and endangered species' habitat, clearfelled and woodchipped.The public has been duped far too long by these sorts of lies and half-truths bandied about by so-called conservation groups. To talk of a massive expansion of woodchipping is an absolute joke and an outright lie. It is also an insult to say this to a community that has worn the brunt of job losses in the timber industry.Let us get the facts right. About five years ago, Harris Daishowa was processing about 640,000 tonnes of timber per annum. This was made up of pulp logs—that is, logs that could not be viably used in a sawmill—thinnings, the heads and butts of trees that went to the sawmill, and sawmill waste. For that operation, about 450 people in total were employed, including the logging contractors, transport operators and those at the chip mill. The proposal for next year will be a total of 390,000 tonnes of timber to be processed, down from 640,000 tonnes. So where is the massive expansion? In fact, it is a massive contraction and, as a result, the total work force required now is reduced to about 280, down from 450. Many of those people who no longer have a job in the timber industry as a result of this reduction are the fathers of those children the Wilderness Society have targeted in their campaign.Let me deal with the next statement about endangered species and clear-felling. How much longer are we to put up with such false statements by these organisations? I noticed, driving into Parliament House this morning, that the Wilderness Society was on AM making more similar untruths about another project—the Jabiluka project, with Alec Marr of the Wilderness Society constantly talking about Jabiluka being part of Kakadu National Park. It is not part of Kakadu National Park. I should know; I surveyed a good part of Kakadu National Park and the Jabiluka lease. It has always been quite separate. But they keep repeating these things until it becomes, in the minds of people, a truth; but it is not true at all.Organisations such as the Wilderness Society continually run fear campaigns about endangered species and forestry. But, to date, they have not been able to identify one single species that has been lost to forestry—not a single one. You do not have to take my word for that. None other than one of the founders of Greenpeace will certify that. Patrick Moore founded Greenpeace and he has studied the forest industry in great detail. He understands and advocates sustainable forestry in Australia's native forests. He has confirmed that no group has been able to identify even one species lost due to forestry. But, in the face of such facts, the Wilderness Society continues to peddle their lies and their fear campaign, claiming that 60 species are in danger in the south-east region. The only species in danger are the species called timber workers and truck drivers and, consequently, many other people living in our rural communities.This Wilderness Society campaign also continues the false claim of clear-felling. Such a forestry practice does not occur in the south-east forests. Forestry practices are in fact very strict and superbly controlled, with individual trees needing to be identified prior to logging. Seed trees, habitat trees and others are all retained as part of sustainable management. The Wilderness Society know all of this, but they continue their emotional but false attempts to paint a picture of a barren landscape.The next false statement they make, clearly intended to create further fear and loathing of the timber industry, is the claim that the Deua wilderness is under threat. How can wilderness be under threat? Wilderness is wilderness—logging does not take place in wilderness. In fact, under the RFA process, it is highly likely there will be additions to the Deua National Park and wilderness. But the Wilderness Society does not stop there. After insulting the intelligence of those who are the subject of their campaign with a long list of falsities, they then ask them for a donation. What a hide. Not content with having assisted in the destruction of so many jobs in the Eden area, their campaign now to residents and, in particular, more vulnerable schoolchildren is based at best on misinformation and at worst on downright lies—then they ask them for money. This is yet another example of a disgraceful antiforestry campaign based on falsities rather than facts, based on stunts rather than statistics and based on politics rather than science. The people of Eden, fortunately, are too smart for the Wilderness Society and will reject their campaign.I wish to touch on another matter today while speaking of Eden to update the House on events relating to the closure of the Heinz Greenseas cannery. I spoke about this a couple of weeks ago in the adjournment debate. Since then, a reference group set up in Eden has been identifying likely uses for the cannery site and has been pursuing existing businesses that could expand as well as new ventures.Last Wednesday, I travelled to Eden with Senator Nick Minchin, Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, and met with the reference group, as well as a variety of people involved in local industry and potential business venturers. Minister Minchin was certainly impressed with the attitudes of the local business people, given the difficulties they are about to encounter. He was brought up to date with the proposed armaments complex and the multipurpose wharf and quickly learnt how critical those developments will be for the long-term survival of Eden. He heard of potential expansion of an existing fish processing company, of the possibilities of value adding to fish products—for example, smoked tuna—of the enormous possibilities in aquaculture—particularly mussels—and of a variety of export possibilities, including timber products and spring water.I must say that I have been very pleased with the response by all ministers to my plea for assistance. Senator Minchin and Invest Australia, for which he is responsible, have been particularly helpful and will continue to work with the local reference group on identifying new investors for the area. Minister Tuckey has gone out of his way to identify assistance for Eden, and he will work closely with his ministerial colleagues in putting together a package of assistance. I am also aware that the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government, Senator Ian MacDonald, is taking an active interest. I look forward to his involvement as well. I have also had very positive responses from the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, John Anderson; the Minister for Sport and Tourism, Jackie Kelly—who incidentally was able to announce a $100,000 grant to the Aboriginal Keeping Place Tourism Project at Eden; and the Minister for Defence, John Moore, whose department is currently working on the proposed armaments complex and the multipurpose wharf.This has not been an easy time for the Eden community and, unfortunately, the toughest time is yet to come. While I acknowledge that the Heinz company is ensuring that all displaced workers will receive proper compensation and it is providing the services of consultants to help identify new projects for the region, I still lament that more notice was not given. Given the enthusiastic response that we are discovering exists within Eden's business community, I am confident that the jobs lost will ultimately be replaced. Unfortunately, it is next to impossible to do it in two short months. However, I will continue to do all I possibly can for the people and their families who will be directly affected. I will work with all ministers and their departments to expeditiously provide as much assistance as we can, directed towards those projects that the community itself sees as priorities for the region.(Time expired)619117:17:006191Burke, Anna, MPMs BURKE83SChisholmALP00—Tonight I would like to discuss some of the issues surrounding the taking, treatment and prevention of drug use in our community. It is an issue that all members are undoubtedly concerned about and one that touches every corner of our country. Often, words such as `epidemic', `crisis' and `plague' are used to describe the current availability of drugs and their disastrous side effects. Whilst I believe that, as members of the federal parliament, we should refrain from usage of such emotive terms, unfortunately the drug problem fits all these descriptions and more.What can be done? This is a question that has dominated the media in recent months and has been the subject of angst amongst health and community workers in the drug and alcohol field, police and ambulance officers, parents, schools and the general community for many years. No-one pretends that there are any easy answers to the unrelenting dilemmas that the drug problem invokes. There are two very stark trains of thought that exist in the contemporary debate. The first is the approach supported by the Prime Minister, known in its founding country of America as `zero tolerance'. The other is a more innovative approach which looks at alternative ways of tackling the spread of drugs, like heroin trials, safe injecting rooms, decriminalisation and early intervention.Most people accept that there are three main prongs to the attack waged on drugs: education, treatment for drug dependence and law enforcement. However, it is in the application of the three broad goals where divergent views emerge. I believe there is also a fourth pillar that is missing from this approach. I will come to it later. I would like to make a few comments on each of these and place them in the context of my electorate of Chisholm.Education about the dangers of drug usage is always referred to as being one of the key weapons against the spread of drugs. The figures about drug usage amongst our children certainly imply that drugs are widely available in our schools and children are experimenting with drugs at a younger and younger age. Results based on data collected in 1996 from close to 30,000 young people showed that cannabis was the most used illicit substance by students between the ages of 12 and 17. Some 55 per cent of 17-year-olds admitted to having tried it.As is stated in the ALP discussion paper on drugs, I believe education programs should include information on alcohol and tobacco as well as other illegal substances. Teachers and those working with our school community need to be trained in delivering education to students about the dangers of drugs, the benefits of a drug-free lifestyle and where to seek help if they become dependent. Programs that provide training of teachers about drug education, the production of resource matter and linkages with the broader community are to be encouraged. Some of these are already taking place.There also needs to be education of parents and the community in general. One of the biggest problems recovering drug users and their families encounter is the prejudice and lack of awareness amongst their neighbours, friends and work mates. Many people still think of drug users as being wayward young people living on the fringe of society rather than next door. My electorate covers some leafy suburbs such as Surrey Hills and Mount Waverley where many people prefer to accept that drugs do not touch their families—and therefore they prefer to stay ignorant—but this is not the case.However, I also believe this attitude is changing. Recently, I circulated a drug awareness kit and was amazed at the strong reaction I received from parents who were concerned that they simply did not have information at their fingertips about the early warning signs. They were also concerned about how they could support their children and where to go for assistance. Many local primary schools and secondary schools have trialled drug education programs. Syndal South Primary School recently launched a program under the Turning the Tide initiative. These initiatives deserve to be promoted so we can equip children for the challenges that face them.My only word of warning on school education programs is that we need to move away from the `just say no' message. I think it is fair to say that discouraging children from drugs in this manner only preaches to the converted. We need to reach out to those young people who are most likely to be tempted by drugs, by promoting a positive message that bolsters their self-esteem and encourages them to develop interests in a wide array of activities—which of course must be backed up by positive reinforcement by parents and carers.The second major prong in dealing with the drug crisis I will term `support for addicts and their families.' This includes rehabilitation, needle exchange and detox and is known more broadly as harm minimisation. My office is located in one of the most notorious drug trafficking centres in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne. We are fortunate to have excellent drug units such as ACCESS, which is based at Box Hill Hospital. They are struggling to meet the demands of addicts wanting to come clean, and there is a waiting list which can mean a wait of up to two weeks. On the one hand, ACCESS sees this as a positive sign that people are aware of their service and are seeking help, but the waiting lists often mean that many addicts end up giving in and continuing down the spiralling road of addiction. There is obviously a need for greater funding to be allocated to detox programs and methadone programs that provide some temporary help for addicts.One of the most encouraging signs I have seen under the umbrella of the Eastern Drug and Alcohol Service has been the development of in-home detoxification that suits many users. Waverley Emergency Adolescent Care has also campaigned to establish a youth-specific drug rehabilitation house in Clayton, which will run a 10-week rehabilitation service, family counselling and information services. Other bodies running initiatives which provide support for users and their families include the MonashLink Community Health Service, the Youth Adult Bureau in Nunawading, the Youth Substance Abuse Service and the new cooperative program run by Whitehorse Council, which is aimed at providing support to non-English speaking families—a much underresourced area.Other harm minimisation strategies which have proved controversial have been notions of heroin trials and safe injecting rooms. These issues were canvassed at the recent New South Wales drug summit and have been roundly condemned by the Prime Minister. I find myself in the unusual situation of agreeing with the Victorian Premier that we must be prepared to try anything to curb the scourge of drugs. Whilst I accept there is a range of pros and cons to both of these strategies, I think they are both worthy of consideration, perhaps through a controlled trial. The support that the Wayside Chapel attracted in setting up its so-called T-room is evidence that community attitudes are starting to shift. As representatives of the people, we need to be open to new ideas—which brings me to the third plank of the traditional drug armour: law enforcement.Certainly we must never forget that the despicable people who traffic in drugs also traffic in human misery. Whilst community opinion may have shifted in relation to harm minimisation, I believe there is still a resolve to bring to justice those responsible for profiting from drugs. The approach has generally been to try to limit the supply of drugs by cutting off supply at our borders or using police intelligence to perform drug seizures and crackdowns. However, no coun try—not even America with its zero tolerance policy—has been able to stem the flow of drugs.Drug seizures have the effect of only momentarily denting the flow, and cracking down in a particular area only shifts the pushers to a new one. I believe a police presence is important because it may reduce illegal activity in the targeted area and improve the feeling of safety for law-abiding residents. This has certainly been a problem for older residents in my electorate who are often fearful of walking the streets. This of course begs the question of decriminalisation, which is aimed at breaking the nexus between drug addiction and crime. Such an enormous issue requires more time than I have left today, but I believe it should also be explored. Finally, on law enforcement, I agree with my party, who support the idea of drug courts and other strategies that place the emphasis on rehabilitation rather than penalties.The one issue that I believe is always ignored when the drug issue is examined is the need to look at preventative programs in the context of the position of society as a whole. A cursory look at the demographics of people most likely to be vulnerable to drug addiction should not surprise anyone. They are people who have been victims of abuse as children, people who are unemployed and have few future employment prospects, and those suffering in poverty, social isolation and mental illnesses, such as depression.We need to look more broadly at the support we offer the people who fall through the safety net, for the abused child of today is often the potential substance abuser of the future. This is not to say that every person who becomes hooked on drugs has suffered some huge disadvantage, but I am amazed by the number of social workers and health experts who will tell you that if you give a young person a job or self-esteem they are far less likely to be drawn into the lure of a quick fix. As legislators and as a society, we have failed to provide opportunities and hope for so many people who have ended up being drug dependent. Until we move back towards a situation of full employment, where there is less emphasis on hedonism and rampant individualism, vulnerable people will continue to end up in drug statistics.So I implore both sides of parliament to keep working in a bipartisan fashion, wherever possible, to remedy the drug problem. I think the magnitude of the problem demands that we look not only at alternative measures of harm minimisation but also at the community we have built that has allowed the scourge of drugs to flourish. Until we look at the roots of this problem, we will be treating only the symptoms.619417:27:006194Katter, Bob, Jnr, MPMr KATTERHX4KennedyNP10—It seems to me that every time I have a speech to give in this House, I end up speaking about the same issue—but that is because it is a serious issue not only to myself and to the people who live in the areas that I represent but also to the nation of Australia.I am holding up—as I have once before in this House—a map of the two Australias. It is often said that we have two Australias. One Australia contains 82 per cent of Australia's land mass, 74 per cent of Australia's water and about 60 per cent of Australia's arable land but only three per cent of the nation's population. Almost all of that is in North Queensland, I might add.Australia's nearest neighbour has 100 million people who will go to bed tonight starving. The fact that we are sitting on a great treasure-trove of resources and not developing it is something that we will have to answer for, not only to ourselves and future generations of Australians but also to the greater world outside—which I doubt will continue to accept a situation in which 100 million people in one country will go on starving while, in the other country, this vast treasure-trove of resources remains completely untapped.I will quote the figures for the area that we are talking about. In 1961, the population figures were: Longreach, 5,000—now 3,800; Blackall, 3,200—now 1,800; Barcaldine, 2,300—now 1,700; Aramac-Muttaburra, 1,700—now 800; Cloncurry, 4,800—now 3,200; McKinlay, 2,100—now 1,100; Rich mond, 22,000—now 1,100; and Hughenden Shire, 3,900—now 2,200. The average loss of population from those centres was 38 per cent from central western Queensland and 42 per cent from the mid-west of North Queensland. In the same time, Brisbane's population rose 151 per cent.The last speaker spoke about drugs and unemployment causing the drug problem, but I will reel out the harsh statistics. The suicide rate in Australia in 1971—I might add, the last year of the John McEwen era—was 1,100. It is now 1,900. In 1971 unemployment was 1.7 per cent. In 1997 it was 8.7 per cent. In 1971 we had 1,200 prisoners in Queensland. In 1996—the latest figures that I have—there were 3,500 prisoners. In 1971 there were 2,428 bankruptcies and in 1997 there were 21,830. Preliminary figures indicate over 25,000 bankruptcies for this year.But let me turn from the general to the specific. Why do these figures exist? We must attribute the loss of the railways to national competition policies and the policies which we have come to know in this place as economic rationalism. The Goss government, in keeping with national competition policy, corporatised the railways and we lost over 27 jobs in Julia Creek. I will specifically refer to Julia Creek. There were three jobs lost from Telstra. Under competition tendering, they lost almost all of their road building and 23 jobs were lost. Two jobs were lost from the post office. Twenty-one jobs vanished from the Toorak Agricultural Research Station. The gun laws of Australia have cost us three jobs in the kangaroo shooting industry in Julia Creek. As a result of the loss of those 79 jobs, the clerk of the court was removed from Julia Creek, which took two jobs, the high school was closed, which took 12 jobs, and then the Catholic school was closed, which took another eight jobs. A total of 101 jobs were lost specifically as a result of those attitudes and policies which prevailed in the Labor Party days—some of which, I regret to say, are still being continued today.I had the honour to serve through those years when Queensland rose from a state of insignificance to one of the juggernauts of the Australian economy and I saw the things that were done there that produced those results. Once again I refer to John McEwen, who drove the beef roads into the Gulf country which opened up all of those areas to cattle. A lot of those stations were empty. I bought a property some 16 or 17 years ago. A couple of years before that there was a vacant area up there that no-one had bothered to take up. It was worth nothing until the beef roads were driven into these areas.The Toorak research station was established under initiatives of the McEwen-Menzies period. One of the biggest mango farms in Australia is in Georgetown, and it was established by Frank Katanzaro. Frank said that he would like to grow mangoes in Northern Australia but he could not find anywhere to go in far Northern Australia. I told him that Georgetown would be ideal, and he asked why no-one had gone there to date. I said that it was because we had no three-phase power and, because we had no bitumen roads, you would not be able to get the crop out during the wet season. He said, `Well, I'm not going there.' But I said, `No, both those things will be there because the current government—of which I am the Northern Development Minister—will be putting those two things into Georgetown.' We put them into Georgetown, and we now have a mango farm with 10,000 trees, which almost doubled the number of jobs in Georgetown.In Karumba we not only switched on electricity and put bitumen through but also put water through. Those items cost us around $60 million, or $70 million in terms of today's money, for a little tiny population of about 500 people. Karumba is now producing some $250 million—arguably, $300 million—worth of fish export product and it is also the centre of the live cattle trade—the second centre to Darwin—in Australia. It has been very much pivotal to the coming on of the live cattle industry in Australia. It has also provided the port for Century Zinc. Century may have gone ahead if it did not have a port, but it may also not have gone ahead if it did not have a port.On a larger scale, more spectacularly, was the port of Gladstone. I watched with, I must say, some considerable degree of horror when the state government built one of the biggest ports in the entire world, capable of taking 200,000-tonne vessels, and they built the cheapest electricity in the entire world. That came out of the Gladstone power station, which was the subject of a deal done with the Queensland government and the owners of Blackwater coalmine. The net result of that was that the year before Bjelke-Petersen became Premier of Queensland, we exported 1.2 million tonne of coal. By 1997 we were exporting 87 million tonne of coal—1.2 million tonne before Gladstone; 87 million tonne within two decades after the establishment of Gladstone.We have 1,200 jobs in goldmining in Charters Towers because the town was kept alive by the state government. Two major hospitals were put there which enabled the town to survive a period which it should not have survived. If that infrastructure had not been there, I very much doubt that any of those goldmines, all of which have been very marginal—four of them have closed and reopened twice now—would have existed at all.Finally, at the present moment—like yourself, Madam Deputy Speaker, in your own electorate with the Urana dam—we are desperately fighting for three dams in the Kennedy electorate: the dam at Ravenshoe, the dam north of Charters Towers and the dam at Richmond. I think it is a brutally blunt fact of life that all of those four dams, including Urana, will go or none of them will go. If they do not go, then I despair for the country that already has lost half of its population from 85 per cent of the surface area of this continent. If people are landing on our shores, they are landing on a vacant continent where nobody lives. In fact, the population of 84 per cent of this continent is almost the same today as it was when Captain Cook arrived in 1770.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Kelly)—Order! As the time for the grievance debate has expired, the debate is interrupted and I put the question:That grievances be noted.Question resolved in the affirmative.Miscellaneous619610000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Kelly)—I advise the House that the Deputy Speaker has fixed Tuesday, 8 June 1999 at 4.30 p.m. as the time for the next meeting of the Main Committee, unless an alternative day or hour is fixed.Bills6196r8076196Debate resumed from 3 June, on motion by Mr Costello:That the bill be now read a second time.17:38:006196Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—When I was speaking on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1999-2000 previously, I referred to the Merit and Equity Scholarship Scheme that the federal government is phasing out in this budget. I referred to the case of a 28-year-old mother of three who was unable to complete her HSC because of illness. The merit scholarship scheme has given this young lady a new lease of life and an opportunity to further her employment opportunities. But the door is now being closed on education opportunities for people like this young mother, even though the Treasury now boasts a $5.4 billion surplus. I ask the question: is this fair? I think not.Looking at education in general, the New South Wales Minister for Education and Training, John Aquilina, has demanded that the federal government restore the $500 million taken from New South Wales schools, TAFE colleges and universities in recent budgets. Enrolments in New South Wales government schools have grown by 4,400 since 1996, but the federal government has cut $14 million through the Enrolment Benchmark Adjustment policy. By the year 2001-02 this figure will rise to $40 million.If we look at the federal government's national scorecard on education, we find $101 million cut from government school funding between 1997-98 and 2001-02, representing a decline of 7.2 per cent in real terms; $50 million cut from vocational education and training, representing a reduction of 5.1 per cent in real terms, rising to $78 million cut by the year 2001-02, or an eight per cent reduction; $388 million, or 9.8 per cent, cut in real terms for university funding; $975 million, or more than 23 per cent in real terms, being cut from higher education between the years 1995-96 and 2001-02, thereby returning funding of universities to a pre1990-91 level.There have been 4,270 undergraduate places lost in New South Wales through the abolition of the Commonwealth Industry Placement Scheme. There has been a $168 million annual cost impact on the states with the introduction of the common youth allowance, which will see as many as 20,000 young people returning to school. There has been a $45 million cut by the year 2001-02 from targeted programs such as the National Asian Languages and Studies in Australian Schools program. There has been a $27 million cut from funding capital works for new school facilities, rising to $31 million by the year 2001-02. There has been a five per cent reduction in the number of students receiving Austudy. And the Prime Minister calls this an education budget!While the federal government has failed badly in the provision of funding for the state education system, it has received some praise from the private sector. The National Catholic Education Commission chairman, Dr Peter Tannock, said that increased subsidies for non-government schools would improve resource standards in these schools. The budget injected an extra $553 million over five years into the Catholic school system. Dr Tannock said that the funding will help to close the gap in the majority of Catholic schools that operate at resource standards which are 80 per cent of government school levels. Clearly there is a need for extra funding for both state education systems and the more needy sections of the private school system.Any discussion on education would not be complete without some comment on the government's decision to impose a full GST on books. To this end, I quote from an excellent article that appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald last Thursday, 3 June, by Anne Summers. It reads:At the same time, the Government has insisted on imposing a full GST on books. Most countries with GSTs either exempt books or tax them at a lower rate.We will be standing shoulder-to-shoulder with Bulgaria, Chile, Denmark, Israel, Lesotho, New Zealand, Singapore, South Africa, Sweden and Ukraine as the only nations which apply a full GST to booksThe evidence from Canada was that 7 per cent GST on books caused a 12 per cent slump in sales. If that happens here, our already precarious book industry is likely to contract further with an economic domino effect causing bookshop closures, author and salesperson unemployment and a further contraction in the nation's knowledge base.Place this alongside the Government's assault on universities, and it's starting to look a lot like a deeply anti-intellectual mob that's running things in Canberra.The overall effect of this budget and previous Howard-Costello budgets clearly indicate that the government not only is stuck in the time warp of the 1950s but is endeavouring to guide our thinking into a direction that would see us no longer caring a great deal about the elderly, the unemployed and older workers or about education for children of low paid sections of our community.This takes us back to the policies of the late 1800s, not the late 1990s. The way in which the government was determined to inflict the GST onto the workers and elderly of this country and then