1999-06-213913REPS681301999-06-21Mr SPEAKER(Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 12.30 p.m., and read prayers.Committees68136813681312:31:006813Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellALP00—On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I have great pleasure in presenting the committee's report entitled Military justice procedures in the Australian Defence Force , together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the committee.Ordered that the report be printed.QJ4Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUS—The Senate referred this inquiry on 25 November 1997 and, following the federal election, re-referred the matter on 10 March 1999. The committee was asked to examine the existing legislative framework and procedures for the conduct of military inquiries and ADF military processes. In addition to military inquiries and military discipline, the committee identified a further third interrelated component of the military justice system—administrative action. The report addresses each of these three quite distinct components of the military justice system. Each of these components—military inquiries, military discipline and administrative action—is expansive and the committee has not attempted a comprehensive examination of every detail of the military justice system. Rather, the committee has sought to examine the avenues for investigative and punitive action within the ADF to determine if current procedures are unfair, inappropriate or open to misuse.A sound framework of procedures, policy and legislation underpins the current military inquiry and discipline systems of the ADF. Existing arrangements have been in place for several years and have proven effective. However, in recent times a number of military inquiries and disciplinary matters conducted by the ADF have become the subject of considerable public interest. Many of these cases involved the loss of lives of service personnel and perceived injustices to members of the ADF in their dealings with the military disciplinary system.The considerable public attention focused on such cases has included questions regarding the effectiveness and independence of the current military inquiry system. In addition, there has been considerable public support behind calls for external inquiries—or, at the very least, external reviews of inquiries—in cases involving the death of an ADF member. The systems of discipline and administrative action employed by the ADF have attracted considerably less public attention, although aspects of the Defence Force Discipline Act have been challenged on several occasions in the High Court of Australia in recent years.The committee acknowledged the considerable changes made to the military justice system during the course of the inquiry as the ADF moved to address the recommendations of Brigadier the Hon. A.R. Abadee's 1007 report, A Study into Judicial System under the Defence Force Discipline Act, and the Ombudsman's 1998 investigation into how the ADF responds to allegations of serious incidents and offences. However, the committee was not convinced that these ADF initiated changes will fully address both the perceived and the actual independence and impartiality of the military justice system.Independence and impartiality in the military justice system was a strong theme throughout the conduct of the inquiry. The committee was aware that in cases involving the death of an ADF member many of those involved, particularly family members of the deceased, harbour strong feelings that the military justice system lacks independence. While the inquiry received no evidence to support an allegation of a lack of independence, there is no doubt that a strong perception exists that the military justice system lacks independence and impartiality. While acknowledging the need to address issues of independence and impartiality in the military justice system, the committee had a preference to do so without impeding the workings of the ADF. To this end, the committee retained a focus on the need for the system of military justice to function effectively across the whole spectrum of conflict in which the ADF can be expected to operate.The committee acknowledged that the ADF has unique requirements for the administration of justice commensurate with its role in the defence of the nation. Moreover, these unique requirements exist as constraints and standards additional to the justice system that pertains to all citizens of Australia. Notwithstanding that members of the ADF voluntarily accept the imposition of an additional layer of justice when they choose to serve their country, the committee was firmly of the view that the military justice system must, so far as possible, conform with community norms and be demonstrably independent, impartial and fair.The report tabled today contains 59 recommendations. Forty-five of these recommendations relate to the military inquiry system, seven recommendations relate to the system of military discipline and a further seven recommendations relate to the administrative action process employed by the ADF. While I do not have time to go through the key principal recommendations, I hope that the other speakers will do so. While the committee is of the view that these proposals will serve to improve the independence, impartiality and overall operation of the system, it is acknowledged that this report will be disappointing for some who saw the inquiry as an avenue of review for individual cases. (Time expired)12:37:006814Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—In joining this tabling statement by the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade with its report entitled Military justice procedures in the Australian Defence Force , I too would like to say a few brief words in the short time available. The principal recommendations of the report will serve to improve the independence, impartiality, fairness and overall operation of the system. In addition, the changes proposed by the committee will address the perceived view of independence, impartiality and fairness in the system of military justice employed within the Australian Defence Force.In arriving at this report, the committee considered, inter alia, two fundamental issues that underpin the framework of the military justice system: firstly, the requirement for military justice as a system additional to and quite distinct from the justice system that pertains to all citizens of Australia; and, secondly, who should be responsible for the enforcement of military justice. Throughout its deliberations, the committee was cognisant of the Australian Defence Force's unique requirements for the administration of justice commensurate with its role in the defence of the nation and, moreover, that the operation of the military justice system should not impede the workings of the Australian Defence Force. In short, the system of military justice must function effectively across the whole spectrum of conflict in which the Australian Defence Force can be expected to operate.With regard to the conduct of the military justice system, the committee concluded that the current arrangements for conduct of internal inquiries meet the need of the Australian Defence Force for a rapid review of potential hazards. Moreover, the committee accepted that the factors militating against the use of an external authority to conduct a military inquiry are sufficient to justify the retention of the current practice for matters not involving the loss of life. However, in cases involving the accidental death of an ADF member, the committee was of the view that the need to demonstrate the independence of the inquiry outweighs concerns about the conduct of the inquiry by an external authority. The committee has therefore recommended that the convening of a general court of inquiry be mandatory for all inquiries into matters involving the accidental death of an Australian Defence Force member during an Australian Defence Force activity. This action will serve to remove the ADF from the investigative process and negate any issues of independence or conflict of interest.On the issue of military discipline, the committee agreed that during deployments and on operations the ADF must have access to a discipline system that can be applied expeditiously and in such a way that service discipline is maintained, operations are not impeded and command authority is supported. Moreover, the standard of military discipline should not vary, regardless of whether it is applied in peace or in a time of conflict. The committee concluded that the current system of military discipline, coupled with the Australian Defence Force's acceptance of most of the Abadee recommendations, provides for an independent and impartial framework. With these changes incorporated, the committee saw no compelling argument to amend the present arrangement and supported the continuation of the present system with minor amendment.With regard to administrative action, the committee accepted that where behaviour, actions or performance falls short of the high standards of professionalism required by the Australian Defence Force, a commander needs the wherewithal to take action to prevent recurrence. The committee acknowledged that the Defence Force Discipline Act was framed to deal with breaches of discipline and that administrative action provides a suitable avenue for a commander to deal with matters of professional failure. Moreover, the formality of the system allows certain safeguards to ensure that the procedural fairness provisions of administrative law are met.The recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade's report on military justice procedures in the Australian Defence Force will serve to improve the independence, impartiality, fairness and overall operation of the system. Moreover, they will do so without impeding the workings of the Australian Defence Force, allowing the military justice system to function effectively across the whole spectrum of conflict in which the Australian Defence Force can be expected to operate. I would like to especially mention the contributions of Joanne Towner and particularly Michael Ward to this report. (Time expired)12:42:006815Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—I would like to acknowledge that this inquiry came about through the efforts of the Hon. Arch Bevis in the last parliament, when he was shadow minister for Defence, and the Senate, which passed the motion to provide the reference. Honourable members know that when an inquiry goes over two parliaments, it presents some difficulties. Nevertheless I trust that members will be well pleased with the report and its recommendations. I want to acknowledge the contributions of Wing Commander Paul Hislop and in particular Lieutenant Colonel Michael Ward, who were seconded from the ADF to assist with the inquiry.The parliament and the people of Australia expect a lot from our serving men and women, and they deliver in full measure. The military justice system is integral to the effective command and administration of the Defence Force, yet it must, so far as possible, conform with community norms in peace and war. There is no doubt that the ADF has unique requirements for the administration of justice, commensurate with its role in the defence of the nation; however, the system must be demonstrably independent, impartial and fair. These three areas—independence, impartiality and fairness—and, perhaps more significantly, demonstrating the adherence to these principles, were the prominent themes of the inquiry. There is a need for the system of military justice to address both the perceived and the actual independence, impartiality and fairness of the process. The process must be seen to be free from any corrupting influence.The committee has proposed a number of significant changes. Perhaps the most important of these proposals is that there be a mandatory general court of inquiry into matters involving the accidental death of an Australian Defence Force member during an Australian Defence Force activity. This will serve to remove the department from the investigative process, thus negating any conflict of interest and ensuring independence in the inquiry. Whilst the minister has always had this power within the Defence (Inquiry) Regulations, it has never been exercised. The committee accepted that the conduct of an inquiry by an authority external to the Defence Force will involve some costs in time, resources and perhaps capability. However, the committee felt that the need to demonstrate the independence of the inquiry out weighs reservations regarding the conduct of the inquiry by an external authority.The committee accepted that in most cases a board of inquiry would provide a suitable avenue to investigate major capital loss. Nevertheless, the committee believes that general courts of inquiry should not be confined to loss of life. The committee was of the view that the Department of Defence should publicly account for its decisions in discharging the recommendations of general courts of inquiry and boards of inquiry. It recommended that the Australian Defence Force should publicly account for the operation of the military justice system by the provision of an annual report to the Minister for Defence and, furthermore, that the annual report be tabled in parliament by the minister.The committee has recommended that, following the conduct of a general court of inquiry, within the limitations of privacy and national security and at the conclusion of all resultant disciplinary and administrative action, the Minister for Defence should table in the parliament the inquiry report; the recommendations of the investigating body; details of the action to be taken to adopt the recommendations; and, where recommendations are rejected, the reasons for such rejection. The committee did not believe that the public accountability requirements for boards of inquiry should be any less than those for general courts of inquiry discharging the recommendations of the board.The committee accepted that the post-Abadee arrangements will significantly improve the impartiality and independence of the military discipline system. While the alternative of an independent director of military prosecutions was examined in detail, the committee concluded that the option for the creation of such a body should be re-examined after the impact of the post-Abadee arrangements were effectively assessed in three years time.The committee has also proposed some changes to the administrative action process employed within the Australian Defence Force. Perhaps of most significance, the committee recommended that the Australian Defence Force consider the implementation of a revised framework of administrative censure and formal warning that makes the process applicable to all members of the Australian Defence Force and incorporates a separation between the roles of initiating officer and decision maker. These proposals will serve to improve the independence, impartiality, fairness and overall operation of the system. In addition, these proposals will strike at the perceived view of the system of military justice employed within the Australian Defence Force. I commend the report to all honourable members. (Time expired)10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The time allotted for statements on this report has expired. Does the member for Calwell wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion?12:47:006816Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellALP00—Yes, Mr Speaker. I move:That the House take note of the report.I seek your indulgence to say something about the conduct of the inquiry.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—It is not necessary to get my indulgence. I understand that leave has been indicated from the government, so the member for Calwell may proceed.QJ4Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUS—by leave—The inquiry created a lot of public interest. I would like to thank all the many people who took the time to write submissions, appear before public hearings or simply make contact with the secretariat about this very important national issue. I would also like to take this opportunity to commend the work of Senator David MacGibbon, chairman of the committee, who is retiring shortly. His comprehensive knowledge of defence issues, his interest and his role as chairman of the Defence Subcommittee were crucial in the conduct of the inquiry and have raised a lot of national issues. I also acknowledge the hard work of the other members of the Defence Subcommittee in this parliament and in the 38th Parliament, especially the member for Chifley, the deputy chairman. I commend this report to everyone in the community who is interested in these issues. I thank the other members for pointing out some of the key issues in the report. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.6817681712:49:006817Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY4K6PageNP10—On behalf of the Standing Committee on Environment and Heritage, I present the committee's report, entitled Review of the Department of the Environment's annual report for 1997-98 , together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the committee.Ordered that the report be printed.4K6Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY—It gives me pleasure to table the first report of the Committee on Environment and Heritage for this parliament. The report is a review of the annual report of the Department of the Environment for 1997-98. The committee used its review of the department's annual report to investigate the department's activities in a number of areas, including rivers and water quality, world heritage areas, national parks and reserves, environment reporting and marine management.The committee's report makes two recommendations. The first is about coordination of river and water quality programs, to ensure that these programs make the best use of available resources. At present there are a number of programs aimed at protecting and enhancing the health of rivers and waterways. The committee believes there needs to be a more coordinated approach to management of these programs to ensure there is good community consultation, ongoing monitoring of results and the best use of available resources. The second recommendation deals with the framework for the state of the environment reporting. The committee is concerned that the information gathered across the whole of government for other processes, such as regional forest agreements, is not fed into the state of the environment reports. The committee has recommended that the Department of the Environment and Heritage ensure that all available data is incorporated into state of the environment reports and that the reports are used as a basis for future decision making on environment policies and programs.The committee undertook this review under the provisions of standing order 324(b), which refers annual reports of departments and agencies to House of Representatives committees for investigation. This standing order gives committees an excellent opportunity to hold government departments and the government accountable to the parliament. If undertaken on a yearly basis, these reviews of department annual reports would form an important part of departments' accountability. Committees can also use reviews of annual reports to follow up on the results of previous committee reports. This committee asked the Department of the Environment and Heritage to report on the implementation of the recommendations arising from a previous committee inquiry on management of world heritage areas.During the committee's review of the Department of the Environment and Heritage's annual report, the management of Australia's water resources, particularly the health of urban and rural waterways, emerged as a topic warranting further investigation. Accordingly, the committee has resolved to continue its inquiries and undertake a larger review of catchment management. The inquiry will focus on best practice models for catchment management in Australia and how current management strategies might be improved. I look forward to tabling the report of our extended inquiry later in this parliament. I would like to thank the officers of the Department of the Environment and Heritage who assisted the committee throughout our review of the annual report. Finally, I also thank the members of the Committee on Environment and Heritage and the secretariat for all their help, advice and work and for their contributions to the inquiry. I commend the report to the House.12:53:006817Irwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN83ZFowlerALP00—The Standing Committee on Environment and Heritage has considered in detail the annual report of the Department of the Environment and Heritage. I acknowledge the work of the committee chair, the member for Page, and other members of the committee for their examination and review of the department's report. There are a number of issues contained in the report which I would like to comment on—in particular those issues dealing with the urban environment. That is not to say that the broader national issues are not important but rather that there are important issues in urban environments which demand the attention of governments.The committee's review made note of the government's Living Cities program announced in the lead-up to the 1998 election. May I say in passing that the objectives of the program are worth while. However, the overall funding of $50 million over three years, with only $10 million in this coming year, is really only scratching the surface when it comes to addressing the problems in this area.Included in the program is the National River Health Program. While it was announced after the public hearings of the committee, the inclusion of the program in the budget was welcomed by the committee. This program is of particular interest to me in the Fowler electorate. The electorate contains the middle reaches of the Georges River and its major tributaries—Cabramatta, Orphan School and Prospect creeks. Before closer urban settlement, this river system contained natural filters which protected the water quality of the Georges River.I am fascinated by photographs taken in the 1920s showing picnickers boating on Prospect Creek at Lansvale. Like many who grew up in the 1950s, I can remember Sunday school picnics on the Georges River at the Hollywood picnic grounds. Today, however, this river system drains the large industrial areas of Wetherill Park and Moorebank, with the risk of industrial pollution. The area is now almost fully developed, with urban areas covering much of the catchment, resulting in further pollution from urban run-off. A significant improvement to the system was undertaken through the Chipping Norton Lakes Scheme undertaken by the New South Wales government. Indeed, the member for Page may well recall his own involvement with the scheme when he was water resources minister in New South Wales.The scheme involved the expansion of areas which had been dredged for building sand and which have now provided the largest inland recreational waterway in Sydney. In recent years the scheme has come under the care and maintenance of Fairfield and Liverpool city councils. The continued enjoyment of this recreational facility depends on the water quality of the Georges River system. It is here that the National River Health Program will be essential. The budget papers state that the program:. . . will establish a national monitoring regime for urban rivers. Activities will encompass both river health bioassessment monitoring activities as well as ongoing development of nationally consistent protocols for assessing urban river health.The Georges River catchment is an area which could benefit greatly from the National River Health Program. While flooding has always been a problem in the catchment and has deservedly received great attention, if the Georges River and its tributaries are to be something more than an open stormwater system greater attention must be paid to the issue of water quality in the catchment.A second area of the Living Cities program concerns the compressed natural gas, or CNG, refuelling infrastructure program. This program has the objective of encouraging greater use of this alternative transport fuel by establishing a network of publicly accessible CNG refuelling stations. The need for this program has greater urgency in the light of changes proposed for diesel fuel excise which would make diesel fuel more attractive to heavy vehicle users, and the imposition of a tax on CNG which would make this fuel more expensive.In the course of the Senate inquiries into the GST, the dangers of increased diesel emissions in urban areas were confirmed. This is of great concern in the Fowler electorate. Being at the south-western gateway to Sydney, Fowler is traversed by the bulk of road and rail freight entering and leaving Sydney for the southern states. This already results in levels of diesel pollution above acceptable levels in parts of the Fowler electorate. Increased use of diesel fuel can only lead to greater health problems arising from such pollution. Liverpool now has the largest bus-train interchange in Sydney. People in the Fowler electorate are among the highest users of bus transport. They do so, I stress, out of necessity. Without the luxury of a second car—or in many cases a first car—bus transport is well patronised by residents in Fowler. The progressive introduction of CNG fuelled vehicles into the local bus fleet would greatly assist in reducing diesel pollution in this area and in many other parts of Sydney.Finally I mention the nomination of the Blue Mountains area for world heritage listing. The nomination of this beautiful and unique area has been supported by governments and the community at all levels. This cooperative approach contrasts with nominations for other areas which have not been fully supported. (Time expired)12:58:006819Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—I start by commending the member for Page as committee chairman and all of the committee members for their work on another agreed report—their review of the Department of the Environment's annual report—to come before the parliament. I also commend the committee secretariat, led by Ian Dundas, and particularly Dr Sarah Hnatiuk and Bronwen Jaggers for their work on this particular inquiry. I also acknowledge the good nature and the frankness with which the Environment Australia officers participated in our hearings. Over a number of years and at least two parliaments that I am familiar with the committee has been able to establish a good working relationship with the officers of Environment