negotiate a further mess with the Democrats gives none of us any comfort for the future whatsoever while the treasury bench remains occupied by the coalition.There needs to be a return to fairness and equity for all Australians. There needs to be a vigorous push to ensure that the high-flyers and the wealthy pay the same proportion of their income in taxes as the ordinary workers of Australia are prepared to do. It is no joke to know that the wealthy are using trusts and other rule bending mechanisms to avoid paying the same percentage of income as the general PAYE taxpayers of Australia, who are unable to exercise the same tactics.It is clearly evident from all the public statements and actions of the government that fairness and equity have no place in their policy determinations. They have consistently attacked the poor, the elderly, our youth, parents in need of child-care facilities and education in general. One begins to wonder just what role the coalition sees for itself in government. It seems to believe in no government, the sale of all government owned facilities and the privatisation of everything that even looks like it would be a government service. Australians have had a long and proud history of caring for each other. I for one totally reject this cold, uncaring approach that it seems is being preached by the coalition government.17:45:006197Stone, Sharman, MPMrs STONEEM6MurrayLP10—It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak in support of Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1999-2000 , a bill related to the fourth budget delivered by the Howard government. This is a budget that honours the commitments made to the people of Australia prior to the last election. It is a budget that delivers ongoing prudent fiscal management. This government has also laid the foundations for the modernisation of Australia's 1930s era taxation system. The people of the Murray electorate that I proudly represent have welcomed our 1999-2000 budget with its focus on the wellbeing of rural and regional Australia, transport, health care, education, training and jobs and the environment.The Herald Sun editorial got it right on Tuesday, 12 May when it proclaimed this about the budget:. . . a testimonial to the rewards available to those prepared to make the tough decisions early. The budget's health is evidenced by a $5.4 billion surplus and growth rate of 3.5 per cent achieved through fiscal discipline despite the Asia crisis.This is a building fundamentals budget that will significantly enhance the quality of life of regional families by delivering long-awaited improvements in services and support.In Murray, the food bowl of Australia, this budget will help us to continue our region's proud tradition of resourcefulness, hard work, close community cooperation and the careful management of our fragile land and water resources. We do not mourn the passing of some mythical golden age of agriculture in Murray. We are building the future, capitalis ing on our soils, sunshine and water. We will build regional enterprise to create a quality of life that can compete for the hearts and minds of our brightest and best. One of our aims is to beat the long intergenerational internal migration difficulties. Our human resources are our most valuable assets and we look forward to the delivery of better higher education through the social bonus provided by the further sale of Telstra.Adequate roads are the life giving arteries of most inland regions and they are essential for regional development. Murray's roads support one of the country's biggest and busiest transport hubs. We not only grow food but also process it in the region. Our region's transports deliver hundreds of millions of dollars worth of produce to ports for export and food to retailers around the country.This budget, I am very pleased to say, commits $23 million to continue the duplication of the Goulburn Valley Highway, work which was commenced in 1998 and is proceeding at a great rate. This road building was nothing but a pipedream under Labor. The Goulburn Valley Highway is the last federal highway in Victoria that still has single lanes. Too many lives have been lost on that road as people bank up behind huge transports in the winter months. Such investment was long overdue and our region applauds the federal government's commitment. The Goulburn Valley federal highway upgrade has also cut transport time to Melbourne to ensure that our A-grade produce reaches the shops and retailers in the condition that it left the farms.The Goulburn Valley Highway spending is the largest component of road funding in the 1999-2000 budget for Victoria. But $8.65 million is also committed for black spot road funding in this state. One million dollars has already been spent on dangerous roads in the Murray electorate through that fund. We look forward to more success in the future.There has been $16.2 million committed to the duplication of the Calder Highway from Melbourne to Bendigo, speeding people and produce from the west of the electorate of Murray so that they too can become a more competitive economy. There is also $44 million for replacement bridges at Corowa, Echuca, Moama, Robinvale and Euston. These bridges carry millions of dollars worth of food, fibre and community traffic. They were built in the horse and buggy days pre-Federation. It is federation funds from this Commonwealth government that will see those bridges brought up to 21st century standard. We wait with great patience to see the states of New South Wales and Victoria commit their funds to make the building of those bridges a reality. It is a shame that we have already waited many months to hear that commitment fulfilled.The budget provides a range of initiatives to ensure that regional and rural Australians are not disadvantaged by geography and smaller population densities. For example, this bill provides an extra $51 million over five years for the rural and regional apprenticeship program to fund 30,000 new places. Like many regions in Australia, our region is particularly starved of trades and health service professionals. I commend Dr Wooldridge, the Minister for Health and Aged Care, for the establishment of a department of rural health at the University of Melbourne. That program, one of seven in Australia, will hopefully see our regional people have better access to participate in health service training. It will also bring rural doctors born and bred in cities to country areas to find that life is not so bad if they spend some time in communities and look at a career beyond the tram tracks.Advancing reconciliation is another prime ministerial priority during this government's second term in office. Last year I was appointed to serve as the government's representative on the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation. It has been a privilege to be part of this historic process. Last week, we celebrated National Reconciliation Week. Only days ago, the draft document on reconciliation was launched for public consultation. While it is important symbolically to produce an appropriate document for reconciliation, as an expression of a free country whose fundamental beliefs include equality and a fair go for all, to achieve real reconciliation we have to see improved life chances for all indigenous peoples. We cannot con tinue to tolerate Aboriginal life expectations that are substantially shorter than those of mainstream society and whole lifetimes where sickness, unemployment and poverty are the norm.New initiatives in the key areas of health, education, employment and economic development will see a record $2.2 billion being spent on indigenous-specific programs by this government in 1999-2000. But we will not simply pay the bills and ignore the outcomes, as has happened in previous generations. We have set goals to be achieved in consultation with indigenous people, and we aim to see real progress. So this budget contains a number of initiatives to assist indigenous Australians to move beyond welfare dependency towards a better future, financially independent and with real life choices.The policies announced in the budget, and the Indigenous Employment Program announced by Minister Peter Reith since, all help to raise the quality of life for indigenous Australians. These new initiatives and support have been welcomed by indigenous leadership. In particular, Gatjil Djerrkura, Chairman of ATSIC, has said about the Indigenous Employment Program:Indigenous communities are strongly behind these initiatives. We must reverse these trends that are having such a devastating effect on communities.I look forward to joining Gatjil Djerrkura in his home country on the weekend.The Koori communities of the Murray electorate were amongst the leaders of the Aboriginal civil rights movement earlier this century; today they are at the forefront of trialling new ways to forge economic independence. For example, the First Nation Advance Credit Union was recently launched in Shepparton. New ways to assist Koori job seekers are also being developed and led by local Aboriginal leaders. The local Rumbulara Football-Netball Club has also triumphed—not just in winning their sporting divisions, but in developing Koori community self-confidence, healthy lifestyles and management expertise. The 21st century under the Howard government will be the reconciliation millennium for Australia.As Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, I am also particularly proud of the environmental initiatives announced in this budget. At last we have a government that understands the urgent need to have nationally consistent benchmarks that identify the current state of the environment and the remedial works needed across the country and across our seas. Let us look at the facts.Australia is a mega-diverse nation, one of only 12 in the world. The vast majority of Australian mammals, frogs, reptiles, flowering plants and bird species are to be found nowhere else in the world. Yet, 70 per cent of native vegetation has been cleared or modified across our continent; 2.5 million hectares across all Australian states have been degraded by dry-land salinity; 50 per cent of our marsupials and monotremes are extinct, endangered or vulnerable; 30 per cent of freshwater fish are rare, endangered or vulnerable; and 20 mammal, nine bird and 97 plant species are extinct.Again, we do not simply list these losses and comment on them in passing; this government responds. In response, this government has chosen to dedicate more than $1.2 billion through the Natural Heritage Trust. This is the biggest environmental rescue plan ever seen in Australia. An amount of $320 million has been committed in the 1999-2000 budget alone for community led Natural Heritage Trust projects. This budget also provides $50 million for a Living Cities program. As the most urbanised society on earth, we recognise the need to have our cities also develop sustainably.Bushcare spending has been boosted from $67.9 million to $82 million in the forthcoming financial year. To date, over 1,292 community based Bushcare projects have been funded through the Natural Heritage Trust. We are working on the ground with the people to give future generations a chance to enjoy the natural heritage, the diversity and richness that some Australians have taken for granted for too long.Protecting and regenerating Australia's unique native vegetation is one of the urgent national priorities that I spoke of earlier. Currently we are clearing around 315,000 hectares of country per annum and only replanting or replacing about 100,000 hectares. Again, this government has shown leadership by assisting all Australian governments to commit themselves, through the Bushcare program of the Natural Heritage Trust, to achieve the national goal of reversing the long-term decline in the quality and extent of Australia's native vegetation coverage by June 2001. The National Framework for the Management and Monitoring of Australia's Native Vegetation is an initiative of the Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council which, under the Commonwealth's leadership, will provide a vehicle through which the goal can be achieved with a unified and consistent approach.It is a problem at the moment that in different states we see different stages of land clearing management and controls. We have some states who long ago addressed the problem and brought in appropriate regulation and land management; in other states they are still working through processes where they even wonder whether these regulations are necessary. So, in other words, we have land clearing controls differing substantially between jurisdictions.With this new nationally understood and agreed framework, we aim to see all jurisdictions, in the future, bring about appropriate vegetation management. Clearly the time has come to see all of Australian native vegetation managed sustainably. There is simply no more time to have experimentation or commercial expediency drive vegetation clearing. We know only too well that feral weed invasion and dry-land salinity follow very fast on the heels of vegetation clearing of much of our range lands.Another important national environment priority is improving the management of our freshwater resources. Australia is the oldest and driest continent on earth, yet we use more water per head of population than almost any other country. In parts of Australia our approach to water supply and overuse has been the principal cause of rising watertables, waterlogging and salinisation, loss of native fish stocks, outbreaks of toxic blue-green algae, rising salinity, and deteriorating water quality with its declining biodiversity.There is simply no time left in Australia to ignore the health of our freshwater, inland, underground and coastal water resources. This government does not believe in waiting. As with reconciliation, as with vegetation management, we understand that the time to act is now. We have a responsibility to future generations.Through the COAG water reform process, all Australian governments have the opportunity to implement a range of reforms that are designed to make Australian water management more efficient and sustainable. The carrot in all of that is some $800 million in national competition payments due to the states in July this year if they can demonstrate that they have implemented, amongst other reforms, a range of water law reform measures that we quite fully expect to give the resource a more sustainable future. This is a unique opportunity to ensure our freshwater resources are properly and sustainably managed.The 1999-2000 budget delivers on our vision in full—a vision for a sustainable future which is just and equitable for all. The budget provides tangible increases in basic services that will improve the quality of life for all Australians, particularly those in rural and regional Australia, including the people of the electorate of Murray. In conclusion, I would like to echo the words of the Treasurer when he spoke of the founding principles behind this year's budget:We wanted to frame a budget which would set us up to enter the next century much as we entered this one—a world leader in living standards, prosperous, free, and with all the potential of a young dynamic nation.18:01:006200Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—On 11 May, Peter Costello handed down his fourth budget, but it was not the real budget. It was based on three shaky assumptions: the full sale of Telstra, the passing of the GST without any further erosion of the budget surplus and the maintenance of high levels of consumption. Since then, the full sale of Telstra has disap peared and the government has abandoned its original GST for the time being and cut a deal with the Democrats, one that eats further into the surplus. In the process, the Democrats, by effectively becoming the wet faction of the Liberal Party, have walked away from their core constituencies—the welfare constituency, the small business constituency, the environmental constituency and the arts constituency. As Peter Garrett said last Friday, `Dirty deals done dirt cheap.'Make no mistake: in the past few weeks we have witnessed a significant shift in the Australian political landscape. Labor remains opposed to the GST and we will use every argument and every tactic to defeat it. When Senator Harradine made his `I cannot' speech, what he said mattered because Labor had built the coalition of 37 votes that made his vote relevant. By opposing Democrat amendments, we forced them to declare their opposition to the package as it stood.Up until now, Labor has moved or supported only three non-government amendments to the GST bills: (1) showing the GST on receipts; (2) the wine tax; and (3) responsibility for local government. Now that the Howard-Democrat deal has been done, we must reassess that position. Our decision will be a tactical one—to vote in a way that gives us the best chance to defeat the GST. We will ensure that the Democrats face the choice of voting down measures they have supported in the past, measures their membership supports, such as not taxing books, or voting for these measures and thus breaching their deal with the government. The Democrats cannot have it both ways. They either vote for their principles or they vote for the deal, and there is a vast gulf between the two. Our Senate tactics will put that gulf into sharp relief.This is a deal that is turning to dust the longer it is exposed to scrutiny. More people are coming to say, `If this is what we end up with, what's the point? Why can't we have tax reform without a GST?' ACOSS, one of the original partners to the great tax adventure, has condemned this new package, saying:The Senate should not pass this package in its current form. In response to a question from Laurie Oakes on whether the deal was better than the current system, Michael Raper responded: `No, it is not.' And he repeated it: `No, it is not.' The business partners are also fraying at the edges. As the Australian Society of Certified Practising Accountants recently stated:The respect and integrity of the entire tax system will be under threat if the resultant anomalies with GST-free food become a reality.The green groups have condemned the deal. Premier Kennett has called for the government and the Democrats to go back to the negotiating table. The Treasurer has ridiculed his own recipe-ridden deal. The Prime Minister himself has said:If there is an alternative plan for the reform of the Australian taxation system, then we'd be happy to have a look at it and to debate it.Labor is meeting the Prime Minister's challenge, not in response to his call but meeting it nonetheless. But first we need to put the great source of division behind us. Labor wants tax reform but tax reform without a GST, Labor wants tax reform that is not at the expense of the surplus and Labor wants tax reform that leads to a fairer, a more efficient and a more competitive society. Labor's approach to framing this budget would have been about securing the surplus, reordering the priorities and, significantly, it would answer the Prime Minister's call for tax reform alternatives.I want to outline some of these points. Abolishing the GST is not just about fairness; it is also about better securing the surplus. The current budget surplus is built on the tax system which Labor put in place. According to the budget, total revenue as a percentage of GDP is 25.9 per cent. It has not been higher in the past 12 years. Next year it will be a higher proportion still. It is the reforms that Labor put in place in the 1980s and the 1990s that have made the revenue so robust, despite taking out $4 billion per year in tariff revenue. This is hardly the product of a tax system that is broke. It isn't.The original GST package contained a permanent fiscal loosening totalling $17 billion over three years. The new Howard- Democrats deal adds a further $3 billion. This understates the real cost to the Commonwealth because they have not yet quantified compensation to those outside the tax transfer system. At $20 billion this represents one of the largest examples of discretionary fiscal loosening in recent Australian history, and this from a government that says it is fiscally responsible.Labor's tax reform proposal at the last election met the fairness test. For most single income families up to $50,000 and two income families up to $60,000 Labor's proposal offered bigger tax cuts than the government's did, and we did it without a GST. These figures were verified by NATSEM, who the Prime Minister was referring to today. But we also did it without touching the surplus. Without the GST now, contemplate how we can build on that base which Labor presented at the last election. The additional tax reforms should continue to focus on fairness and families, and should at least give back the amount of John Howard's bracket creep, estimated at around $2 billion per year by July 2000. For example, for $2.4 billion we could eliminate the 43 per cent marginal tax rate, meaning that the 81 per cent of taxpayers that John Howard talks about would benefit and, again, this without a GST.Another way to address the Howard bracket creep is through Labor's family tax credit, which delivers much more tax relief than the government's package for low and middle income families. The credit could be made even more generous and/or extended to hundreds of thousands of additional working families earning up to $90,000 per year. These measures involve expenditure of only around 40 per cent of the cut to the surplus in the government's original GST package. So depending on the fiscal position, there could be scope to extend these sorts of measures even further. But importantly, the tax credits are about much more than just tax cuts. They also help reduce unemployment. They encourage the move from welfare to work by widening the gap between welfare payments and after tax wages, and they take pressure off wages by increasing family incomes.Labor also supports business tax reform without a GST. We are willing to uncouple the business tax reform carriage from the GST train. If the GST is defeated, we need not insist on revenue neutrality for business tax reform, provided those reforms meet the test of competitiveness and fairness. But if we are to have a GST, Labor will hold the government to its promise of revenue neutrality for business taxation reform. Labor cannot accept a reduction in business taxation at the expense of individuals and families who will be bearing the brunt of a GST. We have to make our business tax regime more competitive.But instead of just looking to the models adopted by Europe, why not look at the model adopted by the powerhouse of world economic growth—the United States? We should be looking more closely at the features of the federal US tax system to determine its significance in making for a competitive economy. Clearly there are differences between the Australian and US economies, including size and cultural differences, but I think we can learn some valuable lessons from Australia's running mate at the head of the growth pack.Labor has also written to the Ralph committee to investigate proposals to boost research and development, venture capital, start-ups and infrastructure because these are areas where market failure is most likely to occur, particularly in research and development. Our research and development has suffered greatly over the past few years. The recent disastrous fall in industrial research and development can be traced directly to this government's abolition of the 150 per cent tax concession. What sort of clever country are we creating with this mindless obsession to cut at all costs?I have also urged the Ralph committee to consider initiatives to encourage start-ups and venture capital, in particular, through capital gain tax exemption of US pension funds in partnership with Australian investors through an approved vehicle. That way we get access not just to the funds but to the expertise. I have urged the Ralph committee to consider lifting the cap and widening the definition of infrastructure for purposes of access to the infrastructure rebate, particularly for regional development. These issues and the plan to scrap accelerated depreciation and to introduce deferred company taxation are serious issues and proposals that go fundamentally to the nation's competitiveness. They are issues on which Labor would be prepared to enter, constructively, further discussion, and get bipartisanship on.In relation to Commonwealth-state relations, the states are now being made to wear the cost of the government's deal with the Democrats. This is not tax reform because most of the state taxes originally proposed to be abolished remain. If this package gets up, the only state taxes to be abolished on day one are bed taxes in Sydney and in the Northern Territory. The financial institutions duty and stamp duty on marketable securities do not go until 1 July 2001, although there is now some talk of extending that deadline for the FID. The debits tax does not go until 1 July 2005, and six state taxes remain forever. They collect around $2 billion in today's dollars. The states will continue to collect these in addition to the GST—a tax which will collect $29 billion compared to the wholesale sales tax at $15 billion, a tax that is collected at every retail outlet around the country, 1.6 million of them. The GST will worsen vertical fiscal imbalance and remove the elements of real per capita certainty for the states.Under the GST, state finances will become more vulnerable to the economic cycle. Labor would give the states real certainty. Labor would, at a minimum, legislate to permanently provide the states with the current level of financial assistance grants indexed to both population growth and inflation. Labor would guarantee that specific purpose payments will not fall, as they inevitably will under the GST plan.Taxation is but one part of the approach to the budget. It is not an end in itself but a means by which we build a fairer society and a more competitive economy. There are also expenditure priorities that should be addressed—that can be addressed and still secure the surplus if we junk the GST. Today the trend household savings ratio is at its lowest, while foreign debt and the current account deficit are at their highest. The budget ignores all of this, and the economy has been dumbed down by this government.Statistics revealed on Friday show that business investment in research and development has fallen yet again under this government and in real terms is now 11 per cent below when Labor left office. So much for the clever country. The cuts to research and development spending by this government are flowing through to a less clever, less able society. These were cuts that the Treasurer described as `paying a parking fine to get off a murder charge'. This is not the way to improve an economy's long run growth potential.But the budget's biggest failing is on employment. The government has no vision to reduce unemployment and, hence, no strategy. Reducing unemployment is a Labor imperative. Labor would use the budget to entrench our commitment to the five per cent or better unemployment target as the nation's imperative. We would commission the work force 2010 study as we did for the 2005 study—as a road map, a policy framework. We would develop the micro-dimension of the macro-target. Labor understands that to reduce unemployment and sustain the reduction you need more than just economic growth. Tax credits, education, ongoing skills development and real work experience form part of Labor's employment strategy. By obsessing over the GST, the government has forgotten that tax reform is a means, not an end, and that the budget is about the nation's priorities.So this is a false budget. It is a budget of lost opportunities. It is a lost opportunity because of the Howard-Democrats GST. Labor will do everything to prevent this regressive, unfair tax from passing into law. We will vote strategically in the Senate. We will insist that the full details of the new package—recipes and all—be made public in time for a thorough analysis of its impact. We will push for a new agreement with the premiers and chief ministers. Labor believes that the Howard-Democrats GST is fundamentally unfair, inefficient and complex. It wastes too much of our national resources.Because Labor's priority is not the GST, there is a significant additional opportunity to address those priorities that Labor holds firm. Without a GST, we can have tax reform which gives greater benefits to all Australian families. We can have tax reform which boosts the employment effort. We can have tax reform which makes our businesses more competitive. We can have tax reform which gives certainty to the states and empowers regional Australia. And we can focus the budget on the investment needs of the economy—in the drivers of economic growth, in education, in skills, in training, in innovation.Budgets are about the nation. They are about our priorities and our capacity to fund them. Labor is committed to securing the surplus—make no mistake about that—but we are also committed to tax reform without a GST because that is in the nation's interests. I urge the Prime Minister to put the divisiveness of the GST behind us and take up his own challenge. Look at the alternatives and work with us for real tax reform that benefits the nation, tax reform without a GST.18:19:006204Georgiou, Petro, MPMr GEORGIOUHM5KooyongLP10—The budget brought down by the Treasurer, the Howard government's fourth budget, the last budget for the millennium, marks a further major step in strengthening Australia's economic foundations. The budget projects a surplus of $5.4 billion. This surplus exemplifies the effectiveness of the government's economic management. In any terms, it is a substantial achievement, but its full significance only becomes apparent when it is contrasted with the inheritance Labor bequeathed to Australia. That inheritance is something that Labor tries not to remember, but it is something that none of us can afford to forget.When the coalition was elected in March 1996, the budget was $10.3 billion in deficit. In the five years prior to the coalition's election, Labor increased Commonwealth debt by almost $80 billion. Since being elected, this government has not borrowed in net terms and it has repaid over $24 billion of Labor's debt. This has reflected the government's strategy of reducing the budget deficit, making a contribution to national savings, relieving pressure on inflation and interest rates and preparing for potential international economic shocks. These strategies meant that Australia now has the lowest inflation and home mortgage interest rates for three decades. Australia is now at the forefront of the fastest growing economies in the world. In 1998-99 we are expected to have growth higher than that realised by all of the G7 and higher than the OECD average.Last week, the March quarter national accounts showed that the Australian economy grew by 1.1 per cent—4.8 per cent for the year. The Prime Minister quite rightly described this as a stunning result. Next year, the economy is expected to grow at a rate higher than the OECD average. Growth in employment is expected to continue. Unemployment is still too high, but it has fallen to around 7.5 per cent, the lowest since 1990. Inflation is forecast to remain low. All this has been attained despite the Asian financial and economic crisis. It is worth quoting the Reserve Bank's May bulletin:This combination of strong growth and exceptionally low inflation is quite unlike the experience of the preceding 30 years. That such a performance has been maintained almost two years after the Asian crisis first broke in Thailand is indicative of the extent to which the Australian economy's underlying strength and resilience has been improved over time.This budget will enhance Australia's economic strength and resilience and make a number of substantial contributions to meet the government's election commitments. The budget improves funding arrangements for non-government schools, for literacy and numeracy and for the National Illicit Drug Strategy. There will be increased funding for health and medical research and a primary health care package for older Australians and those with chronic conditions. Outlays for hearing services, national highways and roads of national importance will be substantially enhanced. Work for the Dole for year 12 school leavers will be expanded, and the principle of mutual obligation will be extended to long-term unemployed people aged between 25 and 34.What does the opposition offer in response to a budget which builds on this government's hard-won achievements? Despite protracted speeches, the fact is that the opposition offers nothing, nothing other than an attack on the government's tax package. The opposition seems to have adopted the principle that, if you do not stand for anything, you can play all sides against the middle, and that is what the opposition is doing with its attack on the government's amended tax package.In 1998, the Howard government did something very unusual in the history of Western democracies. It went to an election promising a thorough renovation of the tax system, which included the introduction of a new tax. It went to the election telling the Australian public that, if returned, it would introduce a GST. This government was open and up-front about its plans to reform the Australian tax system. As they say, it was a very courageous decision by the government.I have to say, however, that going to an election promising a new tax from opposition is not unique. The Liberal Party under John Hewson broke new ground in 1993 when the coalition promised a restructure of the tax system which included a 15 per cent GST. We lost that election due to Labor's massive scare campaign. It also needs to be noted that proposals to introduce a new tax from government without going to an election are not without precedent.The Hawke-Keating government, for one, attempted to build momentum behind major tax reform during the 1985 tax summit. The proposal for a goods and services tax reform that Labor put forward was option C, the consumption tax. It is interesting that initially only a handful of Labor ministers supported the implementation of option C. Three of them have now gone from the parliament. The other two, however, are still here—Gareth Evans, who with luck and the government's support will go on to bigger things in the international arena, and the current Leader of the Opposition.Kim Beazley at that time was a key defender of the consumption tax proposal. Today, there is no greater detractor of the goods and services tax than the Leader of the Opposition. How does he reconcile this contradiction? If we turn to Mr Beazley's biographer, Peter Fitzsimons, we can see how it is done. Mr Fitzsimons reports that Mr Beazley was one of the five key cabinet members who backed Paul Keating's GST plan. So today how does Mr Beazley recollect those errant ways? How does he explain his support for a GST in 1985? Here is Mr Beazley's recollection—and I quote his biographer:I think the point about Option `C', at that point of time is that curiously in some ways it was the soft option. If you went down that road, you didn't have to do all the budget cutting that we subsequently did—and you did not need to take on fights which actually looked a bit harder. In hindsight it was a totally regressive tax which hurt the poorer people most, but at the time it was . . . `here's the poor b.