Australia. We now come to our meetings with them having some awareness of the issues that are on our minds and the sorts of policy considerations we would like to talk out, as well as the committee understanding some of the ongoing work of Environment Australia and its related agencies. So it is a very worthwhile exercise.The report itself, as has been mentioned by previous speakers, contains two specific recommendations, and I would like to talk very briefly about both of them. The first relates to adopting a more strategic approach to waterway management and water quality management. People would be aware that there are a large number of programs that each make a contribution to the management of our waterways and towards improving water qualities. But they do not always come together. That is what the committee was talking about—that these very good, quite worthwhile projects are beavering away on their own to try to bring about improvements in waterway systems and water quality, but they do not always combine in a strategic way that makes sure that government resources, community effort and policy across local, state and federal governments are contributing to better outcomes.The recommendation that the committee is putting forward seeks a more outcome-driven focus to this important area of environmental management with the key test being water quality standards, so that the effort to improve the management of our waterways is towards that end. Australians can then enjoy better quality water as a drinking source and waterway environment. All those that rely upon it, including the flora and fauna, can better function when the water quality supports the ongoing vitality of that river or waterway system. That is an important recommendation which also acknowledges the enormous investment that this government has made in the national land and water resources audit. That is a more than $20 million project, if my memory serves me correctly, which is going around the country looking at all of our waterways and water requirements and the condition of the resource itself. It is doing an audit of those so that we have a stocktake on where, as a nation, we are with our water resources. It would be a shame to see that enormous investment—a very worthwhile initiative funded by the Natural Heritage Trust—not deliver ongoing benefits for our nation. By supporting the recommendation that the committee has put forward, you would see an ongoing maintenance of that database and also that information being used to track our performance. That leads me on to the reference by the member for Page to our performance in the management of our catchments and waterways and the water quality itself actually making a difference. We know we can stop people doing things that damage waterways and catchments; and the taxpayer, through the Natural Heritage Trust and through other government programs such as Landcare, is putting an enormous amount of money into improving the conditions of our catchments. Are we winning? Are we turning around the degradation that exists in far too many catchments within our country? Are we making a difference to the health of those riparian environments and is the water quality improving so that not only can citizens enjoy reasonable drinking water where they are relying on those waterways, but also the environment that relies on those waterways can function better.The second area refers to the data collected by government across all portfolios relating to our environment. While Environment Australia is doing a terrific job from its point of view, there is other work going on—whether it be in the regional forest agreements, monitoring resource projects, or looking at the way our fisheries are handled—and is that data coming together to make sure we are better managing the natural resources of our country? We are looking to have those interrelationships properly recognised so that when decisions are made about revegetation initiatives we can understand that the planting of box ironbark in certain areas of Australia will also help endangered species. So there is a multifaceted approach to government programs and the application of resources. These are important things for our country. I commend the report to members. (Time expired)UNKNOWNMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Does the honourable member for Page wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion?6820Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY4K6PageNP10—I move:That the House take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Bills6820r8276820Bill presented by Mr Bevis.13:04:006820Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—The Workplace Relations Amendment (Defence Purposes Leave) Bill 1999 provides for the Australian Industrial Relations Commission to include in industrial awards leave for workers to participate in activities as members of the Australian Defence Force—a fairly straightforward and, one would have thought, commonsense proposition.The fact that it is necessary for me as the opposition shadow minister to move such a provision is directly the result of the Howard government's 1996 decisions in the Workplace Relations Act. That legislation deliberately and consciously removed from the industrial commission any power to provide leave for Australian Reserves from their private employment. It was one of the most foolhardy examples of the government's zealous pursuit of their industrial relations agenda.It is but one of many issues that was cut by this government in its zeal on these matters. I will quickly mention others that were cut in the same process. The commission is no longer able, for example, to include in awards occupational health and safety matters; meal break facilities; amenities for people in lunch rooms; the fact that there should be first aid kits provided in workplaces; or sexual harassment matters. These and many other things have deliberately been removed from the powers of the industrial commission in dealing with workers' rights. It is an indication of this government's obsession about industrial relations that it has been willing to sacrifice good defence policy on the altar of its flat earth industrial relations obsessions. It has been a pursuit of biased and divisive industrial relations policy that has seen that agenda come first before all else.Indeed, it is an agenda the government intends to pursue in the very near future with the second wave of amendments, which have been forecast to include further reductions in the role of the industrial commission. Specifically, things such as jury service are now to be removed from the consideration of the industrial commission. Why on earth a government would set about denying ordinary workers the opportunity to serve on juries is beyond any reasonable person's thinking; but it is, in fact, in the draft bill that this government will introduce into the parliament very shortly.Let me return specifically to the questions that this bill seeks to address. Remember that this is, if you like, simply a highlight from those other examples I have referred to, but it is an important one. The matter in this bill was first raised by me as shadow minister for defence in the last parliament by way of a question on notice in August 1997. On that occasion the then minister, Mr McLachlan, said—amongst other things—that the government was considering legislation to fix the problem. That was two years ago. There has been no legislation forthcoming from the government about this matter.Nearly a year later, in July of 1998, I asked a question without notice of the then Minister for Defence Personnel, Mrs Bishop. She mumbled around, trying to avoid the question, clearly indicating that the government had failed to come to grips with the issue even then. In February of 1998 the then Minister Bishop wrote to the Armed Forces Federation saying:I am well aware of the threat to reserve training as a possible outcome of the Workplace Relations Act.She should have been, because the matter had been raised formally with her in the parliament and with her senior minister a year earlier. So what has the government done about that in the two years since this matter was first raised and the nearly three years now since its legislation created this problem? The simple fact is it has done nothing. The Defence Reserve Support Committee is an important structure within the defence establishment for assisting in resolving difficulties between Reserves and their private employers. It is chaired by Sir James Killen, a very respected person in these circles. The minutes of its meeting in November last year say this:Sir James informed the Conference he had written to the previous government—that is, the first Howard government—querying the omission of Reserve leave from the 20 allowable items in the Workplace Relations Act 1996, and discussed the response to his query. He stated that he was unhappy with the response and he intends to pursue the matter.You have to remember—Sir James Killen was a Liberal government minister for defence, and they won't even listen to his advice. They won't even listen to the Victorian Liberal Council, which earlier this year carried a resolution urging the government `to ensure that defence leave for Reserve Defence Force members is included as an allowable matter in federal awards'. It will be interesting to see the response of the minister, who I imagine attended that meeting. Given that he is a Victorian Liberal member of parliament, he probably went to the Victorian Liberal Conference. I wonder how he voted on that resolution at the Victorian conference. I wonder what he said to that meeting and whether, as Leader of the House, he will allow this matter to be debated and voted on. (Time expired)Bill read a first time.