—Mr Keating—trying to fight our tax policy and the Treasurer, now and then, needs a bit of support.' I think that was about it.So Mr Beazley now claims that, all along, he was not really sure about the consumption tax but it looked like the soft option, and of course every now and again you have to help out the Treasurer. Subsequently, Mr Beazley decided that the tax was a terrible thing, totally regressive, hurt the poorest of all, et cetera. But the bottom line is that, with option C in 1985, it was the ACTU's opposition and Paul Keating's determined refusal to contemplate the prospect of any compromise that buried the consumption tax.Nonetheless, some of us still remember Mr Keating's classic comment on the destruction of option C. Whatever criticisms one has of his treasury or his prime ministership, one has to accept that Paul Keating's capacity for verbal pyrotechnics is probably unparalleled in Australia's political history. Mr Keating ennobled the Labor Party's burying his preferred option C with the ringing declaration:It's a bit like Ben Hur. We've crossed the line with one wheel off but we have crossed the line.In fact, what Labor subsequently did was to fall out of the tax cart entirely and abandon comprehensive tax reform. The Howard government has taken a quite different path. Having sensed Australia's utter disenchantment with the complex, confusing, inefficient and unfair nature of the tax system and Australia's desire to have it fixed, this government adopted the approach of putting to the people at an election a new tax system that embraced a new tax.The outcome of that election was that the government, while losing a number of seats, got the ultimate mandate to pursue its election commitments—the right to form a government in the lower house. It did not get a majority in the upper house, but it did persevere with its mandate: a new tax system which included a GST with few exceptions which was comparatively easy to administer and which embraced fresh food.The government argued very hard for its mandate because it had an unambiguous responsibility to do so. It put forward strongly the need for simplicity of administration and the complexities that would be brought about by exempting food from the goods and services tax. The government argued for this again and again because it had a mandate and a responsibility to do so.Sitting suspended from 6.30 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.HM5Georgiou, Petro, MPMr GEORGIOU—Ultimately, the government is faced with the fact that it did not have the numbers in the Senate and that the Labor Party had embarked on a course of total obstructionism. This obstructionism was not a matter of Labor principle. It was not something that flowed from Labor traditions. It was a matter of political tactics. It was a matter of political expediency. It was a matter of political opportunism. If anybody doubts this, they should look at the contradictory positions adopted on the GST by the Labor Party under Paul Keating in the lead-up to the 1993 election and under Kim Beazley in the lead-up to the 1998 election.Mr Keating made the decision that the outcome of an election fought on the basis of Fightback would be that, if the coalition won, the Labor opposition would allow a goods and services tax through the Senate. In fact, he even committed himself to it well before the election. Not so with Mr Beazley. Mr Beazley, the man who was one of the five key supporters of Mr Keating's proposed goods and services tax in 1985, promised that, if the coalition won on the basis of a GST, Labor would still oppose it totally. There is one other significant difference between the 1993 election and the 1998 election: Mr Keating won the former, and Mr Beazley lost the latter.The only common thread is that both in 1993 and in 1998 Labor's only principle was expediency. Ultimately, in the face of Labor's total intransigence, the government negotiated an agreement on the tax package with the Democrats. Labor, having locked itself into obstructionism, is now lashing out at the agreement between the government and the Democrats. Labor attacks the government because the government has accepted some changes to its package. Labor attacks the Democrats because they have accepted the government's package subject to amendment. What a fiasco! No wonder the Labor Party is reduced to coming into question time trying to beat us up with a bag of lettuce, croutons and so on. The opposition has sought to make a meal of the fact that in some areas the system will be more complex than the government intended. Let me say that Labor's stunts have served to reveal and underscore in a hitherto unprecedented fashion the total irrationality, the bewildering complexity, the pervasiveness and arbitrariness of the wholesale sales tax system that Labor is so desperately clinging to.Having totally opposed the reform package, having failed to persuade the Democrats to its view that obstructionism was obligatory, the Labor Party is reduced to even more feeble stunts. For some reason, Labor seems to have totally forgotten the fundamental point about Australia's federal system: in order to pass legislation through the parliament of Australia, legislation must pass through both houses of parliament. Since 1980 no party has controlled both houses. Indeed, since the Labor changes to the Senate in 1948 the government has controlled the Senate for only two periods: the Menzies government did at the beginning of the 1960s, and the Fraser government did between 1975 and 1980. We could go on interminably about whether the Senate is exceeding the intentions of the founding fathers and whether there has been an erosion of the Senate's role of states house, and we could canvass the options and prospects for Senate reform and their impact on the government's mandate. I have to say that the proposals made by Senator Helen Coonan are interesting, as indeed are the proposals made by the member for Burke.But in the here and now, which is where we live, governments cannot get legislation through without the support of the Independents and the minor parties if—and this is a fundamental point—the opposition party in the Senate does not support the government of the day, and that is what the Labor Party has refused to do. The fact is that the federal government in Australia, because of the nature of the Senate, depends to a degree on inter-party compromise. That should not be a great revelation. What Labor has to cope with is that a package has emerged from a process of negotiation between the government and the Democrats. The package is one which the government, with the majority in the House, has agreed with the third major party in the Senate. The outcome may be administratively more complex in some areas—and I do not believe there is any escaping this—but the fundamental fact is that the outcome does embody the key commitments of the government. The truth is that the government has managed to negotiate an agreement with the Democrats while meeting the fundamental commitments it made to tax reform.The government committed itself to no overall increase in the tax burden. That commitment has been embodied in the package. The government committed itself to making major reductions in personal income tax and to paying special regard to families. Those commitments are met by the package. There will be a $12 billion reduction in personal income tax, and 80 per cent of Australians will pay a top marginal rate of no more than 30 cents in the dollar. There are $2 billion of additional family benefits. The government committed itself to consider a broadbased indirect tax to replace some or all of the existing indirect taxes. The introduction of a broadbased indirect tax and the abolition of the wholesale sales tax and other indirect taxes is in the package. The government committed itself to providing appropriate compensation for those deserving of special assistance. That too is in the package. Finally, the government committed itself to reforming federal-state relations. That is in the package.The bottom line in all of this is that the package that has emerged from the negotiations with the Democrats is not the package that the government would have preferred, but it is a package that in all its essentials meets the overarching commitments that the government made when it embarked on its reform of the tax system. The consequences of Labor strategy have been to leave the opposition out in the cold, outside the arena. It has left the fate of tax reform lying in the hands of the Democrats, the Independents and other minor parties. The outcome of opposition for its own sake is obstructionism, and that does not work. Labor could not even persuade the Democrats to reject the GST, and that is to the credit of the Democrats. The Democrats were convinced that, with a number of exceptions, the government's package served Australia's interests. That was a massive rebuff to Labor, and a rebuff that Labor cannot come to terms with.As a consequence, where does the Labor Party find itself today? It finds itself without constructive alternatives or proposals. It finds itself with Meg Lees, on the front cover of the Bulletin last week, touted as the real opposition. It finds itself with the Leader of the Opposition having to describe the present ineffective and inequitable tax system as `magnificent'. It finds itself with the Leader of the Opposition being reduced to devising tactics on the run, as is transparently obvious with Mr Beazley's comments last Friday and, indeed, with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition's speech today. Where they will go from here is, I am afraid, reasonably obvious. There will be more stunts, more exaggerations and beat-ups about any implementation difficulties, there will be a scare campaign about food being brought back into the GST and there will be promises about rolling back some of the tax reforms. There will be the usual routines. But ultimately Labor's position is political opportunism of the most transparent kind. It has been ineffective. It does not serve the nation's interests and, ultimately, it will not serve the ALP. I commend the bill to the House.20:08:006208Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—I noted the comments of the member for Kooyong lamenting the existing situation in the Senate. I wonder whether he really expects the people of Australia to accept a winner-take-all mentality in our parliaments today when people want other than the major parties. I really think not. No amount of rorting of the voting system can halt the seepage from the major parties. I think, if we are going to talk about reform, we have to work out a means of reflecting that wish, otherwise we will just underline the cynicism that exists out there.The government has made much of its $5.2 billion surplus in this year's budget and its record of economic management. By classical textbook standards, the economic management of this country has been almost flawless. Flawless perhaps, except regarding measures to reduce the burgeoning current account deficit—a deficit resulting from an overreliance on a fading manufacturing industry, declining commodity prices and Australia's insatiable appetite for high value, manufactured imports. The government has achieved a surplus based on the sale of our greatest asset. It has premised our environmental program also on that same sale. It has slavishly adhered to the market-will-deliver-all philosophy that has seen a steady decline in rural and regional areas. There is nothing in this budget to suggest it has any intention of helping restore the dramatic deterioration in regional infrastructure over the past two decades. In short: an economic surplus but a social deficit.In his budget speech, the Treasurer said the government is strongly committed to rural and regional Australia. Apart from some health initiatives, I see little in the budget outlays that will excite regional Australia. The Supermarket to Asia strategy is great rhetoric, but until we have the means of actually getting that produce efficiently and quickly to those markets—when they recover, that is—then any amount of supermarketing will fail to deliver to producers.As I said, the minister has reacted positively to the crisis in rural health care. The multipurpose service model is the future of health care in the bush. The Minister for Aged Care accompanied me to Yeoval recently to see the marvellous results of local cooperative effort in first saving a local hospital and then in building a multipurpose centre of high quality. An additional 30 regional health service centres Australia-wide over four years is welcome, but far more are needed to consolidate health services in areas where no doctors are available and communities are just hanging on. The state and federal governments need to move far more quickly to identify and jointly fund these services, especially in towns where the nursing home type patients in district hospitals are easily identifiable, are a federal responsibility but are being largely funded by scarce state health dollars.Retention funds to keep long-serving doctors in rural communities are welcome, but the way to get more long-term doctors into country areas can be solved only when the government uses its ownership of medical provider numbers to allocate them to communities and not individuals. As in other health areas, including private health insurance, the medical mafia is dictating terms, this time with public money. They are paid from the public purse through Medicare, they are trained at public expense far in excess of their HECS, so they must expect conscription in the public good the same way as police or schoolteachers—with incentives perhaps, but at government direction.A very timely report into rural and regional Australia was published today in the Sydney Morning Herald. Nothing in it is news to most people in those areas. It cites a recent report from KPMG showing how 200 rural shires nationwide have lost population, largely to so-called sponge cities. I notice a concerted move by some regional city councils to push the amalgamation agenda in New South Wales. Orange City is one, with its eyes on the surrounding Cabonne Shire—an efficient council with no debts, works depots in several smaller towns and many people relying on it for employment. The larger city wants the rate revenue and, sure as night follows day, Cumnock, Yeoval, Canowindra, Eugowra, Cudal—the small towns and villages already losing banks and other services—will be set on the path to further decline if they take that amalgamation route. Is this what we want in the bush? When do we start to factor in the social economic cost of downgrading, rationalisation, downsizing and its impact on the fabric of rural Australia?An organisation in my electorate, Credit Line Central West, has recently completed a report on the financial plight of low income earners living in the central west. Kevin Howard, the coordinator of Credit Line Central West, details the cost differentials between those on Centrelink payments in rural and regional areas as compared with metropolitan areas. He has detailed the extra costs of petrol, heating, telephones and other necessities. As well, he outlines the plight of families living in smaller rural centres who, because of age, health or the need to seek employment elsewhere, have to move; but their properties are now virtually unsaleable in these smaller towns—a non-realisable asset.As many of the necessities of life cost more in regional and remote areas, the imposition of a GST is likely to see people living in rural and regional areas left even further behind than their metropolitan counterparts. There is no way the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission will be capable of ensuring any transport cost savings will be passed on in regional markets. The competition just is not there in many cases.Regional inequality is a reality, not the rhetoric of sociologists. The government needs to recognise that unless these issues are addressed in a serious and genuine way, we will have two Australias, as the Minister for Transport and Regional Services suggested earlier this year. He was reprimanded by his boss for telling it as it is. Cybercafes will not heal that rift; cyberspace will not fill the void that young and old alike are in out there. Banks are only getting nervous about closing branches by regulation of public comment, not by anything this government or the one before has done to regulate the behaviour of financial institutions. The panacea, transaction centres, are cynically premised on the sale of the telecommunications company owned and built up by generations of Australians which provided so many jobs in rural communities and was sold for a song. Other offerings too—the Internet and local calls—are part of the bribe, `Let us sell Telstra, and you can have these services,' which by any government should be the right of any non-metropolitan resident anyway.The spending on roads in this budget, $195 million over four years to upgrade the national highway system and roads of national importance, is way short of requirements. While it is pleasing to see the Great Western Highway included as an RNI, we could spend the $195 million alone on that route and come back for more. Rail is grossly underfunded, irrespective of the upgrade program announced last year, and a diesel rebate for rail is of little help if the infrastructure is in such poor shape. This is a diesel rebate, by the way, that was not in the budget; it happened by accident after negotiations with the Democrats in that other place. The black spot funding program, while again welcome, is a pitifully small amount: $36 million spread annually across the continent.We also seem to have given up at 7.5 per cent of our work force officially out of work, and that figure hides the enormous number of people underemployed in this country. The employment situation in the bush, as we know, is far worse. No wonder we have hopelessness, a spreading drug problem and suicide. There is just no hope for many in this economy that is said to be travelling so well with low interest rates and low inflation. This is also an economy of low self-esteem and low horizons for so very many. That said, the extra funding for indigenous employment programs is very welcome, and it is interesting to note that the CDEP program for Aboriginal employment, where ownership of the program rests with the community, has operated successfully now for many years. I notice the minister is hoping to get closer to that concept in the negatively named Work for the Dole program by employing regional coordinators. That move is also welcome.Some facts hidden in the Sydney Morning Herald article today that should ring alarm bells for any society are those related to tertiary study by rural students. In 1976, 25 per cent of country students went on to tertiary education. In 1996, this had declined to 16 per cent. Given the socioeconomic data on the bush published in that report today, I would suggest that figure will decline further, exacerbated by the government's mean and short-sighted withdrawal of the Higher Education Equity Merit Scholarship Scheme, a scheme granting 1,000 students a year from lower income levels exemption from HECS.As we move into the high-tech service dominated economy of the next millennium, more needs to be done to provide access to tertiary education, especially in the high growth areas like IT where there is an estimated shortage of 27,000 skilled workers in the country already. The common youth allowance provides assistance to families at the lower end but, worryingly, families with incomes just above the thresholds are struggling to support their children through university. For these families, the government should put in place a low or no interest loan scheme to ensure these students can, at the very least, access education. Were such funds available, I am sure they would be used much more responsibly than the youth allowance that, despite the government's best efforts, is still accessed by students from affluent families able to legitimately understate their true means or, in some cases, the social circumstances that exist within their allegedly dysfunctional families.Let me move on to education funding in general. While I welcome the establishment of the socioeconomic status for determining private school funding, I am concerned at the level of funding that will flow to non-government schools vis-a-vis state schools from policy changes in the budget. Any analysis of specific purpose payments to the states for education between 1998-99 and 2002-03 shows a steady decline from 39 per cent to 35.7 per cent for state schools and an increase from just on 61 per cent to 64.35 per cent for non-government schools. The key to this is the misguided abolition of the new schools policy. The freedom of choice the government espouses is admirable in theory but, in order to have fair and equitable options across the community, there has to be a fair and equitable level of resource allocation and a fair and equitable access to those resources.Quite apart from my reservations about setting up new schools willy-nilly, which poses a threat to social cohesion and lowers education standards, this policy also spreads scarce education funds far too thinly. The new schools policy had imposed restrictions on establishment and funding of new non-government schools, allowing for a realistic and fair allocation of adequate resources. Given the deterioration in facilities at many state schools and the growth of small non-government schools, there is a justifiable resentment growing in the state schools sector among parents, teachers and students. The new schools policy was meant to ensure a proposed new school was not going to potentially impact negatively on existing government or even non-government schools in the same area. I have anecdotal information outside my own electorate to show that that is occurring.The rapid growth of the non-state schools sector—146 new schools in two years—suggests to me a freedom of choice philosophy gone out of hand. The changes implemented by this government will simply encourage those parents of students from government schools who now have the ability to pay for private education, not encourage or give choice to the poor. Someone in the public education sector told me the other day that there is an inexorable move towards public education being the sector for the poor only in years ahead, like sediment floating to the bottom of the glass, as she described it. I say this as a taxpayer, a former teacher in the state system with a brother and sisters teaching in the state system and one who believes passionately in the need for equal education opportunity for all our children.I paid for independent school education for my kids in their last year of primary school and all of their high school. I had that choice and was prepared to pay the approximately $120,000 after tax that it took. I guess I was seeking positive peer pressure and the extra academic, sporting and cultural opportunities the independent school offered—especially since they were going from a small country community into a larger city. At this particular school, there was also leadership training provided by cadets. I was prepared to pay for these extras, but I do not expect other taxpayers to subsidise my kids. It does seem that this policy of freedom of choice is really running off the rails when it comes to our policy on education funding.There are anomalies in the ERI funding formula within the non-government school sector. I acknowledge that; I have had experience in my electorate where some schools have been favoured over others, and I welcome the SES funding formula that will replace it. But, as I said, it is the government sector funding that most concerns me. It seems, from my research, that the government sector is being penalised for the rapid jump in non-state school enrolments in 1996. It seems the state system is being caught up on a compound basis for a negative enrolment benchmark adjustment in 1997, the year after the abolition of the new schools policy and the year of that big jump in non-government school enrolments.I will speak briefly on several other matters before I finish. With virtually all of the government's environmental program premised on the sale of Telstra, it is indeed disturbing to note a decline in funding for several environmental programs. I mentioned in a debate earlier today on the need for a population policy the dramatic impact salinity is likely to have on our agricultural land over the next 50 years, with more than 30 per cent of our agricultural belt predicted to be rendered useless in that time. The Prime Minister has yet to respond to a report on that from his own Science, Engineering and Innovation Council, more than six months after he received it. Not only that, but this budget shows a decline in funding—or what the government might term a slowdown—in its forward estimates of spending.Funding for Bushcare will be more than $11 million less than estimated in the 1998-99 environmental statement. Natural Heritage Trust funding for the National Landcare Program will be more than $16 million less. In all, the proposed funding for the 1999-2000 projects as outlined in the 1998-99 Commonwealth environment expenditure document has been reduced by $38.3 million for the next financial year, and there is a further reduction of $9.3 million for 2000-01. The government will argue that these are only delays in spending. We cannot afford delays in our environmental program.The new accrual budgeting statements have effectively blurred the actual spending in many departments, with inadequate information to properly compare the 1999-2000 financial year with 1998-99. But, according to my study, Bushcare, Farm Forestry, National Rivercare, River Health, National Reserve, National Landcare—particularly, Coasts and Clean Seas—air pollution and World Heritage funding programs are all earmarked to receive less than promised earlier.Let me finish with congratulations on the increased commitment of the government to national health research. This comes from a minister who is attuned to the health needs of this nation but is restricted, it seems, by ministers with more economic clout. Despite this, his initiatives in trying to sort out the private health care issue are to be welcomed, although only a confrontation with the doctors and strict adherence to schedule fees will hold this bolting horse. However, on issues like Aboriginal health care and this budget initiative for health research, the minister has prevailed.But the bottom line on this budget is largely negative on social economics. It passes all the classic marketplace economic textbook modelling. It is `a beautiful set of figures', as one former Treasurer proclaimed about another economic outlook at another time. But beautiful figures can hide ugly realities. I suspect the rural constituency, and thousands of unemployed and underemployed Australians on the one hand and millions of overworked Australians on the other, are not convinced that these figures, this economic strategy and this budget will do anything to improve their lot. The social dividend is still missing.20:27:006211Nugent, Peter, MPMr NUGENTUT4AstonLP10—I must say it is a pleasure to be able to follow a speaker from the other side and not find myself in total disagreement with him—although obviously we do have different views on a number of issues. I particularly want to echo his sentiments about the health measures that have been introduced—in fact the general health program that the Minister for Health and Aged Care has pursued. There was an article in this week's Bulletin on Dr Wooldridge, the policies that he has been pursuing and the difficulties he has been trying to grapple with. It was generally a very complimentary article, and that in itself is unusual for the media these days. I think there is no doubt that, in the health area in particular, we have seen some significant advantages and some significant advances.I want to take up one other point raised by the gentleman from Calare, who has just spoken, to the effect that we had basically given up on unemployment. Let me assure him and everybody else that that is not the case; in fact, the government is very concerned about unemployment. But the government is not into too many artificial job creation schemes. What it is trying to do is to get the economy functioning properly so that we will get growth in the economy, and that in itself will create those jobs. I would remind the House that we have created something like 180,000 new jobs since we came to government and that we actually have the fastest-growing economy in the OECD—ahead of America, ahead of Germany and ahead of all the other so-called boom economies of the last few years. That of course is what is going to create jobs—not artificial schemes. Getting the business and industry sectors going will help our economy to grow and, as companies succeed and grow, more jobs will be created. That is where the tax package comes in as a vital component of the overall strategy. Without going over all the old arguments about the GST, the tax package and so on, I think there is one thing that we need to focus on very strongly in relation to jobs and the tax package: something like $4.2 billion will come off the bottom line of companies' costs; so when we export products we will be more competitive in overseas markets than we are at the present time—because we will have taken away $4.2 billion from the costs of our exports.In simple terms, that means that we will be more competitive when we try to sell our product overseas, and because we will be more competitive—more price competitive as well as all the other good things associated with what we are trying to sell overseas—it means that we will grow our markets. As we grow our markets, the companies concerned and the businesses concerned will grow and their business will grow. As they grow their business, they will have a need for more labour, for more employees, for more skilled workers—for the whole plethora of employment that goes to make up our economy. Therefore, we will create new jobs. So the new tax package and the budget are very much focused on creating new jobs. I am sorry that the gentleman from Calare has chosen to leave the chamber, because I think it is important that he and others understand this very critical function about getting the economy going and creating those jobs.But I rose tonight to speak on another aspect of the appropriations. In particular, I wanted to talk about some matters in relation to foreign affairs. I do not think people often realise that, when we talk about appropriations and the money that the government spends, when we get down to the foreign affairs area, Australia maintains something like 80 overseas posts and quite a few hundred diplomats in one form or another both here and in overseas positions. It is not just that we spend the money maintaining those resources, but those people in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade quite often have a very heavy impact on what we are able to do as a country in our influence overseas and our economic activity overseas.Whether you are talking about the various embassies and high commissions or Austrade representatives, you will find that, right across the world, our posts overseas these days not only are very much focused on the diplomatic cocktail party set—which is actually quite important in terms of networks and communications and establishing relationships—but also spend a lot of time helping Australian companies try to get business, in selling Australia to overseas countries, and therefore having a very significant impact on our economy.I think it is important that, when we talk about Australia's activities overseas, we think of two of the biggest countries with which we have dealings. One of those, of course, is the United States and one is China. They are two very vast and substantial countries in their size of economy and population as well as their geographic size. We have relationships of somewhat differing types with both of those countries, but they are both very important countries to Australia. I have visited both countries at different times over the years. In fact, I recently came back from a visit to China where I took a delegation in my capacity as chair of the Parliamentary Friendship Group with China.Probably our longest standing relationship between those two is with the United States. We have defence arrangements and a fairly solid trade arrangement with the United States. Unfortunately, our trade arrangement with the United States is heavily imbalanced in their favour, and we are suffering a few particular problems these days. Mr Deputy Speaker, as you come from a rural area, you will be aware of the difficulties that we are having with the United States with respect to matters such as lamb and, on other occasions, the dumping by the US of wheat in traditional Australian markets and so on. But it is a relationship that goes back a long way. Not only is it a relationship that ties us together by common language and a degree of common culture, but those defence ties are very important and longstanding and the economic ties are similar. It is a very valuable relationship for us.But it is also important that we understand that the relationship with China is of emerging importance to this country. I think we should reflect on the size of the relationship and its importance. When you look at China and you include Hong Kong—which, of course, is now part of China—you will see that China is actually our third largest trading partner. I do not think that most people would necessarily understand that. When one looks at the size of our business with China and at our relationship with the United States, one realises that they are both very important relationships.One of the key issues that is being discussed at the present time about those relationships is whether China should join the World Trade Organisation. I am pleased to see that, in the negotiations that China has to undertake with the various WTO potential partners, the deal was done with Australia recently. But, of course, that will not become effective unless the deal is done with other WTO countries and China is formally accepted into the WTO. One of the major sticking points at the moment is the WTO negotiations between China and the United States. Although the Chinese have in fact made what was, I think, considered by the experts to have been a pretty good offer, that has not been taken up by the Americans. I think that is a very great pity. It seems to me that it would be in everybody's interests to have China in the WTO and complying with the trading rules that the rest of us have to comply with. From an Australian point of view, it would open up that huge Chinese market even more.When we talk about China, we talk about 1.2 billion people. That is not a terribly meaningful figure. For most of us the figure slips off the tongue, but it does not really mean a great deal. When I was in China recently we travelled to different places and we went to different provinces—or states in our terms. Each province we went to successively talked about their population being 67 million, 71 million, 75 million or 83 million, and the penny began to drop that this is indeed a huge potential market. When you see the improvement in the living standards of that country you realise the potential that is there.It is important from our point of view that China joins the World Trade Organisation. Therefore, it is important that China and America can get on and do a deal on that issue. But unfortunately the World Trade Organisation negotiations are being clouded by other issues. One of those issues is that, whilst the President of the United States recognises and supports America doing a deal with China over the WTO, because the President is something of a lame duck at present, he is not able to impose his will. There is also a feeling around that he tends to react to popularity polls far more than to good policy.The Republican opposition in the United States is very much playing party politics, with China as the bogeyman, particularly on the issue of alleged spying and the stealing of nuclear secrets by China from the United States. When we were in China recently we had a meeting with Premier Zhu Rongji the day before he went to America. He was most concerned that the American view of China was being driven by domestic politics rather than what was in the best interests of both of those major countries. Much as we may like to think we play above our weight economically and in foreign policy terms, we are nevertheless a relatively small player. These two countries are very important to us, and the fact that they do not have a very good relationship at the moment is quite a serious problem.A number of other factors cloud the issues between China and America. It is important that the issues of the US-Japanese relationship and the US-Taiwanese relationship do get sorted out. It is very important that the American President takes a longer term view and tries to take America into a position where it can do a deal with China, for all of our sakes. When we talk about China and the desirability of those trading relationships, it is important that we acknowledge that, whilst we want to have trade and we want to do lots of things with China, not all is perfect in our relationship with China. We also have disagreements. But there are ways to handle those disagreements rather than having public stoushes, as tends to happen with the Americans.It is important that we understand that China at the moment is undertaking—and has done for the last 15 to 20 years—absolutely massive economic and cultural changes. We do not like their political system; we would like to see them as a democracy. We certainly have concerns about the human rights situation in China, and that is one of the reasons why, a couple of years ago, the government set up an annual dialogue on human rights between the Australian government and the Chinese government. It is one of the reasons why we have a number of Chinese officials coming to Canberra in the next few weeks—I think it is for three months—to do human rights training. Clearly that is an area where we have some concerns, and where we think we can contribute.China is going through a massive economic and cultural change. As I said before, the size of the place is just mind-boggling, so it is not easy to change the culture, the attitudes and the way things are done with that number of people overnight. It will take time, and not all will be perfect in that period of time. Many of China's state owned industries have been run inefficiently and unprofitably for many years and many of those are now being privatised, with the help of overseas money and overseas expertise. China is trying to bring its industries up to scratch and to make those industries competitive. In doing so, it means those industries are laying off a lot of workers who were effectively in a featherbed type situation before, and so you get social problems as a result because China now has a large number of unemployed people.In all of this toing-and-froing it seems to me that it is important that Australia not only looks after what is morally right but also looks after its own interests. That means that on some issues we may well be closer to America than China; on other issues we will be closer to China than we will be to America. We need to make sure that we are independent in many of these issues, and the government is trying to make sure that that happens—and it does happen—quite regularly. In terms of the human rights dialogue, in particular with China, we would like to see China sign off and implement the various human rights instruments that exist, because I think there is considerable reserve and concern about that at the present time.We would like to see a resolution of some of the things that are happening in Tibet. One of the interesting things that we did on the recent visit I alluded to earlier was to spend five days in Tibet. We went to Lhasa and we went 300 kilometres along the plateau of Tibet to Shigatse at 4,200 metres, where breathing is a real problem. I see Minister Truss at the table is nodding. He was there a few months before me, and he told me to take some tablets for it because he was all right. I did not take the tablets and I suffered, but I will listen to the minister next time.The point I would make about Tibet is that you hear all sorts of stories about oppression and difficulties, and I would have to say that when I was in Tibet one did not see the open oppression that you hear all the stories about. You did not see the large numbers of military that you hear a lot of stories about. Nevertheless, I have to say also that, clearly, when people spoke to you, they spoke with a degree of caution and reserve.When we saw Premier Zhu Rongji, we raised the question of Tibet and human rights issues, representation and the Dalai Lama. The Premier of China and our delegation did not have a meeting of minds when we talked about the Dalai Lama. His view was that Tibet is part of China, that it is an autonomous region but it is part of greater China, and the Dalai Lama cannot come back as a political leader and has to accept that Tibet is part of China. When I told Premier Zhu that I had met the Dalai Lama last year, and the Dalai Lama had said that he accepted that Tibet was part of China, and that he only wanted to be an autonomous region but also wanted to preserve the language and culture, Premier Zhu said that he felt the Dalai Lama was not telling the truth, and that he told one thing to us and said another thing to them in negotiations. So clearly there were some problems there. But it would be useful if we could encourage our Chinese colleagues to try to resolve that problem of Tibet because it is one of those little festering sores that we need to get resolved.Overall, it seems to me that China is making progress in a range of areas. We need to give them some encouragement. We need to take a constructive approach, not just throw brickbats all the time. There is a lot of good going on in China at present. Yesterday, 6 June, was the 10th anniversary of Tiananmen. Clearly, we tend to remember that quite appalling episode. It is right that we remember those things. However, we cannot always live in the past. It is important that we look forward and try to improve relationships.Where do Australia's interests lie? It seems to me that they lie with both the United States and China. Clearly, anything we can do to help resolve some of problems would be useful. However, we cannot kid ourselves that they are going to sit up and take a lot of notice of us. I think we have a good relationship with the Chinese, and it is important that we convey some of their views to the Americans. Our American relationship is solid and sound, but increasingly China is important to us as well.It seems to me that the government is handling the Chinese relationship particularly well at present. We have not had a better relationship with China for as long as almost anybody can remember. We look forward to President Jiang Zemin visiting Australia in September. I am sure that that will be an outstanding success. I am sure that it will further cement the relationship between Australia and China. I think it is a very important relationship which we need to nurse, nurture and persevere with and about which we need to deal with some of the imperfections. At the same time, we need to keep that relationship with the Americans going. We have to steer an Australian course. That means dealing with both sides where it is in our national interest to do so.20:47:006215McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY4I4WatsonALP00—The Treasurer, when introducing the budget, proclaimed that it is a budget which will set Australia up to enter the next century. It has certainly set us up in more ways than one and perhaps not quite in the way that the Treasurer would like the Australian public to believe. It is not a dramatic budget; it is predictably a conservative one. Superficially, there seems to be not much in it that you could object to. On the other hand, there is not much in it that you could get too excited about. It is all pretty ho hum, you could say.But look a bit more carefully and what do you see? What the government hopes to achieve and what its whole budget is based upon are measures that will have dire results for the people of Australia. Two of these—the introduction of a GST and the sale and full privatisation of Telstra—are measures that the government says are necessary to achieve its strategy. Without these measures, the budget, even though it is comparatively unadventurous, falls apart.This government, with its arrogant attitude, is not interested in debating these issues. Whenever anyone raises doubts about the GST, the Prime Minister claims that his party's re-election last October gave him the mandate to introduce a GST. That is it. End of story. There is no need to discuss it. He says, `Just roll over everyone and let me do it.' That was his attitude until he hit the hurdles in the Senate and was forced to at least discuss the GST with, firstly, Senator Harradine and then the Democrats.Why is there this unwillingness to genuinely debate the issues? What does it tell us about the government? What is the government frightened of? You would expect that if its motives for reform were genuine, there would be a willingness to get the best possible result and to have full and wide-ranging discussions with interested and affected parties. But this does not seem to be the case. The attitude seems to be, `Let's push the bill through. Let's not listen to anyone's argument. Don't listen to the elderly. Don't listen to the poor. Don't listen to students. Don't listen to the churches or St Vincent de Paul. We don't need to hear about their concerns. We know best.'Not only does the Prime Minister have this attitude; it has spread to other members in his government. Take, for example, the performance of the Minister for Family and Community Services, which some of us would have heard on ABC radio here in Canberra last week. She actually accused pensioners and others who had expressed their fears about the GST of being deliberately misleading. She accused the presenter of the show of using the program as a means of broadcasting propaganda. This was a talkback show which takes calls from the general public. Perhaps the minister thinks that the ABC censored the calls and only broadcast those critical of government policy. Perhaps that was the reason for the Prime Minister's outburst in the government party room last week, where he decided that there was an ABC conspiracy against this government.This was a very offensive performance on the part of the minister. It did not go unnoticed by the allegedly lying pensioners. They were quick to respond that they would take up the minister's invitation to contact her office. No doubt she was inundated with calls.But this attitude is also expressed by the Prime Minister when it comes to the issue of drugs. He knows best there too. He is not interested in debate. He knows what he thinks, and he is not interested in even considering other points of view. While I share the Prime Minister's preference for an illicit drug free society, that would be about the limit of agreement I would have with him on this matter.Unfortunately, we do not live in a perfect world. Illicit drugs exist and drug takers exist. There is a problem with illicit drugs in Australia whether we like it or not. It is affecting all levels of society. Potentially all of us—it may not be in our immediate family, if we are lucky, but I would be surprised if many of us were not affected—know someone in our social circle who has suffered because of drugs. But we have a Prime Minister who will not even consider the idea of a heroin trial, for example. He will not consider it even when it is put forward by the Australian Capital Territory, where the parliament sits. What sort of a closed mind does that exemplify?I believe that we need to tackle the problem of illicit drugs in a more sophisticated and comprehensive way. We need to do as much as possible to reduce the importation and distribution of illicit drugs. We must pursue the criminals who traffic in drugs. We must recognise that drug taking and drug addiction are social and medical problems, not criminal matters. We must provide support and assistance to those who are addicted.In this budget additional funding is being made available for drug treatment services, drug education in schools and law enforcement initiatives. I am pleased that the government is putting some resources into this area. But I have to say that, while the aims of the National Drug Strategy sound good—funding to reduce the demand and supply of illicit drugs in the community, drug treatment and rehabilitation and community education—it really is not enough. I am also concerned about the general approach. There is no mention at all about a heroin trial or safe injecting rooms. Surely, with intravenous drug users dying every day from dirty needles, safe injecting rooms and on-tap counselling make very good public health sense, not to mention reducing the exposure of non-drug users and children to needle stick injuries.So often do we hear the rhetoric about drugs and a war. It is as if society is divided into goodies and baddies. The `goodies' are those who do not have anything to do with illicit drugs and the `baddies' are those who do something with them. Immediately a confrontation situation is set up. Attitudes are adopted. It is `them and us'—whoever `them' is and whoever `us' is. Drug takers are seen as criminals to be caught and punished. The police, acting on our behalf, are expected to treat them as criminals.I suppose we should remember that this was the attitude adopted against alcohol users in the USA earlier this century—and it failed dismally. The parallel between the prohibition of alcohol and the current prohibition of illicit drugs should be very obvious to anyone looking at this issue. One might ask, `Why was alcohol prohibition unsuccessful?' One of the major reasons for alcohol prohibition being unsuccessful, I think, is that alcohol was the adult's drug of choice.There is much in this argument of `them and us', the taking of sides. Often, people see the use of illicit drugs as being the taking of sides with adults against younger people, the younger people being those who use illicit drugs. I suppose those people who were turned on to marijuana or heroin around the time of the Vietnam War are in their 50s now; drug users are getting older. If they live, they will get old like the rest of us.So where is this war on drugs taking us? It is not a war against the more deadly drugs of choice used by adults; law-makers do not understand that the reasons for people drink ing heavily and smoking heavily and taking illicit drugs are often the same. Many young people today feel alienated from the rest of society. The reasons are many—family breakdown, lack of employment and no immediate prospect of employment, no faith in the future. Turning to drugs can offer, in the short term, the ability to make a dull life bearable. Feelings of inadequacy and frustration are not unknown to well connected adults, and many of those well connected adults turn to their drug of choice—alcohol and tobacco—at times of stress.So what are the deadly drugs? It is enlightening to look at the statistics. According to the national mortality database of the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, in 1997 in Australia there were 3,668 deaths attributable to the use of alcohol, 18,224 attributable to the use of tobacco and 832 attributable to the use of illicit drugs. Therefore, if alcohol and tobacco are more dangerous than heroin or marijuana, why are we not asking the police to wage war against drinking and smoking? In my view, it is because the generation of people who are policy makers have an exaggerated fear of the consequences of drug taking—the same fear that the proponents of prohibition had about alcohol consumption all those years ago.Part of this fear is because most property crime these days is drug related. People mug people and break into properties to steal either cash or goods that can be sold to purchase drugs. The people who do this are not big-time criminals; they are desperate people who need to feed their expensive habit. They could be in any one of our families—and that is an important point I think for us all to acknowledge. To have an illicit drug habit is much more expensive than having an alcohol problem.Drug abuse is a social problem and a medical problem. As such, the police should not and cannot be expected to deal with it in the same way they are expected to deal with criminal policing. Unfortunately, however, the expectation is that police will and should deal with drug offenders in the same way they deal with hard-line criminals. They are often forced by community expectations to deal harshly with these people. We need to break the criminal connection. We need to break the pusher-user connection. We need to improve our ability to prevent the importation and subsequent distribution of illicit drugs in this country.I recall a speech I made in this chamber in 1986 when, in the context of an inquiry into civil coastal surveillance, I noted that the main element that the government relied upon in the fight against illegal drug importation to Australia was intelligence gathered from within Australia and overseas. It surprised some people at the time to find there was little evidence to suggest that the organisation of coastal surveillance was benefiting law enforcement agencies in their efforts to prevent illegal drug entry. Most people on the street thought these Coastwatch people were up there keeping drug imports out of Australia. In fact, there was very little evidence presented to the inquiry of massive drug smuggling into the north of Australia. It seemed that most drugs entered Australia in other ways—for example, in shipping containers.I am pleased to say that the government has decided in this budget to provide additional funds to improve illicit drug detection by extending the capacity of Customs to examine full shipping containers using X-ray technology, a final recognition by the government of the fact that this is the way most drugs enter this country. It is a belated recognition because the US have recognised this for some time and have much greater checking of containers than we do in this country. I am also aware, as all of us are, that there have been some well-publicised hauls discovered coming into this country on small vessels. They of course are the easy ones to catch.The government has given resources back to the system in this budget to enhance the capability for such seizures, but it needs to be remembered that what the government is putting into this Tough on Drugs policy is only a fraction of what was previously done under a Labor government. I fear that we are only dealing with the tip of the iceberg. The fact that the government has not put any more into this program means that the interdiction services are just not getting anywhere.What we need is an intelligent and an intelligence based approach. We need to use a blend of available resources combined in a cooperative way with state, federal and international agencies. We need to make effective use of overseas experience and join forces with others when we should. Customs, police, even appropriate sections of the defence forces—all such resources should be engaged to help stem the flow of illicit drugs around the world, because it is not much good trying to stop people from using illicit drugs when they are relatively easy to obtain. Making such drugs illegal has obviously not been the answer. It does not work, and every day we see the proof of that.The war on drugs will be lost because it cannot be won. It makes criminals of not only dealers but also users. If making drugs illegal is the only method we adopt, it is doomed to failure because there are massive profits to be made. It should not be forgotten by us that people want to use these substances no matter how harmful they are. There are libraries full of research on the harmful effects of tobacco and the abuse of alcohol. There are a large number of studies on the benign and, in some cases, positive effects of a moderate use of alcohol. There is little empirical evidence on the social uses of marijuana, heroin or other illicit drugs other than the instances of some doctors who suggest that marijuana can be useful for pain amelioration.What we need is a properly conducted heroin trial which will help provide some valid research to enable us to make informed decisions about illicit drugs. But no state or territory can conduct the trial without the Commonwealth's agreement. Many will think that this is an outrageous proposal, but we know that prohibition is obviously not working. It has never worked. We know that criminal cartels have budgets larger than some small countries. We know that we can only try to do our best to stem the flow of illicit drugs into the country.We need to acknowledge the facts. There have always been drugs and people have always wanted them. It does not make much difference whether they are legal or illegal. There have always been some who have abused drugs, but not every drug taker ends up horrifically, just as every person who uses alcohol does not end up a chronic alcoholic. In fact, it has been suggested that no-one really has any idea how many people may have tried illicit drugs, but survey evidence suggests that the vast majority who have taken drugs do not develop a problem.Another way to deal with this problem is one that requires a complete change of attitude—that is, to decriminalise the drug scene. I realise that that is a concept that would horrify many people. But if we consider it and think about it, if all drugs were dispensed legally we would be able to see how the drugs which currently excite terror behave when they are properly manufactured and used. We would then have reliable information on which to make informed decisions and we could, most importantly, break the chain that turns users into pushers.Prohibition obviously has not and is not working. We can do our best to stem the flow