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—In accordance with standing order 104A, the second reading will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Private Members' Business6821682113:10:006821Ripoll, Bernie, MPMr RIPOLL83EOxleyALP00—I 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.I have previously spoken on this matter in the parliament, but I now have over 5,000 petitioners from my electorate who demand that this matter be debated and the government's position be challenged. Honesty is the cornerstone of consumer protection. It is the government's responsibility to make laws that ensure all sellers are honest about the products they sell. The test of honesty goes beyond whether a lie is told. It is the providing of all information that should be provided to the consumer. Food labelling must not be allowed to be misleading. It cannot deceive, nor should it fail to provide information that a consumer deserves to know about a product.There are few things more important than protecting the quality and integrity of the food we eat. Currently, food labelling falls short of the public's expectation. Rather than going backwards, we must look seriously at ensuring that all relevant information is available to the consumers at the point of purchase. Food labels must use language that accurately describes the product. The minimum composition requirements are essential for the purposes of comparison shoppers. No-name or no-frills brands do not have a corporate reputation to protect and may therefore produce the cheapest allowable product. This means that low income families choosing the cheapest ice-cream in the supermarket could well buy the cheap substitute ice-cream confection labelled as `ice-cream'. While this product may be cheaper, if your intention was to purchase real ice-cream, then you would be ripped off.Labelling should not just describe the product. The community also expects that important nutritional information is provided on the product. Information about the levels of salt, fats and sugars as well as vitamins, iron and protein must be provided along with a list of all the ingredients. I am concerned that some food labelling proposals will take away valid distinctions from the nutritional panel, such as the banding together of carbohydrates without a distinction for sugars as opposed to more complex carbohydrates. For example, any label that suggest that oats are of equal nutritional value to Cocoa Pops is of no real use to consumers.Any labelling of ingredients must also label genetically engineered food products. The level of community concern over GE foods cannot be dismissed. The concerns range from those who philosophically and fundamentally oppose genetic engineering—these people wish to know what foods are genetically modified so that they may avoid them completely—to those sufferers of quite severe allergies. These people have often dramatic and sometimes fatal reactions to the proteins contained in certain food groups. Therefore, when the tomato is genetically modified with the genes of, say, flounder for frost resistance there is a potential impact for the many people allergic to seafood. Only by labelling GE tomatoes or products with GE tomatoes can we ensure that these people are protected.With GE foods, public health remains as the central issue in food regulation. With genetic engineering advancing at such a rapid pace we are all left with questions over this emerging food source, questions about genetic engineering and the environment, genetic engineering and food quality, genetic engineering and our health and also genetic engineering and our primary industries.Food and diet are such an important part of overall health. That is why the role of regulating our food should be the responsibility of the health department. The government's proposal to shift ANZFA's responsibility away from health and into primary industries represents a dangerous realignment of focus for the government. Food laws should not be the responsibility of food producers. Food laws must be health laws.This motion condemns the Howard government's failure to acknowledge and respond to the level of community anxiety over this issue. I have been listening to the community about food labelling, and I share their concerns. We urge the government to talk to the community about these proposals and find out why we are unhappy and why these changes cause concern. Along with the thousands of petitions sent to my office on this issue I have received many letters. All of these letters have expressed support for the views I raise here. These people who have written their support for the underlying wisdom of food labelling regulation fail to understand why the government would want to remove such protection. But, instead of just my words on this matter, I wish to expose the government to some of the wisdom of my constituents. Mrs Rose writes:I am sure none of the Australian population wish to be misled in any area. I am not in favour of the changes in food labelling or even in the new idea of genetic engineering of growing food. This will mean we will not have any idea of what we are eating.Mrs Whiting says:About time for a stand to be made on this matter. I know only too well the impact that will be inflicted on many of us if the Howard government is successful. I myself have allergies and sensitivities to foods, I know of many others that do also. The situation is bad enough to cope with, without having misleading labels on foods. The present situation on labelling is bad enough without the Howard government inflicting an even worse situation. For some of us it is not just an adverse reaction to foods that apply if that isn't bad enough but to some the matter is of life or death.Mr Woods sent a short note to say he is thankful for:. . . opportunity to protest against the proposed food regulation. I am totally against what the bill stands for. I hope that we will be successful against it.Mrs Oostergard simply says:If the labels do not show what the ingredients are and my nephew was to eat peanuts or egg, he will die.Mr Davidson sent a stack of signatures and a note to say:I work with 70 people and they are concerned at these proposed changes.Ms Mitchell asks the government:What I don't understand is why the Howard government is proposing these changes and why hasn't this been made public.Ms Thorne says:In the supermarkets many products have deliberately been labelled with an Australian sounding name when they are produced overseas.The trickery behind low fat and lite are well known. These and other marketing strategies I have believed immoral if not illegal. We have needed for a long time stricter laws to enforce the needs of the population. I believe that if companies want to sell food products they have a responsibility to inform the public: where it was grown, processed, the exact contents and where the holding company is based. On past history this will only come about through legislation.I have another letter which was received from Ms Monkman. She says:My primary concern regarding food labelling is genetically engineered foods—GE foods—closely followed by allergies—as stated in your letter. Australians must be free to choose whether or not they wish to consume GE foods.In Europe and the USA there has been a major outcry and many protests over GE foods entering the food chain. As a result, many foods must be labelled as GE foods. The fact that there is such a prevalence of GE foods on the market overseas, yet not widespread support for them, opens an avenue for Australia to export GE free foods.Almost all the letters I have received from people have asked for more information to be provided to them about this issue. The lack of community consultation over this issue needs to be corrected. To this end, I have organised a public meeting in my electorate to help raise awareness of this issue and to give the people the opportunity to discuss it and ask questions. Lindsay Tanner, the shadow minister for consumer affairs, whose interest and concern about this issue is appreciated, will be there, and a leading authority on these matters, Dick Copeman, will attend to answer many of the questions put forward from the community. This meeting will also serve as a rallying point for all the people committed to changing the government's course on these matters. We want to send a message to the government that they must reverse their decision on food labelling deregulation.The government must abandon these new, weaker food laws and instead work towards greater protection. The government must investigate the current food laws and find ways to strengthen them. This message has come through from the community loud and clear. The government must keep public health and safety as the number one objective of all food laws. The responsibility for protecting the health of the community also must remain within the health department. The whole community must be given the opportunity to debate any proposed changes to food labelling laws and what is contained in our food products.