of illicit drugs into our country, but we will probably never be able to stop it completely. We need to acknowledge that there are people who take drugs despite the best endeavours of concerned family members and friends and education programs and that there will continue to be. We need to help those who need help and not treat them as criminals. We need to get organised crime out of the picture.In concluding these remarks about drugs, I do not like them and what they are doing to our society, but I am not going to stick my head in the sand and pretend they are not a problem. If anyone has any doubt about that, all they have to do is listen to the speeches that people make in this House day in and day out about how terrible it is. We know it is terrible, but it is time to do something about it.I believe drug abuse—and that means all drugs, legal and illegal—is one of our society's biggest current problems. We have made great strides in this country in reducing alcohol and tobacco abuse in recent years through education. Indeed, Australia is a world leader in successful public education programs that have led to a reduction in alcohol and tobacco consumption. We need to provide more money for drug education programs to discourage people from beginning to use illicit drugs as well as showing them how to reduce their dependency.However, without a willingness to be adventurous and flexible in our approach to the use of illicit drugs, we are not going to solve this problem. We need to provide more support for people wanting to get off drugs and more money for counselling, detoxification and treatment. If an alcoholic wants to quit, Alcoholics Anonymous is a phone call away. If a drug addict wants to quit, treatment is at least two months away. How can a person who has made the hard decision be expected to hold out that long?The government's policy of a war on drugs is doomed to failure because it is not just waging war against criminal cartels; it is also waging war against drug takers who are ordinary people usually driven to drugs for the same reason as people consume tobacco and alcohol. To have any impact on the effect of illicit drugs in our community, in particular for the young, we need a whole range of approaches. Some of those approaches are politically risky, but the alternative is to take the risk that IV drug users take daily which has caused hundreds of deaths in the last year. I believe it is worth taking that political risk.21:07:006219Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWSHK5MenziesLP10—I rise to address two issues related to the budget, namely, the taxation treatment of families and the support for marriage and family life. I do so in a context which I would like to explain to the House. Over the past few decades, national material prosperity both in this nation and elsewhere in the industrialised world has improved. Gross domestic product has risen to record levels. The health of many nations has improved as measured by infant mortality and longevity, and money spent on education has grown. Children's rights have been the focus of renewed attention and the ratio of children to parents has decreased. But few people would dispute that life for our children today is more uncertain than at any stage since the end of the Second World War. To take a few meas ures: youth suicide has increased to tragic levels; tens of thousands of young people are estimated to be homeless; reports of child abuse rise each year; alcohol and drug abuse, which the previous speaker made reference to, particularly amongst teenagers, has increased markedly; and hundreds of thousands of children are growing up in single parent families.While the causes of these problems are complex, a common factor is the breakdown of marriages and the disintegration of family structures. Take two recent examples: the final report of the Prime Ministerial Task Force on Youth Homelessness, Putting families in the picture, found that the majority of young people and families identified conflict in their relationship as the main reason for imminent or early home leaving by young people. The recent draft national action plan for suicide prevention, in part, stated:Young people with suicidal behaviours are less likely to be living with their biological parents and more likely to be from separated, divorced or single parent families, or from families where there are interpersonal conflicts. A family history of mental illness, violence or assault, imprisonment, antisocial behaviour, or harmful drug use is associated with suicide, as is childhood physical and sexual abuse and the recent breakdown of marriage. Strong connections to family or responsibility for children appear to provide some protection from suicide.While these and other reports attest to a recurring association between a range of social pathologies and marriage and family breakdown, little attention has been given to the issue until recently. The evidence, however, is mounting. In To have and to hold , the parliamentary report on strategies to strengthen marriage and relationships, the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs surveyed the research about the impact of marriage, separation and divorce on health of individuals and on children, both at the time of their parents' divorce and in subsequent adulthood. As Professor William Doherty has noted, `for adults, a stable, happy marriage is the best protector against illness and premature death, and for children, such a marriage is the best source of emotional stability and good physical health'.A considerable body of research evidence indicates that adults and children are at increased risk of mental and physical problems due to marital distress. There is both conclusive evidence to show that marriage is a `healthy environment' associated with lower mortality and morbidity and strong evidence that the process of divorce leaves men, women and children vulnerable to ill health. In a recent review of the literature, Professor Linda Waite, the University of Chicago professor of sociology and a past president of the American Population Association, observed:In a variety of ways and along a number of dimensions, married men and women lead healthier lives than the unmarried. This includes more drinking, substance abuse, drinking and driving and generally living dangerously among single men. Married women more often have access to health insurance. Divorced and widowed men and women are more likely to get into arguments and fights, do dangerous things, take chances that could cause accidents. The married lead more ordered lives, with healthier eating and sleeping habits. Marriage improves both men's and women's psychological well-being. Perhaps, as a result, married men and women generally live longer than single men and women.While it seems that there are some gender differences in the outcomes for men and women, recent studies appear to counter earlier suggestions that marriage is good for men and bad for women. These conclusions are not confined to the United States or Britain. Professor Denis Ladbrook from Curtin University notes that the conclusions drawn from overseas data are broadly replicable in Australia.The findings also relate to children. A large number of studies have shown that divorce has both a short-term and a long-term impact on children. It also demonstrates that this impact often extends into adult life with consequences for health, family life, educational and occupational status. Ten years ago, Professor Norval Glenn, then the editor of the Journal of family issues, wrote that the views of leading family scholars were beginning to shift from what he described as `continuity-sanguineness' about the condition of the family to `change-concern'. He indicated that scholars were becoming less likely to view current family trends as a process of gradual and even beneficial adaptation and increasingly likely to view them as new and socially harmful. A decade later he confirmed the outlook. He stated:Not all family social scientists participated in this shift, but it is significant that the most prominent scholars and those most directly involved in the relevant research were most likely to do so.An example of the shift is the work of Professor Paul Amato. In 1987, while a fellow at the Australian Institute of Family Studies, Amato had written in Children and Australian families: the growth of competence that harmful stereotypes such as `staying together for the sake of the children' prevented us from seeing families as they really are. His latest research, published as A generation at risk , found that only one-quarter to one-third of all divorces end up being better for the children than if the parents had stayed together. By contrast, 70 per cent of divorces end low conflict marriages, which would have been better for the children to have continued rather than end.Liberal and conservative scholars alike increasingly remark on the consequences of a devaluing of marriage on the wellbeing of children. The renowned scholar of family studies, Urie Bronfenbrenner, has commented:There has been a progressive disarray at an accelerating rate of the disorganisation of the family in the western world.Australians can take little heart from international comparisons. United Nations demographic surveys indicate that the trend of child poverty, family fragmentation, divorce, out of wedlock births and teenage deaths is accelerating. As Bronfenbrenner asserts, `amongst post-industrial societies, families, children, adolescents and youth are at the greatest risk in English-speaking countries'. Australia, unfortunately, is no exception.Others share Bronfenbrenner's concern. President Clinton's former domestic policy adviser, Professor William Galston, has remarked that `the family fragmentation that we are currently experiencing . . . is harming our children . . . deeply . . . (and) dreadfully'. Across the Atlantic, Prime Minister Tony Blair said recently, `We cannot say we want a strong and secure society when we ignore its very foundation: family life.'Despite claims from time to time that family structure is irrelevant to positive outcomes for children, the research evidence is mounting. The veteran New York Democrat senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan has observed that, historically, poverty derived from unemployment and low wages; today it derives from family structure. The academic Council on Families in America concluded in a report to the nation in 1995 that the mounting evidence `points to one striking conclusion: the weakening of marriage has had devastating consequences for the wellbeing of children'. The council did not claim that the weakening of marriage was the only factor contributing to the decline of child wellbeing but said it was by far the most important causal factor. Obviously, unemployment and other economic factors also contribute to the general uncertainty facing many young people today. Instead of treating only the symptoms of marriage and family breakdown, such as homelessness, we need I believe to view these issues at least partially as manifestations of relationship dysfunction; otherwise we fail to address part of the cause of growing societal problems.It is a peculiarity of the modern era that national debate has been framed almost exclusively in economic terms, often ignoring the social, the cultural and indeed the spiritual dimensions of national life. There are three bases, I suggest, to a just and healthy society: a vital market, an efficient and caring state and a vibrant community. There can be little doubt, given the history of this century, that a vital market is a necessary element of economic growth, adequate social welfare and democratic freedom. The fall of the Berlin Wall marked more than the end of a particular ideological regime; it marked also the failure of the command system, both as a harbinger of economic progress and as a vehicle for human rights.However, the market does not and cannot alone deliver a just society. There will always be those who are poor, ill, disabled, unemployed or in need of care. There will be projects of societal interest, ranging from the defence of the nation, through the promotion of adequate health and education, and the protection of the environment, to the provision of the infrastructure necessary for an adequately functioning community.Sometimes this debate between the role of the market and the state is simplified into two opposing propositions: one in favour of the market and the other in favour of the state. The reality is that both are important. The question, for example, should not be one of intervention versus nonintervention. All governments intervene in the economy. The real issue is for what purpose the intervention is made and how efficient is the outcome.But both markets and governments can lead to injustice. The notion that all aspects of society can be treated as a commodity can lead to untrammelled consumerism in which the interests of some ultimately are ignored. On the other hand, the suppression of the market and the all-knowing hand of government in many parts of the world this century has led to some of the worst forms of totalitarianism imaginable. A just and healthy society requires a balance between the market and the state, and it is here that the community is important.Because individuals gain meaning and identity from their relationships with others, a liberal democracy dedicated to full and free human development cannot ignore the conditions that are most conducive to the fulfilment of that ideal. If we do, then liberal democracy neglects the very basis of its own maintenance. For it is in the institutions of civil society—in families and in voluntary associations, such as churches and charitable agencies, even sporting and social clubs—that democracy is sustained, by balancing the power of both market and state and by helping to counter both consumerist and totalitarian tendencies. The Harvard scholar Mary Ann Glendon writes:The myriad of associations that generate social norms are the invisible supports of, and the sine qua non for, a regime in which individuals have rights. Neither the older political and civil rights, nor the newer economic and social rights, can be secure in the absence of the social arrangements that induce those who are disadvantaged by the rights of others to accept the restrictions and interferences that such rights entail.In other words, if we cannot preserve and support the institutions of community in which relationships are developed and nurtured, then we are not merely placing at risk the welfare of many people, particularly the young and the elderly; we are weakening the very foundations of democracy itself. Of all political systems, democracy most depends upon the competence and character of its citizens. A liberal democracy presupposes civic virtue to a higher degree than any other form of government.This sector of civil society embraces those relationships which are independent of the state but provide an environment in which children are formed in the virtues of citizenship and in which adults are encouraged to practise them. Of these institutions, the family is the most important, as it is the first and most critical environment for the development of human competence and civic virtue. If the human person is at the centre of every social institution, then the family as the primary place of socialisation needs to be a community of free and responsible persons who are encouraged to live marriage as a project of love which contributes to the vitality of civil society. How we support marriage and family then, as the protective institution of family, particularly the welfare of children, is of profound importance. It is, in the words of Mary Ann Glendon, a `seedbed of virtue'.How should we treat families? There are many propositions that have been put forward, but I believe it should be founded on two principles which recognise and support the existence of the key mediation or bridging structures in society, such as family and voluntary associations. These principles are, first, that public policy should protect and foster family and, second, wherever possible public policy should utilise the family as its agent. These two principles establish a minimum and maximum position. In some policy areas, government should leave families alone or at least adopt a neutral position towards them. In others, it should utilise the family itself or other mediating structures to deliver programs of assistance.Within this framework, I turn then to measures in the budget. The first is taxation policy. The coalition's family tax initiative increased the tax-free threshold by $1,000 for each dependent child up to the age of 16 and each dependent secondary student up to the age of 18. In addition, single income families, including sole parents, receive a further $2,500 increase in their tax-free threshold if they have a child under five. For a single income family of three children, one of whom is under five years, the tax-free threshold is almost double.The taxation reform package before the parliament builds on these initiatives. Apart from reductions in personal income taxes and the increase in simplification of family benefits, the tax-free threshold increases under the family tax initiative will be doubled. From 1 July 2000, all single income families, including sole parents, with one child under five years will have an effective tax-free threshold of $13,000, more than double the new general threshold.These measures are particularly relevant in light of the report released today by the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling. According to NATSEM's new income distribution report, single income families experienced a significant drop in living standards between 1982 and 1995-96. It found that families with only one parent working experienced a $24 a week fall in average family incomes over the period, whereas families with both parents working experienced a $43 a week increase in their average weekly incomes between 1982 and 1995-96. Sole parents and other types of families also had significant increases in their average weekly incomes which rose $44 and $43 a week respectively.One of the co-authors of the report, Professor Ann Harding from NATSEM, suggested that many families were being forced into two incomes through necessity and it would be increasingly difficult for single income families to survive. Professor Harding is reported as saying today:Mum going out to work boosted income for many families, that would be the thing that kept them afloat. It seems that, in the space of a little over one generation, we have moved from a situation where many women in particular had no choice about whether or not they could continue a career and a job upon becoming married because of regulations and laws which existed, for example, in relation to the Commonwealth Public Service, to a situation today where many women also have no choice because of the economic circumstances and necessities facing their families. Surely we can achieve some balance in between. Surely we can achieve a situation where real choice is available to these people, to these families, to women and to mothers and children affected by it, without going back to that situation which existed back in the 1960s.The measures, therefore, before the parliament in terms of this budget and in terms of the family tax initiative are a far-reaching recognition of families in the taxation system. It is an important recognition, I suggest, that two economies exist within the nation: the market economy where exchanges take place through money and where competition and efficiency drive decisions and the home economy where exchanges take place through the altruistic sharing of goods and services amongst family members.The second area that I wish to briefly address is that of marriage and relationship education. The report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, To have and to hold, called for a national strategy to strengthen marriage and relationships. The coalition subsequently accepted this proposal for an enhanced program of prevention and education, committing an additional $6 million for relationship education services, $10 million for men and family relationships and an extra $16 million for counselling, mediation and dispute resolution services, taking to almost $40 million the amount spent on family relationship services by the Commonwealth.The central theme of the committee's report involved the recommendation that the Commonwealth's Family Relationship Services program, which funds some 46 community and church agencies, should clearly recognise the role of preventive education as distinct from programs of therapy, counselling and mediation as research has shown that programs of preventive education can have an impact in terms of strengthening the marriage and relationships of many people.In conclusion, whilst we read from time to time of sensational reports that marriage and family life is fast disappearing, the majority of our children grow up with their biological parents, and lifelong commitment remains a popular aspiration, particularly amongst young people. Marriage and family life remain the optimal conditions for the socialisation and education of children's character and values, without which liberal democracy and civil society cannot properly flourish. For these reasons, we cannot ignore the trends affecting families today. These measures in the budget, particularly relating to family taxation and to measures to help support marriage and relationships, are therefore very welcome.21:26:006224Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—I am always pleased to follow the member for Menzies in debate. In fact, I wish to spend some of my time speaking about a person who has been mooted from time to time as a successor to the honourable member for Menzies—that is, the Premier of Victoria. The member for Menzies was talking about marriage and relationship education. Apart from noting that the love affair between Jeffrey Kennett and Jeffrey Kennett is one of the great love stories of the 20th century, I will not venture into the terrain covered by the member for Menzies.In fact, I want to talk about the Longford gas disaster. The Commonwealth has spent some $7.4 million on compensating Victorians who suffered as a result of the Longford gas disaster. As I have mentioned in the House previously, Victorians were seriously short-changed out of all this. It comes from a $100 million election eve promise made by the Howard government. I may return to this issue later, if time permits, but the question I want to raise this evening is: why was this allocation necessary at all? Why did this disaster happen?There is a royal commission presently investigating the causes of the Longford gas disaster. There is, however, some speculation that Premier Kennett may take Victorians to a cut and run election before the royal commission reports, and I want to suggest to the House that this would be outrageous and that there must be no election in Victoria before the public release of the royal commission's report.I have taken an interest in this issue partly stemming from the time that I served in the Victorian parliament as shadow minister in the area of energy and state owned enterprises covering issues to do with the Gas and Fuel Corporation. I want to put on record this evening my beliefs regarding the causes of the Longford gas disaster as follows. During the late 1960s, as a consequence of the discovery of natural gas in Bass Strait, a regulatory regime was established to ensure the safety and security of the provision of natural gas from the Bass Strait platforms to Longford and beyond to each individual home and business.That regulatory regime included, first, the establishment of the oil and gas division within the Department of Minerals and Energy to be responsible for the detailed inspection of the Esso-BHP assets, including the oil and gas platforms and the network of pipelines leading to and from the Longford plant; second, the establishment within the Gas and Fuel Corporation of a specialised gas supply department responsible for, among other tasks, the detailed inspection of the Longford plant; and, third, the establishment within Esso-BHP of their own inside team of technical experts specialising full time in ensuring that, in relation to the design of oil and gas platforms, the design and location of the oil and gas pipelines and the design of the Longford plant, the safety and security of the assets, the staff and the oil and gas supplies were uppermost in the minds of Esso-BHP employees.Shortly after the discovery of oil and natural gas in the mid-1960s Esso-BHP entered into a supply contract with the Gas and Fuel Corporation which stipulated that the Gas and Fuel Corporation would have the right to enter Esso-BHP property, such as Longford, to enable it to reassure itself and, in turn, its customers that they could guarantee continuous gas supply. A feature of this arrangement was that not only Gas and Fuel Corporation employees with relevant expertise but also technical consultants chosen by the Gas and Fuel Corporation but from outside that organisation were allowed onto the Longford site. As recently as the mid-1980s, with the completion of construction of Longford Plant No. 3, at the official opening Esso-BHP and Gas and Fuel senior officials emphasised that the public should take note of the extent to which no expense had been spared to maximise safety and security. This was a Rolls Royce system where every asset was checked by an Esso-BHP employee and/or a Gas and Fuel employee and in some cases an officer from the Oil and Gas Division of the Department of Minerals and Energy as well.After the fire last year some commentators suggested that the public could not expect Esso-BHP to inspect every nut, every bolt, every manhole cover on the site. But this is precisely what detailed inspection does involve. It involves looking at every part of the assets, however small or inconsequential they may seem. The most likely cause of the fire was operating errors by Esso. Apparently, the heat exchanger was operating at very low temperatures, became brittle and failed. But the bigger questions, however, are why was the change in temperature not detected and action taken, and what were the factors that led to this setting emerging? Either there was a problem that was not identified because of lack of inspection or after the problem was identified nothing was done about it.In 1993, following the election of the Kennett government, there was a substantial change in the Public Service with an emphasis on cost cutting wherever possible. One of the consequences of this change was the absorption of the Department of Energy and Minerals, as it had become known, into the Department of Natural Resources and the Environment. A further change was the downgrading of the Oil and Gas Division so that it no longer had the resources to carry out detailed inspection. Responsibility for inspection of Longford and similar plants was moved into the Occupational Health and Safety Authority and subsequently into the Workcover Authority. The Workcover Authority neither retained a policy of detailed inspection of Esso-BHP assets nor, with the downsizing of the public sector, retained any capacity to do so.The Workcover Authority moved to a system of risk assessment in regard to the Longford plant, which meant it carried out inspection on a sample basis instead of what had become custom and practice—namely, detailed inspection. It is worth reporting that detailed inspection had been in operation for over 30 years and there had been no major incidents. In fact, the owners prided themselves on having one of the most—if not the most—secure supplies of natural gas to a major city in the world. This can no longer be claimed.There are those who would argue that risk assessment can be more effective—because it enables a company to identify high priority risks and have those dealt with first—than detailed inspection, which involves treating every asset and every work practice as if it is of equal importance. The value of detailed inspection, of course, is that it is less likely that the condition of an asset or a work practice will be overlooked. The problem with the change to risk assessment by Esso-BHP at Longford is that the procedure was not followed properly. The result was a change from a system that had worked effectively to one that had no chance of working, because there was no commitment to do it—only a commitment to reduce costs.At Longford the first step of risk assessment may have been adhered to in that Esso-BHP and other parties—such as the state government, the Workcover Authority and major clients, such as Gascor and Vencorp—may have been involved in assessing what would be the cause of a major calamity. It is believed that each asset and work practice was assessed to determine whether it was a high priority risk, a medium priority risk or a low priority risk. It would appear, however, that subsequently there was no follow-up to ensure that where work was required on an asset or alterations needed to be made to a work practice the work was done and the practice changed. I believe that a major defect in the decision to move to risk assessment was that Esso-BHP failed to appoint external advisers. The role of external advisers is to ensure that there is an external process to audit the Esso management's commitment to not only carry out risk assessment but ensure that problems that had the potential to cause a catastrophe were fixed. If Esso-BHP had appointed external advisers to audit their safety and security practices, the Longford fire may not have occurred. The state government—through their agency, the Oil and Gas Division—Gascor, Vencorp and the Workcover Authority should all have remained active at Longford to ensure that Victoria's oil and gas remained safe and secure.As a consequence of this disaster, Esso-BHP faces the possibility, subject to the findings of the royal commission, of a record Australian payout for negligence. I believe that this circumstance arose because the state government sent a clear message to all the parties involved that Esso-BHP were big enough to look after Longford and all their other Bass Strait assets and did not need external scrutiny. Indeed, they are still saying the same thing today. Victorians deserve a government that will guarantee at all costs that our oil and gas assets—from the oil and gas rigs to Longford and the pipelines beyond—are safe and secure. This is no longer happening. The cost to the state of the Longford fire is at least $1.6 billion and the deaths of two people.The Kennett government, unlike any previous state government—the Bolte government, the Hamer government, the Cain government, the Kirner government—since the discovery of oil and gas in Bass Strait, has neglected to supervise Victoria's oil and gas supplies adequately to ensure their safety and security. In the name of downsizing the public sector and reducing costs, the Kennett government has chosen not to provide its regulatory and inspection authorities with sufficient resources and staff to satisfactorily carry out their functions to ensure the safety and security of supply of gas; thus a clear message was sent to Esso-BHP that the government saw this as a lesser issue.The Kennett government compounded its downgrading of the supervision of Victoria's gas supplies by breaking up the Gas and Fuel Corporation, substantially reducing the work force and passing on the responsibility for the gas contract with Esso-BHP firstly to Gascor, then to Vencorp, who have not maintained the same degree of supervision of the Longford plant as their predecessors, the Gas and Fuel Corporation. Indeed, in 1996, when the gas contracts between Esso-BHP and Gascor were renegotiated, the clause that allowed Gascor into Longford to check the condition of the assets to see that they were safe and secure was removed. The consequence was that detailed inspection by Gascor ceased. Esso-BHP was left effectively as the sole body responsible for the safe delivery of Victoria's gas supplies with little external supervision.One of the reasons the Gas and Fuel Corporation had written into its contract the right to enter Esso-BHP property was so that it could reassure its own customers that gas supplies were secure. In the early days of the provision of natural gas, the Gas and Fuel Corporation had to persuade potential customers to change from their existing sources of energy on the basis of, not just price, but also reliability of supply. For example, as a result of persuading the Geelong Cement Works to purchase natural gas, the Gas and Fuel Corporation secured a major long-term contract. That contract, in turn, provided the Gas and Fuel Corporation with an economic justification to reticulate the whole of Geelong. The large gas contract users, like the Geelong Cement Works, met regularly with the Gas and Fuel Corporation to seek reassurances regarding any prospective price changes and security of supply. For large gas contract users, such as the Geelong Cement Works, the Longford fire caused severe economic disruption and major financial loss. Indeed, since that time the Geelong Cement Works has announced its impending closure.The consequence of last September's fire at Longford is that there is at least a prima facie case, subject to the royal commission's findings, that there was negligence on the part of at least one party, Esso, in relation to this avoidable tragedy. If this does prove to be the case, then it may also be argued that there was more than one party to the negligence which disrupted Victoria's gas supplies in September 1998 and threatens gas supplies in the winter of 1999. The other parties who may have been involved in contributory negligence are the successor bodies to the Gas and Fuel Corporation, namely Gascor and Vencorp, and the state government for the reasons that I have outlined.The fire at Longford gas plant No. 1 in September 1998 resulted in gas supplies being stopped for two weeks which, according to the Victorian Employers Chamber of Commerce and Industry, caused a loss to business of the order of $1.6 billion. Domestic gas customers had to experience cold showers for a fortnight and a loss of access to heating and cooking facilities. This is what the Kennett government calls the benefits of downsizing, the benefits of sacking public servants, the benefits of its style of economic rationalism—slash and burn without regard to the consequences and then fight to avoid being held responsible. These numbers simply do not stack up. At least $1.6 billion has been lost in order to save a few lousy safety inspection jobs and, on top of that, lives have been lost in an avoidable accident.Since the fire Esso-BHP, Vencorp and the state government have not been frank with the Victorian people about the prospect of gas shortages during this coming winter. If we go back to February this year, Esso invited the media to Longford to inspect the facility and observe the progress in the restoration of plant No. 1. Esso told the journalists there that there was no doubt that the plant would be restored, that work was ahead of schedule and that full gas supplies would be available prior to winter, removing any doubt about the possibility of restrictions. But simultaneously the three gas distributors have been contacting large gas contract consumers saying that unless there is a mild June there is a distinct possibility that their supplies will be interrupted and enlisting their support to identify ways of reducing gas demand.I want to submit that, on the evidence, the royal commission could properly arrive at the following conclusions. First, that Esso is in breach of its contract with the Gas and Fuel Corporation, Vencorp and all gas consumers in Victoria which requires it to maintain capacity to supply at least 50 per cent of our gas requirements. Second, that Esso is guilty of negligence because of its failure to maintain its assets in good working order as a consequence of its changed policy of inspection from a detailed one to one of risk assessment. Third, that Vencorp has not fulfilled its responsibilities to its customers, large gas consumers and domestic consumers alike, by failing to carry out detailed inspection of the Longford plant, as the Gas and Fuel Corporation had done for more than 30 years.Fourth, that if the Royal Commission in its findings attributes the fire to failure on the part of Esso to maintain a particular asset, then it can reasonably be argued that the continuation of detailed inspections would have detected any faulty assets and most likely have prevented the fire. After all, detailed inspection had been followed for 30 years and had been found to be effective. Fifth, that the state government has been negligent in allowing Vencorp, the Workcover Authority and Esso-BHP to move to risk assessment instead of detailed inspection of Esso-BHP's Longford plant.Sixth, that the state government has been negligent in failing to provide adequate resources to its regulatory and inspectorial authorities to ensure safety and security in the supply of natural gas. And seventh, that the state government has been negligent in its failure to carry out due diligence on the impact of any organisational changes made within the public sector; specifically, the state government failed to examine the impact of its downsizing of the public sector on the safety and security of gas supplies. It proceeded with downsizing without regard to the consequences and will still do so today unless there is a clear message from the Royal Commission to the contrary.The Kennett government and the Howard government have also been derelict in their responsibilities to gas consumers, domestic and industrial alike, by distributing only $7.4 million of the $100 million compensation package that was promised as part of an election stunt by the Howard government on the day before the last federal election. This was a fraud on Victorian voters. It was accompanied by massive advertising to the extent that Victorians believed that they would receive some $100 million in compensation. This has not been forthcoming.An example that recently came to my attention was that of a nursing home in the electorate of Bruce where the hot water supplies blew up as a result of the Longford gas disaster. The residents, most of whom are pensioners, have been charged for this. They have not received any compensation whatsoever. They have been told that, because they are a body corporate, they do not qualify as a small business and that these heating supplies are not their personal property; yet Senator Hill has had the nerve and the audacity to say in the Senate that it is a good result that this $100 million has not been spent because the need has not been identified and Victorians do not really need it. I believe that the royal commission needs to bring in findings that will slow down this Premier with a Napoleonic complex. I look forward to the royal commission's findings. (Time expired)21:46:006228Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—I have much pleasure in supporting the many economic and social initiatives that are encompassed in the government's budget for 1999-2000. It is extraordinary that only three short years ago this government discovered to its horror that it had inherited a $10 billion deficit from the Keating-Beazley led government, despite the fact that right up until the election, they had placed their hands on their hearts and declared that there was no deficit. In just three years the coalition, led by the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer, has eliminated the deficit and introduced a set of tax reforms which will deliver tax cuts to low and middle income Australians, increases to pensions and benefits and a more stable funding base for our state governments.It is worth recapping some of the initiatives that this budget has unveiled. For our Treasurer, there were none of the grandiose statements of certain former Treasurers about bringing home the bacon, yet his millennium budget and the tax reforms that this government is introducing will produce greater and longer lasting prosperity than the poor efforts of past Treasurers under the previous Labor government. This budget has placed us on track to halve our net debt to GDP ratio by the year 2000-2001. In fact, in this year alone we will repay $20.5 billion of Labor's debt. Growth in the past two years has been in excess of four per cent and, even with the difficulties being experienced by our near neighbours, this is expected to continue at three per cent over the coming year. Unemployment is now down to 7.4 per cent. It is still too high but the lowest it has been since the recession that we had to have. Inflation remains low and, much to the approval of home buyers in my electorate of Makin, interest rates remain at their lowest levels in 30 years. This is also the first Commonwealth budget to be prepared on an accrual basis rather than a cash basis. This will give a better indication of our true position at any given time and further delivers on our promise to implement a charter of budget honesty.The coalition is a family friendly government and has delivered a family friendly budget. It builds on the reforms of previous budgets, which include the family tax payment for families with children and incentives for families who take out private health insurance. This budget will be providing further support to families through simplifying family assistance and child-care payments. We are also committing $60 million over the next four years to extend the Prime Minister's youth homelessness pilot. This money will be used to fund 100 services to support young people at risk of homelessness and their families. We are also establishing two new Centrelink call centres to improve service delivery. We are extending respite support for carers of young people with a disability. We are also spending $9 million over the next three years on assistance to men in their family relationships to help prevent relationship breakdown but also to provide counselling to men whose relationships have already broken down. Additional funds of $11.4 million are being provided for early interven tion strategies to assist families coping with illicit drug use.However, the greatest boon to families will come about as a result of the passage of the government's new tax system. The package will include increases to family assistance to the tune of over $2 billion per year. The families component of the package will increase levels of assistance and improve work incentives for low and middle income families by allowing them to earn more income before family assistance starts to be reduced and by reducing the amount by which family assistance falls when families earn extra income.Thanks to the agreement reached with the Democrats, our promised tax cuts will be delivered in full to all Australians earning $50,000 per year or less. Tax rates will be lower and the income thresholds at which the new rates apply will be higher. At the same time, pensions and other income support payments will increase by at least four per cent, more than offsetting the actual general price rise associated with the introduction of the goods and services tax. These tax reforms will give choice and economic power back to families, giving them more incentive and reward to work and save, ensuring that they are supported in the most important enterprise of all—raising our next generation of Australians.As secretary of the government's health and aged care policy committee, I am committed to achieving better health outcomes for families in electorates such as my electorate of Makin, delivering more funds for health research and improving the standard of aged care available to older Australians. I am delighted with the budget outcomes in this portfolio area.As honourable members would be aware, 1999 is the International Year of Older Persons. To celebrate and enhance the participation of older Australians in community life, this government will be implementing a range of initiatives to improve the care, health and quality of life of our elderly. These measures will include: $209 million for better hearing services; around $41.2 million to establish Carelink, a network of regional contact points to make it easier for people to access community care services; $82.2 million to further boost respite care services; improvement of the infrastructure and quality of care, including $25.6 million in capital grants for aged care facilities; $6.6 million to help prevent falls by older people; and $3.1 million to streamline medical billing.Primary health care for older Australians has been a major priority in this budget, which contains a major package of initiatives to enhance primary care, particularly for older Australians and people with chronic illnesses. For the first time, people aged 75 and over will be able to have an annual health assessment as an item on the Medicare benefits scheme. An incentive will be provided through the Practice Incentives Program for general practitioners to ensure that their patients aged 65 and over with chronic and complex needs have care plans if they need them. The effects of this will be that older Australians will have the benefit of care plans earlier than they might otherwise access them, they can be assisted to avoid unnecessary health complications and they can remain in their homes for longer.With other measures to better coordinate health care, Australians will have greater confidence and freedom in their senior years. Over the next six years, annual funding for health and medical research through the National Health and Medical Research Council will more than double, from $165 million in 1998-99 to more than $350 million in 2004-05. This commitment will build on Australia's tradition of excellence in this field, and it will ensure that we have the infrastructure, skills and industry links to deliver health care based on the most recent cutting edge evidence available. One of the initiatives to benefit from this funding will be the development of a national medical genomics research capability. This will allow Australia's researchers to tap into the most up-to-date data and developments through a nationally accessible bioinformation network. Many in our community believe that this will be the next great wave of technology, after the information revolution which we are currently experiencing. It is vital that Australia capitalises on its natural advantages to ensure that we become one of the world's leaders in this emerging field.Members in this place are well aware of my longstanding commitment to the war against illicit drug use to protect our children. As a result of recent successful talks between the Prime Minister and the state premiers, this year's federal budget will provide a further $221 million over four years for the National Illicit Drug Strategy to help reduce the devastating impact of illicit drugs on the lives of drug users, their families and friends. This is on top of the $290 million that we have already committed, bringing our total commitment since coming into government to over half a billion dollars.There are four main elements to the government's Tough on Drugs strategy. The first is treatment: supporting the diversion of illicit drug users into education and treatment, including funding for a range of community based education, assessment and treatment services and increased capacity for education and training of health workers in the assessment and management of people with drug problems. The second element is community awareness, including a range of measures to improve awareness of the harm caused by illicit drugs and to expand community involvement in the strategies to respond to the harm caused by illicit drugs. This will also involve a national schools drugs education strategy. The third element is schools: supporting the efforts of principals, teachers, parents and school communities in strengthening the attack on drug pushers and rejecting illicit drugs in schools. The fourth element is curbing the supply of drugs by expanding Australia's capacity to intercept drugs before they reach Australia's shores and attacking distribution networks in Australia. This strategy and the resources that we have been prepared to contribute to it demonstrate that this government is more committed than any previous federal government to tackling Australia's drug problem head-on and doing everything we can to ensure that our children grow up happy, healthy and drug-free.At the last election, this government promised to allocate new funding of $9.2 million over three years to support the two million Australians who suffer from asthma. The funding will go towards the development of education resources to improve the content and availability of information about asthma to those affected and improving adherence to management regimes; best practice guidelines on asthma management in different settings—for example, hospitals and post-acute care—and by different professionals, such as GPs and pharmacists; a systematic review of the factors that contribute to life-threatening asthma; a national system for the collection and collation of asthma statistics; and a national strategic plan for asthma to be developed involving all key stakeholders.Another election commitment was that we would allocate $4.1 million over four years for support services for women who have been diagnosed with breast cancer—particularly for those in regional and rural areas. This will provide much needed support to the women and families who are stricken with breast cancer, which is the most common cancer and causes the greatest number of cancer related deaths in Australian women.One of the saddest things that any family would have to deal with would be the loss of a family member to suicide. Suicide rates in Australia are alarmingly high—particularly amongst our young. At the last election, we unveiled the Fighting Suicide initiative, which will receive federal government funding of $39.2 million over the next four years. This initiative will include measures to increase education and training within communities, to build networks between primary care providers such as general practitioners and community organisations and to address risk and protective factors for suicide. Fighting Suicide will address itself to high risk groups such as youth, people with mental illness, prisoners, people with substance use problems and indigenous communities.For about a decade now, the medical community has been very aware of the disease hepatitis C. A blood-borne virus, hepatitis C can cause complications leading to cirrhosis, liver failure and liver cancer. It is believed that 200,000 Australians have already been infected with hepatitis C, with 11,000 new infections occurring each year. The government is allocating approximately $12.4 million over the next four years to lower the current rate of transmission of hepatitis C in Australia by providing improved education and prevention and health maintenance strategies for those currently infected and those at risk of becoming infected.All of the initiatives that I have talked about in the health portfolio deliver in full the promises that we made at the last election. This is a government that delivers on its promises. One of the most important health initiatives in this year's budget is the introduction of Lifetime Health Cover. Under Lifetime Health Cover, health funds will be required to set different premiums depending on the age at which a member first takes out hospital cover with a registered health fund. People who take out hospital cover by the time they are 30 and maintain their membership will pay lower premiums throughout their lifetime relative to people who delay joining.Importantly, existing members of health funds who have hospital cover, no matter what their age, will be treated as if they had joined a fund by the age of 30, and a grace period will be provided until 30 June 2000 for people who are not health fund members to join up and be entitled to the same rate as the 30-year-old. This historic initiative will help to minimise future premium increases by boosting membership numbers and will help to balance the age distribution of fund members. It will help to ensure that the private health insurance industry remains an important plank in our health care system.One of the great achievements of this government has been to greatly increase the resources allocated by the federal government to indigenous health. Building on initiatives announced in previous budgets, the government will boost funding by almost $100 million over the next four years. Indigenous Australians use the Medicare Benefits Scheme at only one-quarter of the rate of other Australians, yet their health needs are approximately three times higher. To help reverse this, the government will spend $78.8 million over four years to improve access to primary health care through the Primary Health Care Access Program. This will involve a range of primary health care services, including clinical care, illness prevention and early intervention activities. We will also be implementing coordinated care trials for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, building on the existing trials which have taken place in Wilcannia, Perth, Bunbury, Katherine West and the Tiwi Islands.The Army-ATSIC Community Assistance Program helps improve essential services—such as water, sewerage, power systems, roads, airstrips and the construction and upgrade of community housing—for indigenous Australians living in remote communities. We will be providing funding of $20.6 million over four years to extend this program to other remote Aboriginal communities. In the first four years of this government, we will have spent approximately 50 per cent more on indigenous health than the previous government spent in its final four years.The other areas in which we have boosted support to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are education, employment and economic development. Some of our new initiatives in this area will include the Indigenous Employment Program—a new program addressing Aboriginal employment, involving total expenditure of $52 million in 1999-2000; growth in education expenditure of $16.3 million in 1999-2000, including on programs to improve literacy, numeracy and school retention rates; full implementation of changes to the Community Development Employment Projects Scheme, announced in 1998-99, which will allow participants increased benefits, including rental assistance and an additional $20 per fortnight Work for the Dole allowance; as well as the development of measures of relative disadvantage by the Commonwealth Grants Commission. This will help us to target resources more effectively to the areas of greatest need and fulfils another promise that we made in the 1998 election.All of the initiatives that I have spoken about this evening are only made possible by the government's sound management of the Australian economy. The constituents in my electorate of Makin know full well that economic security is an important component of their social wellbeing. We all know from our own experience that when our finances are in order we also have less stress in the home environment and our family relationships are happier and stronger. It is no different when we look at the nation. Having the national accounts in order leads to lower inflation, lower interest rates and lower unemployment. This creates less stress on our social fabric. Balancing the books also gives us more room to move in important areas of social policy, such as those that I have discussed here this evening.Families in my electorate of Makin have benefited from this government's better handling of the Australian economy. They are enjoying the lowest interest rates in 30 years, and this means that their mortgages are more affordable and their businesses can be more profitable. They are enjoying a low inflation environment for the first time in a generation or two. Although unemployment is still too high, it is continuing to fall from the disastrous levels that it reached under the previous government.The short time that I have had could not possibly do justice to the many wonderful initiatives that we have been able to undertake through our careful stewardship of the Australian economy. Much work remains to be done. As a member of this government, I hope to achieve even more for families in my electorate of Makin, more for our indigenous Australians, more for older Australians and more for our children. I congratulate the Howard government on a responsible and compassionate budget, and I look forward to the further work that we will undertake on behalf of all Australian families.22:05:006232Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—I rise to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) for this year's budget, and I would like to preface my remarks by saying that this budget is a nonsense, or a budget you have when you do not really have your heart in it, when you do not really feel like pushing the budget that you have presented.The real budget comes when the fate of the GST is known. This is now all tied up with what the government and the Democrats are up to, which seems to me to be a real attack on country people and small business, particularly small business in country regions which do not have the luxury of being able to choose how they develop their small businesses because they rely on a very small population base to keep them afloat. I think many of these businesses will just disappear. A goods and services tax on them will be the final straw. Who is going to actually police it all? We do not know those details yet. Who is going to help those small business people decide what to put the tax on and what not to?I have a number of small bakeries in my electorate, many of which have a number of bread and roll specialties that would fall into the grey area of this tax, by some of the comments that have been made in the last two weeks. Will we have someone going around to inspect every bun in every bakery? What happens if the baker makes a mistake and charges it wrongly? Who picks up the tax then? Who finds him? Is he found? Are there tax avoidance police? Is he arrested and dragged off? The bakers have some major worries with this tax already.The fact that this government copped this nonsensical stuff from the Democrats shows that Mr Howard must have been very desperate indeed—and desperate to keep his job. The more I read about this compromise, the more it makes no sense at all to be a part of the insane need to have a GST at all. Even with basic foods out—even if one could define them—the GST is unfair. Even the Commissioner for Taxation thinks the whole thing is unfair and that it will encourage a culture of tax evasion. Many of us on this side of the House have read reports that there is a lot of tax evasion in other parts of the world where these taxes do exist.The people whom he has hurt most are those who can least afford it—the pensioners, the workers on low incomes, the veterans and those in town and country regions without the usual access to ranges of goods and services. It is a regressive tax that will hit just about all the essentials of life that are not currently taxed. It is on all sorts of basic needs. Electricity, heating costs, housing, gas, phones, insurance, public transport and clothing will all be affected. It is not just the tax. There are other inequities, such as the problem of government ignoring the particular needs of small towns. A letter from one of my constituents in Job Network told me of some the problems being faced in small towns by that system. I have a FLEX 1 provider in the area with currently over 400 job seekers registered on their books. There have been no FLEX 2 or 3 contracts allocated in this region.Employment National has been contracted to run the Outreach service, but they hire a very small office with no facilities at the local government service centre for one day every two months. This is no service at all. Rural clients are being ignored—why can't they have the same service as their city based counterparts?Another part is the tender process. The exposure draft for the next tender round introduces Employment Services areas. ESA is the smallest area within which a tender may bid to provide services. The draft says that strong preference will be given to tenderers who will provide services in the whole area of an ESA.One country area that has previously tendered now covers a much larger area and includes a city in it. There is no way that the small provider can effectively cover anything but a small proportion of this ESA. Therefore the city based providers will be considered to be placed in a position to cover the ESA, and a country based provider, despite it being very efficient, will not be given considered during the allocation of tenders.Tenderers are required to indicate their ability to service the majority of their employment service area. This virtually precludes all small regional based businesses from winning a contract. This will mean existing providers in rural towns will be forced out of the market if they do not have the capacity or the desire to expand. What will happen to their clients? They will not have a service in the future. Will they be compensated for additional expenses related to accessing providers in regional centres and regional towns? This would mean taxi fares backwards and for wards. In some areas in my electorate there is no public transport, so that would be the only opportunity. But I do not see that happening.Then we have the problem that, although some of our city providers may indicate a willingness on paper to provide adequate services to rural communities, in practice this would not be the case. No-one has knowledge of their district more so than those people who live and work within their region and within their area, and those people are now being excluded under the next round of tenders. This attack on rural and regional areas goes on, and it is no good the Deputy Prime Minister continuing to explain how wonderful this government is being to the bush. We know that it is not true; the bush is hit every time you turn around.Here is another one: the merit scholarship scheme that was put in place for low income students allowed bright students and bright youngsters to gain a place at university, despite their background, their economic situation or where they lived. Most of these were young people from country areas. There were 63 scholarships in Tasmania last year. After