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Is the motion seconded?84GWILKIEMr Wilkie—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.13:20:006824Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—The member for Oxley has already made a number of contributions on the subject of food labelling in this House. Indeed, I followed the member for Oxley in a grievance debate recently when he spoke and waxed lyrical on the subject of jam—a micropolicy if ever there was one. However, it is certainly pleasing to see that the current member for Oxley is concerned more with issues of substance than his predecessor, who brought great embarrassment to this House.Food labelling crosses two broad and important policy areas: health and consumer rights. The member for Oxley has raised some interesting points covering both these areas in his motion, but it is disappointing that in it he has also chosen to make cheap, false and contradictory attacks on the federal government's position. For example, in his own speech, he talked about the moving of ANZFA out of the health area. That is certainly not the intention of the government. ANZFA remains firmly in the health department, because food labelling is as much a health issue today as it was when the Labor Party was in office.On the one hand, the member for Oxley claims that consumers want explicit details on the foodstuffs that they purchase. In the grievance debate on 29 March, he observed that `the Australian consumer today is hungry for information on food'. The implication is that most consumers will favour purchasing foodstuffs that provide these details and information, but the member for Oxley contradicts himself by protesting that the government should establish what would be a complex, inefficient framework of rules, regulations and legislation to compel food producers to provide these details. In other words, the government should force producers to meet market demands. The member for Oxley clearly does not understand the concept of market forces. But I am not going to give him a small lecture on economics because his colleague the member for Werriwa does so on a regular basis and I am sure that he can be left to do that task.In the time remaining to me in this debate, I will outline the coalition government's reforms to date in the area of food labelling in addition to potential policy directions. The old adage `you are what you eat' is very sage advice. Like the member for Oxley, I would like to see all Australians taking an active interest in the nutritional value and exact content of the foods they eat. It is a practice that would lend itself to the prevention of avoidable illnesses and promote better health, both physical and mental. A healthier population is not just a responsible social policy outcome in terms of better quality of life, it is also a positive economic policy. A healthier population will result in greater national productivity due to the taking of less sick leave, as well as reducing demand and cost to the public and private health systems.A food labelling policy which enforces antiquated and inefficient regulatory frameworks on food producers will not make people healthier. It will not make people who do not read the content labels of foodstuffs any more informed or aware. The government cannot force people to read labels and be product aware. A better and more productive strategy is to educate the public about nutritional standards through education and consumer awareness programs. If consumers are familiar with the benefits of better eating and the importance of purchasing foodstuffs which clearly detail their nutritional standards, then the market will respond accordingly—and that is exactly what the government has set out to achieve.Enhanced consumer awareness is best achieved through education and marketing. Education programs that target a specific issue or initiative are an important responsibility of government. The coalition government has repeatedly demonstrated its commitment to public education and awareness programs. Whether it be informing people about the 30 per cent rebate for private health insurance, a new tax system or the debate about a national head of state, making the public more aware of nutritional standards and food labelling is another responsibility of government.Creating consumer awareness about nutritional standards will develop genuine consumer demand for food labelling. If people are aware of the many benefits of eating nutritious foods and if people know what to look for when evaluating the nutritional value of food product, then it only stands to reason that people will favour purchasing foodstuffs that make this information available. Food producers will know that, if they do not meet this demand, their sales revenue will plummet and their market share will be lost to the producer who has met the standards of food labelling which consumers demand.To meet consumption patterns, the market for reduced fat or less sugar products has significantly increased in recent years. Food producers know that, if they want to capture a share of the market, they need to meet that market's food labelling and identification requirements. This phenomenon has also resulted in substantial product development and innovation. Other niche markets are also developing. The Organic Federation of Australia believes that the organic produce market is an industry worth $100 million a year. In fact, in my own electorate an organic supermarket recently opened on Magill Road and its business is thriving. This indicates that, in fact, on the ground, what I am saying is true.The member for Oxley fails to recognise the significance of the coalition government's contributions to reforms in the area of food labelling. This includes amendments which were passed through the Senate in the Trade Practices Amendment (Country of Origin Representations) Bill 1998. The passing of this legislation was a great win for consumers as well as many local industries, particularly the citrus industry. The citrus industry was suffering as a result of legislation which the former Labor government presided over. That legislation included a regulatory framework that was putting many important jobs at risk.Under the coalition government's reforms, producers have a superior competitive edge in marketing their product by clearly identifying whether the goods for sale are produced and/or manufactured in Australia. Under the government's reforms, to be labelled `Made in Australia', products must be substantially transformed in Australia and the majority of the costs incurred in Australia. I am sure, Mr Deputy Speaker, as a person from rural Australia, you would know exactly what I am talking about; the National Party played a crucial role in that legislation and in ensuring that Australian producers were not disadvantaged vis-a-vis overseas producers.To qualify for a `Produce of Australia' label, the premium label, the product must be 100 per cent Australian or as near to it as possible. The coalition government has committed itself to assist in the promotion of labels in conjunction with an education program and marketing campaign which will identify products as being above the 50 per cent Australian content threshold.Although these reforms have been successful, the coalition government is prepared to consider further reforms to food standards practice. The Australian New Zealand Food Authority has made great contributions to the development of food labelling policies. I understand that the authority is currently undertaking a review of food standards—and I am sure that the parliamentary secretary at the table would be aware of some of these issues, having been the parliamentary secretary for health in the last parliament and having some responsibility in the area of food labelling.The member for Oxley may be interested to learn that the underlying principles of the review currently being conducted by the authority were first agreed to under the Keating