they have been through their courses, there will be no more scholarships based on merit. This is a major disgrace and a terrible thing for this government to have done. I have had several letters from parents whose children are presently undertaking their studies through those scholarships, and they are extremely disappointed with the government's position.It is disgraceful that only people who can pay are welcomed at our universities. Some of those old jokes will be coming back, and it will be the norm again that only the privileged and the upper class will get a degree. It will be not what you know and how clever you are but who you know and how much you can pay that will get you a degree. Not only does this disadvantage students in rural and isolated areas but also it brings down the standard of the universities, which can now take anyone as long as they have the funds to pay for the course.While talking about education, let me say that this budget has cut the heart out of our free education system. Country children do not have a great deal of choice about which type of school is closest to them. Mostly, they are government schools. I have no objection to having private schools receive additional funds. However, that should not be at the expense of the government's system. Schools that are already struggling through the cutbacks in the system have no chance of providing any equity in education. Who will suffer most? It will be kids in country areas who cannot get the transport to get to the cities and those whose parents do not want them to travel for up to two hours per day on a trip to a major city. They are forced to use the school closest to them. If that school is being cut back and its resources, including teachers, equipment, material and curriculum, are being reduced, the children in the rural and regional areas nearest it will suffer even more.There is also this mean-spirited move to tighten the eligibility for legal aid for veterans. In the past under Labor, veterans were given special treatment when seeking to challenge administrative decisions affecting their entitlements. Veterans are now missing out because the merits test has become much harder. This government is trying to save money. Veterans are not getting what they deserve because they feel it is redundant to continue trying to prove they need the assistance.Comparisons can be made with what this government has done in the general legal aid area. The only people who seem to be able to access legal aid are those who are prepared to plead guilty. If you plead guilty, you seem to be able to get legal aid and someone will come along to the court with you. That has been my experience in some recent cases I have dealt with in my electorate. It is not very good justice. However, that is the sort of pressure that is being put on the legal aid system. Recently, I saw painted on a wall in Hobart the message `There is no justice, there is just us'. It is a shame that our system has got to that.Health is another area where people are hurting. I am not using the word `hurting' as a metaphor. I know someone who has had to wait two years to have a set of false teeth fixed because he is a pensioner and the government abolished the dental health scheme. He cannot afford a private dentist and private health insurance, so he has to suffer. Is this just? I do not believe so.I have been working on a number of issues that affect regional development. I have put in a submission to the Standing Committee on Primary Industries and Regional Services, which is looking at barriers to regional development. The biggest problem throughout all the areas I have visited is unemployment. People in all the regions I have talked to have said that unemployment is growing because of services being taken out of the smaller towns. The government is not putting them back, and it is trying to make the private sector pick them up. Of course, the private sector will not pick them up if there is no reason for having them there. I have already mentioned Employment National. The family law courts have been taken back into the main cities. Country people now have little access to those courts and have to travel, in most circumstances, to attend them.Telstra has shed jobs at a great rate. In Tasmania, people are waiting up to a week to get someone to look at their telecommunications problems, let alone fix them. That goes for people in small business. Recently, a restaurant in a reasonably isolated area had to wait a week to get its phones fixed. It meant that it could not order some of its supplies and that people who book by phone to use the restaurant could not do so. Not having that service cost that restaurant a considerable amount of money. That occurred because many of the technicians have been taken away from the jobs they used to do.We have also lost an important percentage of research and development funding to some of the bigger companies and some of the bright, small companies of this country. This has caused problems even on the west coast. Some of the mines struggle to implement new technology when the price is dropping in the copper market. One of the most foolish things this government has been doing is reducing R&D. I would have thought that as a country we should have been endeavouring to encourage R&D through the taxation system and in every other way. They are the jobs that will come in the future and they are the jobs for our children. Cutting back on R&D and not encouraging it, as has been the case for education, is really a very poor policy direction for this government.The poor old wineries are also copping it. There seems to be no sympathy for small wine growers, who are in the process of helping to build a viable and exciting tourist industry in Tasmania. They are being cut off at the knees because there was only apathy by this government towards a volumetric tax system, which is a fairer and more sensible way to treat the home grown product of small growers.So it is cut, cut and cut again with this budget, and only the top end of town is to get any real tax breaks. I fervently hope that the Democrats will come to their senses and throw away this silly package of nonsensical stuff that has been hotchpotched together to make this terrible agreement which has enabled the government to say, `We've now got a deal, so we've now got a new tax system.' I hope that the Democrats will come to their senses and throw it out. I am sure that all those on low and fixed incomes would be very grateful if they did. Small businesses, the new tax collectors, I think would be pretty pleased as well, because they will not benefit very much from this tax. Apart from having people hanging around, looking over their shoulders, small businesses will have to work harder, doing more work and collecting more tax. Also, I understand that the compliance costs are about 30 to one, big business versus small business. So there is not much in it for them.Who in their right mind would believe that this is good for business? Not only does the budget make no sense, but mix it up with the GST and we have a recipe for some real economic nonsense. We must fight this terrible tax. We must therefore fight this budget because it is very, very unfair.22:24:006235Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—I rise to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1999-2000 . In the last week two events of significance for Australia have occurred. Last week Australia broke another economic record: gross domestic product grew by 1.1 per cent in the March sector for a strong 4.8 per cent growth for the year to March 1999; the economy expanded by one per cent for six successive quarters; inflationary pressures are low; and labour productivity accelerated to 3.5 per cent. All of this augurs well for a reduction in long-term unemployment. Business investment in plant and equipment has climbed 21.6 per cent, and consumption 1.7 per cent. To quote Alan Wood in the Australian on 3 June:This is an extraordinary economic story—an economy running along at nearly five per cent, a current account deficit of around six per cent of GDP, low inflation, low interest rates and a calm foreign exchange market.He went on to say:So we can enjoy the good news for a while yet, including the prospect of further falls in unemployment.The other event that augurs well for the coming years of the coalition government is the agreement between the government and the Australian Democrats—the agreement between Mr Howard and Senator Meg Lees: a new tax for a new century. Not only is it a new tax for a new century and a new beginning for the taxation system, it is also refreshing: a redefinition of the political process.In my electorate constantly people ask me, `Why do politicians argue; why don't they get on with the job?' It certainly has been very satisfying for people in my electorate to see two leaders with different policy platforms setting aside personal imperatives for the good of the nation. It has taken great strength of character on the part of both the Prime Minister and Senator Lees to work constructively and cooperatively to a successful outcome.The historic agreement between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Australian Democrats, Senator Meg Lees, has redefined the Australian political landscape and, in doing so, has underlined the complete irrelevancy of the Labor Party. The ALP, reduced to a desperate display of mindless stunts and empty posturing, has dealt itself out of the process of defining a historic new taxation system for the next century. The Labor Party's rigidly inflexible determination to cling to the existing ramshackle, inefficient and arbitrary taxation system derives from little more than an opportunistic attempt to pander to those who are fearful of change.By comparison, Senator Lees has shown a cool and admirable determination to make her party and its policies relevant and considered. Frankly, there is a wide and unbridgeable gap between many of the fundamental policies of the National Party and the Australian Democrats—and no doubt that will always be the case. However, I admire Senator Lees for her willingness to negotiate with the Prime Minister. All too often members and senators from all political parties are faced with the understandable public criticism that we are more obsessed with scoring cheap political debating points than actually working together to achieve better outcomes for all Australians. Now that criticism can only be levelled at the Labor Party—Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—FK6Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLY—Yes, the shadow minister—which remains dangerously single-minded in its sidelines carping—how well put—while at the same time cynically admitting that it would not change the new tax system if and when it might return to government. The Labor Party's political gymnastics are quite astounding. Its members pontificate against the redefined tax package; they remain silent about the shocking, arbitrary and inexcusable inequities in the current taxation system; and then they admit that, should they ever be re-elected, they would retain the system they now attack and deride. The opposition has reduced itself to a tawdry circus.On the government side the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the Minister for Transport and Regional Services are all to be congratulated for their willingness and their skills in the negotiation process. I do not doubt that it is a difficult and exhausting process, but it is one that is in the best interests of the Australian people and it is admirable that those involved have put aside their personal differences to put the people of Australia first. Mr Speaker, I seek leave to continue my remarks at another time.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Miscellaneous6236Motion (by Mr Ronaldson)—by leave—agreed to:That the following bills be referred to the Main Committee for consideration: Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1999-2000 Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1999-2000 Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1999-2000 Adjournment6236Motion (by Mr Tim Fischer) proposed:That the House do now adjourn.623622:30:006236Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—Under the Howard government's Common Youth Allowance, former students aged 15 to 17 years who have left school are required to return to school or training in order to continue receiving government financial assistance. If existing students are contemplating leaving school before reaching the age of 18, they will also need to contemplate no longer receiving any government financial support.Labor supports encouraging students to stay on to complete high school. In fact, the proportion of students staying on for the final year of high school was doubled under federal Labor governments from 36 per cent to 72 per cent. The year 12 retention rate has slipped back under the Howard government to 71.6 per cent and to less than 66 per cent for government schools. The point is that obliging students to stay on at school is not an effective policy response unless the schools are given the resources to educate and encourage those students. That is precisely what the Howard government has failed to do.The Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs sought from the government $140 million to finance the Common Youth Allowance for 15- to 17-year-olds. Cabinet instead approved $42 million, a shortfall of almost $100 million. In my state of Queensland, the then Liberal education minister, Mr Bob Quinn, issued a media release in January 1998 condemning the Howard government for its failure to provide the funds needed to implement the Common Youth Allowance for 15- to 17-year-olds and described the program as a classic case of cost shifting from the Commonwealth to the state of Queensland.I took up the case on behalf of government schools in Rankin, only to be labelled by the same education minister as scaremongering. I wrote to the Howard government seeking assurances that the necessary funds for schools in Rankin would be available. I received such an assurance in response to my letter from the then schools minister, Senator Chris Ellison. Yet the government advised schools in the Logan-Beenleigh district that they would receive an average of only $20,000 each over two years, or $10,000 a year, and that after two years the program would need to be self-funding. I have no idea how schools were to make bringing back former students self-funding, nor do I think the government had any idea.The next episode in this sorry saga occurred at the end of the last school year when schools in the Logan-Beenleigh district were instructed to have their programs developed and funding applications submitted within three days. They complied, but no Commonwealth funding was forthcoming. When I raised this issue in parliament on 22 March this year, revealing that Queensland had received no funding whatsoever from the Commonwealth, my remarks were greeted with interjections from government members protesting that this was not true. Not only was it true then; it took until 27 May for those schools to receive any funding from the Commonwealth—that is, most of the way through the first semester.At first, local Centrelink staff were effectively granting former students dispensations because they could not process the large numbers of young people who were facing the prospect of losing their entitlements. Now more and more former students are being required to return to school as Centrelink gets around to them. Existing students will suffer from class disruptions from former students who have been forced to return to school midyear against their will. Special programs could have been developed, but the funding is a pittance. The Common Youth Allowance is an ill-conceived policy and a poorly implemented Commonwealth government program.The minister should abandon his obsession with crushing student unions on university campuses and turn his attention to sorting out the mess he has created with the Common Youth Allowance. This is not reciprocal obligation because it is not being funded by the Commonwealth government. We have an example here of the punishers and straighteners applying a punitive policy that is ill thought out and very poorly implemented. It shows a lack of concern for existing students. It shows a lack of concern for the returning students by not providing sufficient funding for these programs to be developed for the returning students. I call on the minister now to resolve the mess that has been created in Rankin, in other parts of Queensland and, dare I say, in the rest of Australia and to get this problem fixed so that the students who are returning have a decent education and the ones who are at school already are able to get on with their studies.623722:35:006237Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—I rise to draw attention to one of the perhaps less noticed but one of the many excellent initiatives in this recent budget. It is harder to notice some of the smaller ones because of the many excellent initiatives such as the increased spending on health, the increased spending on education and the general efforts to restore some degree of fiscal balance and to further progress the great efforts we have made in this regard.I want to draw attention to the Green Corps program as this is one that has already been of great assistance to my electorate and provides a lot more potential. In this budget, the government has increased funding for the Green Corps over the next four years by adding another $90 million. This provides 6,800 places over the next four years, which is an increase on the 3,500 Green Corps places allocated in the 1996 budget. The Green Corps program is an excellent program. It provides valuable work experience and training for young people and it provides genuine, quality and tangible environmental outcomes.Referring to those two aspects of the program, in terms of work experience, the young people who were involved in Green Corps for six months received quality hands-on training not just in environmental work but in a number of areas that will transfer to other occupations. During the six months they received 134 hours of accredited training. The core modules included occupational health and safety, first aid and aspects of environmental work. These modules are taken from Certificate II in Australian Land Conservation and Restoration curriculum. They also received specific environmental training related to the particular projects that they undertook and had a number of options there, depending on what sort of work they were involved in.At the end of round five of Green Corps, 20 per cent of all participants who completed their placements were studying in education or training courses three months later. Of these, 21 per cent were at university and 52 per cent were at TAFE. A further 44 per cent of participants who completed their six-month placements were in unsubsidised employment three months later. Of those in employment, 51 per cent were full time and 38 per cent were part time. This has been an excellent program in terms of training and in terms of providing a valuable stepping stone for young people into other worthwhile training and other worthwhile careers.The second valuable aspect of the Green Corps program is the quality environmental results that are achieved—very measurable, very high quality tangible outcomes. The stocktake at the end of round five of Green Corps showed that already these young people have achieved this: they have conducted 1,101 environmental surveys; they have propagated 287,107 seedlings; they have constructed 416 kilometres of fencing; they have performed 17,693 hectares of weeding; and they have completed 302 kilometres of walking track maintenance. These are quality outcomes for the environment that are very evident and very clearly defined. Many of these improvements have in fact occurred in my electorate.Two groups in my electorate have been conducting Green Corps programs. The first group is called Interlife, a subgroup of Mission Employment, working in the Blue Mountains restoring a disused quarry site that was a scar on the landscape that had been subject to heavy erosion and as a result caused siltation of the local Blue Mountains streams.DG4FISCHERMr Tim Fischer—Near Medlow Bath.0K6Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT—Near Medlow Bath; Wentworth Falls in fact. These young people have been involved in revegetation, creation of permaculture gardens and working on sustainable technology—solar passive buildings and self-contained waste management systems. This has been a great boon to that local part of the environment. The second group has been operating under the auspices of the Hawkesbury-Nepean Catchment Management Trust. They are in their second program now. They have been involved in revegetation of eroded river banks. They have been involved in environmental audit. They have been involved in removal of exotic weeds and construction of boardwalks in parts of the Blue Mountains National Park.Both of these programs have been very successful. Comments by the young people have included `inspiring', `best thing I've ever done', `changed my direction in life', and `I've learnt so much'. Part of the credit is due to the leaders involved in these programs and part due to the excellent program that this government has initiated and continues to support. I am pleased that this government in this budget is continuing and in fact increasing support for training for young people, support that will improve and prove to create positive tangible environmental outcomes.623822:40:006238Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRISFI4NewcastleALP00—It is a shame the government does not extend the same principles across all of its programs.0K6BARTLETTMr Bartlett—It does.FI4Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRIS—It certainly does not extend it to Work for the Dole at all, and it is a disgrace that it does not. The sugges tion that it is a labour market program is pathetic. The budget is a very interesting document because it is very much a record breaking budget. It breaks records in a number of areas, particularly in the form of tax collection. It is worth while looking at the record of this government in terms of raising money from the public. In the last Labor budget of 1995-96, the PAYE revenue for individuals was $53 billion. In this budget, it will be $72 billion—a $19 billion or 35 per cent increase across four budgets. That is pretty good going. With zero inflation, almost negative inflation, there is a 35 per cent increase in PAYE revenue. That is a pretty good record. It pretty much typifies why the surplus is there. It is not because the government has been clever but because it has ripped money out of people's pockets like we have never seen before.The next breakdown is tax paid by individuals. It is also pretty substantial. It has increased from $85 billion to $111 billion. That is only a 30 per cent increase but that includes PAYE. Members would understand why it is not quite as high: PAYE increases are going ahead at a much faster rate than non-PAYE individual increases. So 30 per cent is the actual average of individual taxpayers—PAYE and non-PAYE.The next breakdown is company tax. Lo and behold, it has increased from $18 billion to $22 billion—a 20 per cent increase. So PAYE locked-in wage plugs—we have no choice in paying—have increased 35 per cent across four budgets; total individuals' PAYE has increased 30 per cent across four budgets; and total company tax has increased 20 per cent across four budgets. It is pretty easy to see what this government is about. It is very clear. It is all there in the figures. It is a record budget. We have never seen this kind of money raised in history in this form or with these kinds of increases.Mr Speaker, you have been here as long as I have. You can go back and check the figures. If you go back to the Labor Party's previous four budgets, the increase was $12 billion, not $19 billion for individuals. Certainly the company tax differential was nowhere near as great. I think that is pretty interesting. It is also pretty interesting when we come to the GST, which will have a wonderful record. One of the things I have trouble explaining to people is why it is so efficient. Well, it is efficient because 1.4 million collectors will raise $30 billion. That sounds pretty efficient until you realise that at the moment 70,000 collectors raise $15 billion.What the government is going to do in the name of efficiency is multiply the number of collectors by 20 to simply double the revenue—twice as much money with 20 times as many people collecting it. Who will pay the cost of that? The fact is: we all will. That does not include the cost of administration; that is simply the cost of the actual number of people out there in the community being forced to act as tax agents. Sure, we forced 70,000 people to be tax agents. They do not get paid for that. It is a real burden. It makes their life a misery. But 70,000 collectors compared to 1.4 million for only twice the money—why would you bother? In terms of economic efficiency, it has to be one of the most inefficient moves ever made.I went home on the weekend and, Mr Speaker, you will notice that I have had a hair cut, which meant I went to my barber. I go there on regular occasions and I get told the wisdoms of the world. Let me tell you from the barber shops of Australia, the wisdom is very clear and very focused. They do not want a hair of your GST, not a hair of it. Even though my hair is receding, my hair cut prices do not go down; in fact, they are about to go up, so my barber tells me.I called into my second-hand clothing shop which buys clothes. She told me that she will be charging the GST, whereas the charities will not be, so her lack of competitiveness will get worse. She will probably be out of business in 1½ year's time. Across the road from her is Des's Humble Pie shop. I asked him if he understood the difference between food and non-food. That man has enough trouble working hard every day just to make a crust, but now he has to try to work out what the hell is going on. He is absolutely baffled. It is a dog of a tax. (Time expired)624022:45:006240Thompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON84CBlairLP10—I rise in the House this evening to pay tribute where it is due—that is, following the weekend's round of the Australian Rally Championship, to the organising skills of the Brisbane Sporting Car Club, of which I am a member and a big supporter. The Australian Rally Championship is something that goes on all over Australia and events, when they are staged, can require the contribution of hundreds of enthusiasts, volunteers and their friends and families.The Brisbane Sporting Car Club is an organisation that has been supporting motor sport in my state longer than any other club in Australia. Over the weekend, it staged a two-day event that was very spectacular. It actually began on the Friday with scrutineering of all the cars and all the activities that are involved with that, as well as an inspection of the course by the competitors. The event drew huge crowds, which is a very positive sign for the sport. On Saturday night, up to 3,000 people braved the rain to watch a very spectacular display of driving on a section of the old highway west of Noosa where it climbs up the mountainside.I would like to pay tribute to the organisers from the Brisbane Sporting Car Club, particularly Errol Bailey, the Clerk of Course, who laid out the event and did much of the organising. He also was supported by sponsors. Falken Tyres were the major sponsor, and they were represented by John Thorn in Queensland. The town of Caloundra was the host town and the mayor, Des Dwyer, came out to lend his support to the whole event.There were a whole range of competitors with a total of 72 starters from all over Australia, including the leading contenders in the Australian Rally Championship, Possum Bourne and Neal Bates. It was a big fight between those two competitors for first place in the event. On day 1, I think the result went to Bates and, on day 2, the result went to Bourne.1K6BILLSONMr Billson—In a Subaru.84CThompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON—Yes, Bourne was driving a Subaru. For once, Neal Bates actually won a heat. It was spectacular because of that. It seems that the petrolheads who are out there—and there are a lot of them—are quite happy to come and stand in the rain and watch motor sport. It was a petrolfest, in fact. The contributors, apart from the Brisbane Sporting Car Club and Falken Tyres, included Mitsubishi, Chips and Bits, the Oasis Resort, Philcomm, Repco, Canon and the Queensland Department of Natural Resources. I must say that it is an honour to be able to acknowledge that degree of support for an event that has such a long history and which I think has got a very bright future. I will make no secret of the fact that I competed in the event.1K6BILLSONMr Billson—As a celebrity?84CThompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON—I would not say as a celebrity.83VEMERSONMr Emerson—How did you go?84CThompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON—On day 1, we crashed out and on day 2 the clutch blew. Anyway, it was a very enjoyable event and I think the enjoyment I got from it was typical, because we had competitors ranging from newcomers right through to the highest level and I think every single one of them enjoyed it.Skills were needed to organise this event, as it included moving 72 competitors as well as the hundreds of people in the support crew and that kind of thing from one end of Imbil and the mountain ranges west of there right down to Caloundra to the special stage they presented there. It really did involve a lot of organisational capacity. The fact that the whole thing basically ran like clockwork over the two days—with the intervention of rain and all those things—is a credit to those organisers and the Brisbane Sporting Car Club. Once more, I would like to say to them, `Well done and congratulations on the successful staging of Rally of Queensland 1999.'624022:49:006240Plibersek, Tanya, MPMs PLIBERSEK83MSydneyALP00—The member for Blair has risen tonight to pay tribute to a sporting event in his electorate. It is my pleasant task also to pay tribute to two events that have happened in my electorate recently. The first is Tony Lockett's record breaking goal yesterday, and I am sure all members will join me in congratulating Tony Lockett on that monumental achievement. It was certainly very well received in my electorate.The second event was a more serious one and took place between 17 and 21 May, and that was the New South Wales government's drug summit. It was an extremely well organised and well attended drug summit. Senator Marise Payne and I were fortunate enough to be invited to be representatives from the federal parliament at that drug summit. It was a resounding success and I think it really paid tribute to all of the participants who went along, suspended judgment and worked very cooperatively to address the issue of preventing young people taking up the use of illicit substances. It also worked to bring us together and work out solutions for those people