government and are now being progressed by all state and territory health ministers. At present, Australia has 93 food standards in operation to ensure that our food is safe and meets strict compositional requirements. However, many of these food standards were developed over 20 years ago and no longer hold any contemporary currency in terms of meeting consumers' demands and the commercial practicalities of producers. Most of these standards are highly prescriptive, unnecessarily technical and a barrier to product development and innovation. Unnecessary regulatory demands not only add to the costs to the manufacturer, they also result in financial burdens on consumers. Streamlining the food standards process whilst simultaneously maintaining its integrity will have the twofold effect of protecting consumers and reducing production costs.The priority of the food standards review is to ensure that there are effective food composition and labelling standards in place to ensure that food is safe for people. It is essential that the standards are clear and easy for consumers to understand. Contrary to the member for Oxley's hyperbole, Australian food standards will never be compromised where there is a demonstrated risk to public safety and health. There can be little doubt that many of the current food standards that concentrate on the rigid composition of food are best managed by industry in response to consumer demand. The removal of many prescriptive food standards will see a greater range of food products as manufacturers are freed from unnecessary technical barriers.But the member for Oxley appears to be supporting a complicated web of bureaucratic red tape to regulate the labelling of food. If that is not the case, I would ask him to clear that matter up for us, perhaps in the adjournment or 90-second statement debate. I am very sceptical of the idea that this is an efficient and productive use of government and industry resources.The government already regulates deceptive conduct and misleading advertising through trade practice and fair trading legislation. I can see little reason to reinvent the wheel by creating a complicated web of bureaucratic rules that make industry inefficient and products more expensive. A public policy which actively promotes the benefits of better nutrition and educates the public about how to determine the nutritional value of food represents a superior strategy. I will leave the other coalition speakers to cover some of those issues to do with health and the benefits to Australians of a good nutritional policy.13:30:006826Wilkie, Kim, MPMr WILKIE84GSwanALP00—I rise to support the private member's motion moved by the member for Oxley regarding food labelling. Many in our community are concerned about recent movements on this issue. Seemingly, attempts have been made by this government to water down our labelling legislation. It should be borne in mind that this month over 4.4 million people will purchase food at supermarkets and grocery stores and almost $4.7 billion will be spent on various items. Needless to say, it is perhaps the most basic of human activities and it cannot be jeopardised.A further irony in any attempt to deregulate food labelling and a matter that has been discussed in this House is that this government's attempt to deregulate the food industry could place an industry worth $42 billion, of which $16 billion are export oriented, in doubt. Instead, like many other nations, we should be invigorating the scrutiny of the food industry in terms of production, inspection and monitoring. Food labelling is the end result of a long line of effective examination of all matters pertaining to the industry.I also feel it necessary to raise in this debate the issue of genetically modified food. As many members in this House will be aware, considerable community apprehension has been voiced over recent policy by this government on this issue. Much of what we are discussing today, especially genetic technology, is very new and complex and can be very detailed. This, of course, should not daunt this House or decision makers. With food, there can be no compromise. Decisions need to be considered at length and will require patience and education. We need to consider the benefits and also the pitfalls of a deregulated environment.Three vital points need to be raised when discussing the food labelling and regulatory process. Firstly, there seems to be an unofficial undertaking to accept that the labelling of food should be left to the producers. In the case of genetically modified food, there is an acceptance that no interference in the marketing of these products should occur. This is ridiculous. Put simply, profits should not come first. Consumers should have both a choice of product and a choice of information on that product.Disappointingly, the Australia New Zealand Food Authority, which incidentally had its budget reduced this year by this government, claims that a mandatory requirement to label foods that are `substantially equivalent' to their conventional counterparts is not prescribed because, one, it cannot be justified on sound scientific principles—a point yet to be appreciated by many in the community; two, such foods are not unsafe for human consumption, and this is an issue that needs further open examination; and, three, it is more restrictive than necessary to achieve a legitimate outcome.It is my understanding that the term `substantial equivalence' used by the authority is said to mean the food has three elements. It is said to be the same in physical composition, organic qualities and nutritional value. Surely consumers have the right to differentiate and choose between these products. To do so, they need to be labelled appropriately. Our success in this nation as a primary producer and exporter has been due to the consumer perception, internationally and domestically, that we supply a clean, fresh and untainted product. Food labelling reinforces these perceptions of our food. To the consumer, labelling illustrates honesty and integrity. All the nutritional advice is plain to see, and most decisions are based on this information.Secondly, disappointingly the regulatory agencies seem to have acquiesced to the acceptance of this position, and parliament, under this government, has abrogated its responsibility to ensure a safety first philosophy on the issue. In this process, I hold the belief that there is a role for parliament in monitoring the development of some kind of regulatory scheme in which the community can have confidence that their views and concerns are being heard and dealt with. This is not actually happening. My concern goes further, as I believe the parliament has the role of ensuring that vested financial interests do not surpass those of the community.Thirdly, I believe that food labelling is an important consumer issue. It is based on the right to choose and also the right to make an informed choice. The decision to water down the regulatory barriers will alienate the community's concerns about the food industry, in particular the concerns regarding the use of genetic technology.I am aware of the recent Consensus Conference on Gene Technology held at Old Parliament House in March. The conference examined a number of critical elements of the food debate in regulatory and scientific issues, as well as the ethical dimensions of genetically modified food. Among other recommendations, the final report called for the mandatory labelling of genetically modified foods.Therefore, I conclude by saying that regulatory agencies should continue with a strict nutritional and content labelling regime. In fact, the highest world standards should be benchmarked and applied in this nation, and this should include all genetically modified food. Agencies and this parliament have a responsibility to ensure that consumers are put first. (Time expired)13:35:006827Somlyay, Alex, MPMr SOMLYAYZT4FairfaxLP10—I accept that the member for Oxley has a genuine concern about food labelling—he is a new member of the opposition and has been in parliament for eight months or so. It is refreshing to hear that the other side is interested in this topic. It is refreshing because we must remember that the Labor Party had 13 years of government to address these issues and it did not, and those of us in rural electorates were very concerned at the lack of action by the Labor Party on this issue.The Howard government acts on the basic principle that consumers must be adequately and honestly informed about what is in the food they buy, and that means consumers both in Australia and overseas. We have no intention of putting at risk Australia's reputation as a clean food producer. That is very valuable to us as a nation, but, again, it is particularly valuable for those of us in the regional and rural seats.Some consumers have allergies to foods or need to keep a close watch on the nutritional content of their diet. For these