who are already, unfortunately, addicted to drugs and to deal compassionately with those people.We heard from a number of experts—from community and health workers, from police, from addicts and former addicts, from their families and from the New South Wales parliamentarians who are charged with finding some way forward for these people. I think the most important outcome of that week's drug summit was the realisation that there is no single solution for drug abuse in our community and that many different solutions work for different people. People were there who represented abstinence based programs. Brian Watters was there and he gave a very compelling argument for his programs.But equally importantly there were people representing services that offer methadone and services that offer naltrexone rapid detoxification as well as naltrexone maintenance. I think those people made a very convincing argument that different solutions work for different people. The most important thing that we as policy makers can do is offer a whole suite of solutions to people and ensure that treatment is available to addicts when they are looking to give up the use of illicit drugs, and that those treatments are available on or near the time when people make the decision to give up, rather than weeks or even months after they have made that initial decision.The summit made 172 recommendations, and the Carr government is currently considering those recommendations. But I would say that one of the most important ones was the recognition that there will need to be a significant increase in funding for drug treatment and education programs. There will also need to be a significant increase in family support because it is the families of drug addicts who most often are supporting them through that incredibly difficult period of using and of trying to give up.One of the other most significant recommendations is that, in communities where there is a high level of street based drug use already—and that does include some areas of my electorate, unfortunately—with appropriate community consultation, and a consultation process that would be at least as involved as a normal development application process in the local government area, and where there is support for a safe injecting room that the state government not prevent that happening. That is a great step forward for people such as me who have been very interested in a scientific, medical and compassionate approach to people who are using intravenous drugs.624122:54:006241Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—On behalf of Senator Hill, it gave me great pleasure last Thursday night to launch on a national basis the Australian dry-cleaning industry regulation standard. This standard is the culmination of many years of hard work and consultation by the Drycleaning Institute of Australia. The standard will protect the environment, ensure the safety of dry-cleaning staff and contribute to the smooth running of dry-cleaning businesses right across our country.The Howard government was keen to be involved in the implementation of this standard as it addresses two issues of enduring interest to the government. Firstly, the Commonwealth is particularly interested to assist the small to medium business sector to help itself become more environmentally aware, and here is an industry keen to help itself to improve its environmental performance. Secondly, this government views air quality as one of Australia's most important environmental issues. We have not come to this view by accident. Surveys conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics show that air pollution continues to be the number one environmental issue of concern to the public.In order to address the concerns I have mentioned, the government implemented in 1996-97 the comprehensive $16 million Air Pollution in Major Cities Program. This program aims to make inroads into the major sources of urban pollution by involving all sectors of the community. We certainly could not allow the pollution in Melbourne to be any worse than it is in Sydney. The Howard government has implemented Australia's first national standards for air quality and will implement national pollution forecasting and monitoring protocols. The Air Pollution in Major Cities Program is funded by the Natural Heritage Trust, and it sponsored the standard that we launched last week.In 1996, the government commissioned the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering to conduct an inquiry into urban air pollution. The government's initial response to the inquiry's recommendations was to fund a group of projects called `Clear the air'. In putting together this package, the government deliberately sought to include projects that brought together government, industry and the community to improve our air quality. The best type of cooperative initiative is this type of cooperative initiative. `Clear the air' includes a project to develop vapour recovery codes of practice for small to medium businesses, and I remarked on Thursday night that perhaps we might consider our own for this chamber.I am pleased to say that, because of the initiative shown by the Drycleaning Institute of Australia, the dry-cleaning industry will be the first to establish and implement the code. This is not only a national first but an international first. Contrary to the views of their North American counterparts that said that it could not be done, it has been done in Aus tralia. I am sure our local industry will be more than happy to share their experience with their international colleagues in the year 2000 when the international dry-cleaning conference is held here in Canberra.I would like to compliment the Drycleaning Institute of Australia on its thorough approach to the development of the standard. It addresses the interlinked issues of safety in the workplace and protection of our environment. The dry-cleaning industry regulation standard will make an important contribution to minimising the environmental impacts of perchlorethylene, otherwise known as perc, the major chemical used in the industry. While perc can be used safely, it is nevertheless a toxic substance and, if it is not stored, used and disposed of properly, it can be hazardous to both the air and the water quality around us.Air toxics are pollutants typically present at very low concentrations, which are suspected to cause long-term health effects due to their properties of toxicity and persistence. The air toxics program will be seeking to work with industry to implement similar standards to the dry-cleaning industry regulation standard. The Natural Heritage Trust and the Living Cities program also address water quality. The Living Cities program will implement an urban stormwater program which will fund innovative and best practice approaches to stormwater management.The dry-cleaning industry standard suggests measures to avoid spills of perc and other chemicals into stormwater drains. Acting on these measures will complement the government's initiative in these areas, and I look forward to assisting the dry-cleaning industry taking these further steps. The Drycleaning Institute of Australia and all its members should also be very proud of the initiative they have taken and the measures they are about to adopt to protect the work and natural environment.It was a delightful evening. The institute's executive were very excited about their initiative. We had a lot of discussion about the 22 per cent wholesale sales tax they pay on all their chemicals. They are taking a very constructive approach to managing the envi ronmental impacts of the chemicals they use. They also recognise the very constructive approach taken by the Howard government to manage our tax system so that it looks after not only the environment and the people but also our economy in the longer term. I wish them all the very best with their continuing self-regulatory efforts to address the environmental concerns their industry presents.624322:59:006243Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—While the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business is enjoying himself in Geneva this week, the small business community in this nation is pondering the damage which can be seen in the wake of his decision to cut a deal with the Democrats with respect to the partial exemption of food from the GST. This, of course, will put a disproportionate burden on the small business community when compared to the larger retailers in this country. The estimates of the compliance costs on small business vary considerably, but you will see in a number of newspaper articles that it is up to $7,000 each year.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 11.00 p.m. the debate is interrupted.23:00:006243House adjourned at 11.00 p.m.Notices6243The following notice was given:Mr Ripoll to move:That this House:(1) notes the importance of food labelling in providing consumers with accurate nutritional information;(2) recognises that food labelling regulations must contain enough information so that consumers can be confident a product is good value for money, meets their health and nutritional standards and falls within their cultural and religious requirements;(3) recognises that nutritional and dietary related illnesses are matters of public health;(4) expresses concern at the Howard Government's deregulation of food labelling controls;(5) condemns the Howard Government's failure to acknowledge and respond to the level of community anxiety over food labelling deregulation; and(6) calls upon the Howard Government to reverse its decision on food labelling deregulation, work towards greater protection and information for consumers and maintain the health department's role in regulating nutritional and dietary matters.Answers to Questions in Writing6244The following answers to questions were circulated:6244(Question No. 491)4916244Edwards, Graham, MPMr Edwards83RCowanALP00 asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 11 March 1999:(1) Is it a fact that over 90 Gulf War veterans have applied for pensions related to service.(2) Is it also a fact that core symptoms being experienced by the veterans include chronic fatigue, gastrointestinal problems, diarrhoea, chest pain, heart problems including irregular pulse and blood pressure, chronic headaches, eye pain, ear pain, stomach cramps, burning diarrhoea, urinary tract problems, burning semen, nausea, liver problems, kidney problems, bronchial problems, thyroid problems, sinus problems, anxiety, depression, mood swings, bleeding gums, chronic joint pain, muscle weakness, memory loss, reproductive problems, light sensitivity, dizziness, concentration loss, vision problems and bleeding bowels.(3) Are statements of principles in force to cover Gulf War illness under the Veterans' Entitlements Act.(4) Will he instruct his Department to endeavour to contact all Gulf War veterans and encourage them to seek medical advice should they experience the symptoms listed in part (2); if not, why not.(5) Will he ensure that his Department covers the costs of Gulf War veterans seeking medical advice about the symptoms; if not, why not.6244Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes. My Department has received claims from 213 veterans of Gulf War in respect of about 490 individual diseases since the cessation of the conflict.(2) These veterans have noted some of the symptoms you have mentioned. For example, chronic joint pain has been mentioned by many of these veterans in their claims to have conditions accepted as due to their service in the Gulf War, or their ongoing service as a serving member. However, these symptoms have been shown to be due to osteoarthrosis, the effects of trauma and well-known and understood diseases. Similarly, a number have developed Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, and they have anxiety and depression as part of this disease. My Department could find no record of a veteran who had complained of several of the symptoms you mentioned such as bleeding gums, light sensitivity and burning diarrhoea.(3) There is no Statement of Principles for "Gulf War illness". Thus far, my Department has found that all of the diseases that have been claimed by these veterans have been covered by diagnoses that do not include "Gulf War illness". My Department advises me that there is, as yet, no generally accepted consensus as to what constitutes "Gulf War illness". However, my Department continues to actively monitor the medical literature, and to be involved in scientific discussions, on the nature of illnesses of Gulf War veterans.(4) Those Gulf War veterans with an accepted war-caused disability are entitled to all necessary treatment for that disability and are issued with a white Repatriation Health Card—for specific disabilities. Veterans still serving can access existing Australian Defence Force health services and those discharged are always advised of their entitlements including future compensation and treatment.(5) If Gulf War veterans are still members of the Australian Defence Force they are able to have medical examinations within the Defence health care system. If they have left the Defence Force, my Department will meet the costs of diagnosis for any veteran who wishes to claim that they have symptoms that they believe may be a result of their Gulf War service.6244(Question No. 519)5196244Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MossfieldMK6GreenwayALP00 asked the Minister for Aged Care, upon notice, on 23 March 1999:(1) Will the Government provide additional funding under special needs for aged care assistance to centres with large numbers of special care residents who need to use unsubsidised interpreters in many aspects of their care; if so, when.(2) Will the Government provide special funding to centres with large numbers of special care residents requiring staff to be trained in sign language.6244Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs Bronwyn BishopSE4MackellarLPAged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's questions is as follows:(1) and (2) The Federal Government will spend over $3.5 billion in 1999/2000 on recurrent subsidies to residential care providers to care for individual Australians.This funding is based on the individual needs of the resident, as assessed under the Resident Classification Scale. The Scale is used to classify each resident's care needs, which then determines the amount of Commonwealth subsidy paid to the residential facility.The Scale already takes account of communication issues and difficulties, including difficulties caused by hearing impairment or through different language use. The Scale has been developed to reflect supervision, support and encouragement in providing care, as well as physical assistance.The Government provides each residential facility with a pool of funding to meet all of the care and quality of life needs of residents. It is then the service provider's responsibility to meet these needs.The independent Aged Care Accreditation Agency has been established to ensure that the care needs of residents are met.Another initiative, Partners in Culturally Appropriate Care, links ethnic communities and service providers to assist services provide culturally appropriate care.6245(Question No. 520)5206245Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MossfieldMK6GreenwayALP00 asked the Minister for Aged Care, upon notice, on 23 March 1999:Will the Government release the Productivity Commission's report on nursing home subsidies; if so, when.6245Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs Bronwyn BishopSE4MackellarLPAged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The Productivity Commission's report on nursing home subsidies was tabled in Parliament on 31 March 1999 and is now publicly available.6245(Question No. 521)5216245Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MossfieldMK6GreenwayALP00 asked the Minister for Aged Care, upon notice, on 23 March 1999:(1) How many assessments has the Aged Care Assessment Team completed in the local government area of Blacktown, NSW. (2) How many of those assessed are awaiting placement in nursing homes, hostels or community care packages.6245Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs Bronwyn BishopSE4MackellarLPAged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The total number of assessments completed by an Aged Care Assessment Team in the local government area of Blacktown, NSW, in the period January to December 1998 was 807. This number includes reassessments.(2) In that period the numbers recommended for specific placement were as follows: Hostel—115; Nursing Home—257; Community Options/Community Aged Care Packages—66.6245(Question No. 530)5306245Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 24 March 1999:Has (a) the Minister, (b) his or her predecessors or (c) the Department or an agency for which the Minister holds, or his or her predecessors held, portfolio responsibility, engaged Australasian Research Strategies, related companies or organisations or Mr Mark Textor to undertake research since 2 March 1996; if so, in each case, (i) what was the nature of the research, (ii) what was its purpose, (iii) what was its cost, (iv) was the outcome of the research supplied to a non-government organisation, individual or political party and (v) will the Minister release the outcome of the research.6245Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(a), (b) and (c) The Department, on behalf of a number of Labour Ministers' Council (LMC) governments, engaged Australasian Research Strategies on 22 May 1998 to undertake research on attitudes to workplace reform.(i) The project consists of four phases involving a preliminary focus group phase; in-depth interviewing research; conduct of a survey and benchmarking of findings; and follow-up.(ii) The purpose of the project is to obtain information on the drivers behind public attitudes to further workplace reform. The project is based on VISTA values research methodology, Australasian Research Strategies Pty being the sole Australian supplier of this methodology.(iii) The contract price was $340 000 plus a maximum of $35 000 for travel. The first and second stage of the report has been completed with the running of a seminar detailing its findings on 3 May 1999. Decisions about proceeding to the remaining stages have not yet been made.(iv) No.(v) The Minister publicly released summary findings of the first and second stages of the research on 17 February 1999. A seminar outlining the research results from these stages was held on 3 May 1999, involving business, academic and media representatives.6246(Question No. 535)5356246Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 24 March 1999:Has (a) the Minister, (b) his or her predecessors or (c) the Department or an agency for which the Minister holds, or his or her predecessors held, portfolio responsibility, engaged Australasian Research Strategies, related companies or organisations or Mr Mark Textor to undertake research since 2 March 1996; if so, in each case, (i) what was the nature of the research, (ii) what was its purpose, (iii) what was its cost, (iv) was the outcome of the research supplied to a non-government organisation, individual or political party and (v) will the Minister release the outcome of the research6246Fahey, John, MPMr FaheyHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(a) (b) (c) No.(i) and (v) N/A.6246(Question No. 559)5596246Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MossfieldMK6GreenwayALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 29 March 1999:(1) Has an environmental impact statement been prepared on the possible health effect on residents of Western Sydney by an increase in the use of diesel fuel for transport following the relaxation of the diesel fuel levy.(2) Has his attention been drawn to the high incidence of asthma among residents of the Sydney basin, particularly in the west.(3) Have projections been made of the potential increase in sales of small trucks, vans and utilities fuelled by diesel rather than petrol. (4) What measures are being taken to preserve the price competitiveness of low polluting alternative fuels.6246Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) No.(2) I am not aware of specific references to asthma in western Sydney, however, the draft Environmental Impact Study for the proposed Western Sydney Orbital (WSO) examined the potential changes in air quality arising from the operation of the WSO. The EIS concludes that emissions from an overall increase in vehicle kilometres travelled is largely offset by decreased emissions under freeway travel conditions. The study's predictions on air pollution from increased vehicle use assume worst-case conditions, for example, no allowance is made for replacing older vehicles with those fitted with three—way catalytic convertors or controls on diesel vehicles which are being implemented through design rule ADR-70. Advances in diesel engine technology, and improvements in the refining of diesel fuel will yield significant reductions in vehicle emissions on a vehicle per kilometre travel basis, particularly benefiting residents in western Sydney who live in the vicinity of major arterials.(3) The Bureau of Transport Economics (BTE), which is in my portfolio, has been commissioned by Environment Australia to undertake modelling work in relation to the proposed taxation changes. This work is intended to facilitate analysis of the impact of the proposed taxation changes on alternative fuel use.(4) Alternative transport fuels are currently exempt from fuel excise. The Government is committed to retaining the excise free status of alternative fuels after the introduction of its tax package.6246(Question No. 560)5606246McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 30 March 1999:Further to the answer to question No. 370 (Hansard , 23 March 1999, page 3509), was additional information requested by the Committee on Freedom of Association; if so, (a) has the Government provided additional information; if not, why not, and (b) what additional information was provided.6246Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:As stated in response to Question No. 370, the ILO Governing Body's Committee on Freedom of Association adjourned its examination of the case and requested further information from the Government.(a) Yes(b) The Government has responded to the allegations that freedom of association principles were breached and rejected them. It would be inappropriate to disclose the detail of the Government's response before the Committee on Freedom of Association has examined the complaint.6247(Question No. 573)5736247Bevis, Arch, MPMr BevisET4BrisbaneALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 31 March 1999:(1) Which States and Territories contributed to the printing and publishing costs of the report by Mr Des Moore titled "The case for further deregulation of the labour market" and what sum did each State and Territory contribute.(2) How many copies were made available to participating States and Territories.(3) What was the cost to the Commonwealth of publishing the report.(4) Are copies available to the public; if so, at what cost.(5) Did (a) he, (b) anyone from his office or (c) anyone from his Department approach the government of any State or Territory proposing that additional free copies, or copies at cost, be provided to Mr Moore for resale; if so, (i) who made the approach and (ii) why.(6) If free copies were provided to Mr Moore, were any restrictions placed on their resale; if so, what were the restrictions.6247Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) No State or Territory contributed to the printing and publishing costs of the report.(2) Two hundred and fifty copies were made available to participating States and Territories on a complimentary basis, with any additional copies requested to be provided on a cost recovery basis.(3) The cost to the Commonwealth of publishing the report was $12,348.65.(4) Copies are available to the public free of charge. The report is also available on the internet homepage of the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business.(5) The Department approached the participating State and Territory governments seeking their views on whether Mr Moore should be granted permission to sell copies of the report that the Department had agreed to provide to him, namely 250 copies on a complimentary basis and 750 copies at cost. This approach was made following Mr Moore's request to the Department that he be able to sell the copies of the report provided to him.(6) With regard to the free copies provided to Mr Moore, the Department advised Mr Moore that the copies of the report provided to him could be resold, but with the restriction that he did not resell them at a profit and charged a price that simply covered his costs.6247(Question No. 586)5866247Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 11 May 1999:(1) Are there 95 parties to the UNESCO Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (The Hague, 1954).(2) Which countries have become parties since 1989.(3) Was the Second Protocol to the Convention adopted by acclamation at the Diplomatic Conference at The Hague on 26 March 1999.(4) Was the Australian representative a member of the drafting committee.(5) Will the Second Protocol be signed at The Hague on 17 May 1999 in association with the 100th anniversary of the first Hague Peace Conference.(6) Will Australia sign the instrument on 17 May 1999; if not, why not.6247Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes, as at 15 April 1999.(2) Twenty-two countries have become parties to the Convention since 1989. They are: Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Lithuania, Peru, Slovakia, Slovenia, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Zimbabwe.(3) Yes.(4) Yes.(5) The Second Protocol will be opened for signature at The Hague on 17 May 1999, and will remain open for signature until 31 December 1999. The Government of the Netherlands intends to stage an opening-for-signature ceremony for the Protocol on 17 May 1999 as part of the 100th anniversary celebrations of the first Hague Peace Conference.(6) No. Before the Protocol can be signed for Australia the department responsible for the Protocol must first submit it for the approval of relevant Ministers. If approval is obtained, the Minister for Foreign Affairs must then submit the text to the Executive Council for its approval for the Protocol to be signed for Australia. A pre-requisite for either of these steps is receipt by Australia of a certified true copy of the text of the instrument from the depositary (the Director General of UNESCO). The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has not yet received such a copy. My Department hosted an inter-departmental committee meeting on 6 May 1999 to report on the Protocol's negotiation and contents and discuss next steps, including which department should be the responsible department for the Protocol.6248(Question No. 591)5916248Wilkie, Kim, MPMr Wilkie84GSwanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 11 May 1999:(1) Is he able to provide the estimated cost of constructing the new Sydney airport.(2) What is the breakdown of major expenses involved in building a new airport.(3) Is he able to provide estimations of (a) what it would cost to relocate Perth Airport and (b) the time it would take to do so.6248Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Three airport design options were developed for the current Environmental Impact Statement on the proposed second Sydney airport at Badgerys Creek. Based on these options, it was estimated that it would cost between $1.4 billion and $2.4 billion to build an airport capable of handling 10 million passengers per year, and about $600 million to build off-site infrastructure to service the airport. The cost of constructing an airport capable of handling 30 million passengers per year would be between $3 billion and $4.8 billion, with about a further $1 billion required for off-site infrastructure.These costs do not include the existing airport site at Badgerys Creek, which was acquired by the Commonwealth at a cost of $125 million.(2) The breakdown of costs involved in building a new airport would be greatly influenced by the type and volume of aviation traffic to be accommodated, as well as the nature of the proposed airport site. It is not realistic to provide a generic break down of costs that could be applied to any proposed airport.(3) No. The possible relocation of Perth Airport is not an issue being considered by the Government.6248(Question No. 615)6156248Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister for Forestry and Conservation, upon notice, on 12 May 1999:(1) Under the Export Control (Hardwood Woodchips) Regulations, is there a national ceiling applicable to woodchip exports from regions not covered by regional forest agreements (RFAs); if so, what is the current ceiling.(2) Do existing State management plans impose a maximum limit on woodchip production and/or exports in regions covered by RFAs; if so, what are the details.6248Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TuckeySJ4O'ConnorLPForestry and Conservation; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Export Control (Hardwood Wood Chips) Regulations 1996 (the 1996 Regulations) make provision for the issuing of transitional, degraded forest, RFA and restricted shipment licences to export hardwood wood chips sourced from native forests. The 1996 Regulations provide that the maximum aggregate mass of wood chips that may be authorised to be exported under all transitional licences in force in any one year is 6.251 million green tonnes. There is no such aggregate ceiling imposed for degraded forest, RFA and restricted shipment licences.The 1996 Regulations also provide a formula by which the annual aggregate ceiling for transitional licences is to be reduced by the mass of wood chips authorised to be exported under RFA licences issued to transitional licence holders. At the time, it was envisaged that RFA licences would be issued for a region once a Regional Forest Agreement (RFA) came into force for that region. This provision, therefore, ensured that as RFA licences were issued to persons who previously held transitional licences, the aggregate available under transitional licences for non-RFA regions should be similarly reduced.However, the Export Control (Regional Forest Agreements) Regulations (the RFA Regulations) were made in 1997, which effectively removed the need to obtain a licence to export wood chips from a region once an RFA is in force for that region. Therefore, to ensure the purpose of the aggregate ceiling under the 1996 Regulations is not circumvented, Regulations 3, 4 and 5 of the RFA Regulations prohibit any increase to the maximum aggregate mass or re-allocation of transitional licence masses as a result of the making of the RFA Regulations.(2) State management plans fall within the control of relevant State authorities. However, I am not aware of any State management plan that imposes a maximum limit on wood chip production.Forests are managed for timber production. Wood chips represent the residues from silvicultural treatments, harvesting operations and timber processing resulting from that timber production.