reasons, accurate labelling is vital. As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker Nehl, I myself have late onset diabetes so I know personally the importance of accurate labelling from the point of view that diabetics and other people with health problems have to watch the content of the food very carefully.Australia has a worldwide reputation for safe, pure and high quality food which is underpinned by a plethora of rules and regulations variously administered and enforced by all three levels of government. It is good to see that the member for Oxley acknowledged in the Hansard on 29 March this year that we have tighter controls and regulations on food products here in Australia than in most other countries. We have food inspectors, quarantine inspection services, consumer associations, the Therapeutic Goods Administration and the National Registration Authority for Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals to ensure our high standards are maintained.We also have the Australia New Zealand Food Authority, ANZFA, which works under the direction of the Australian and New Zealand health ministers to develop and maintain laws and systems that regulate food here in Australia and in New Zealand. ANZFA, which operates under the umbrella of the federal Department of Health and Aged Care—and I note that it is staying in the federal health department—must consider the needs of consumers, compliance costs for industry and Australia's international obligations and commitment to free trade.The Australia and New Zealand Food Standards Council, as part of ANZFA, has been monitoring and regulating our food industry since 1991. At the federal level, we have the Food Standards Code which is administered by ANZFA. We have also established other international alliances for worldwide food standards through the United Nations and the World Health Organisation. This provides protection for Australians who buy imported food and also promotes international confidence in our food industry, which is worth over $16 billion in export revenue.ANZFA's current review does not mean lower standards of food labelling or that the safety of our food will be compromised. The point is to make the new code simpler, less prescriptive and easier to understand. Many of the standards are out of date and were developed at a time when our daily diet was very different from the wide range of foods we enjoy today. I repeat that the Howard government has got no intention of putting at risk Australia's reputation as a clean food producer.13:40:006828Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—The Howard government's decision to move to deregulate food labelling controls in Australia is a regressive move, one that has the potential to have an enormous impact on the food industry, community health and trade. I believe that the Howard government needs to admit it has made a mistake and needs to reconsider its decision and reintroduce or maintain the regulations that will ensure that Australians and our trading partners know what they are buying.Under deregulation, one of our Australian icons—the meat pie—is set to become the offal pie. Australians will not know that they are buying an offal pie instead of a meat pie because, under the new regulations, manufacturers and producers will not be required to tell the consumers what is in that pie, and that is a disgrace. That is an absolute disgrace. This will have an impact in two ways: (a) the consumers will not know what they are buying, and (b) those boutique pie shops that really put a lot of effort into preparing an excellent product, something that is very special, will not benefit from the fact that they are producing what is a true meat pie. So it is going to have an enormous impact in just that one industry, and that is a good example to show how it will impact.Jams: instead of going along and buying some strawberry jam and knowing you are getting real fruit strawberry jam, you will be getting a bit of jelly, a bit of water with some flavouring in it, and that is not what Australian consumers deserve. Vegetarians have a real concern about this issue, because they want to know that the products they are buying do not contain any meat or animal products whatsoever. That is another area of concern.Possibly, though, the greatest area of concern is the community health issue. Products should display their fat, sugar and salt content. You should be able to pick up a package, look at it and know immediately what you are buying. If products are not properly labelled, it can lead to an increase in cardiovascular disease and it can also lead to an increase in diabetes. As a member on the other side said, late onset diabetes is a real problem in our community.One way of combating this is through a healthy, adequate diet. How can people make a commitment to a healthy diet if they do not know what they are eating? We have a number of health campaigns in our community that are geared towards encouraging people to restrict their intakes of fat, sugar and salt, and I know that many, many consumers go to the supermarket and read those labels. Only those manufacturers who make products with a low fat content will be prepared to identify that on the label of their product because they will see that as a marketing tool. They will see that by listing the fact that their products have a low fat content, people will buy them—unlike those products with a very high fat content, which will be left off the label.The health dollar is already stretched to its limit and, if we are going to have an increase in these types of diseases caused by inadequate labelling, I really feel this will have a very negative impact on the government. In relation to the trade issue, Australian products need to say what is in them if our overseas trading partners are to purchase the products. I believe that genetically modified food needs to be identified, too.This government constantly argues that Australians should be given a choice. It argues that government should subsidise private health insurance and private schools to give Australians a choice, yet when it comes to something as basic as enabling Australians to make an informed choice about foods they consume the Howard government is denying that ability to Australians—denying them the ability to make this choice because the information consumers need to make that choice is not going to be available on the label. I call on the government to re-regulate the food labelling. (Time expired)10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The time allotted for the 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. Statements by Members682968296829Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—Due to my interest in aviation matters, it will come as no surprise to this House that I rise to speak about the increased flight movements in the skies above Western Sydney. I refer to several sightings on Sunday, 6 June for the first time in my 30 years residence of this area of that great Australian aviation giant—the black cockatoo. While I am not a professional bird watcher, I have become aware over the past 10 to 15 years of an increase in the number of Australian native birds that have returned to this part of my electorate. I am advised by those who take a keen interest in these things that the variety of birds that have moved back to Blacktown are the rainbow lorikeet, the red wattle bird, the butcher bird, the Australian magpie, the eastern spinebill and the Australian ibis.I would suggest that this increase in bird life will indicate that we are winning our battle to maintain a cleaner environment in Western Sydney. We must continue our battle to ensure that industry, residents, commercial developers and the general community work hand in hand to ensure that we balance society's needs for employment opportunities with a friendly environment. At the time of speaking I am unable to confirm that my sighting on 6 June was that of a yellow tailed black cockatoo or the glossy black cockatoo, but as further information becomes available I will keep this House informed.68296829May, Margaret, MPMs MAY83BMcPhersonLP10—I am appalled to learn that the only times we will have captioning on our television screens during the Sydney Olympics—arguably our peak sporting event of this century—will be during the opening and closing ceremonies. It is a disgrace that deaf people and those who are hard of hearing will be unable to share in the spirit of our Games. Some two million people in this country with a population of 18 million are deaf. For these people, access to television only comes by way of captioning—when the soundtrack of the television program appears in word form at the bottom of the screen. Captions are not only used by the deaf and people hard of hearing but also used by an estimated 20 per cent of the population who are of non-English speaking backgrounds. I for one do not want to see these people disadvantaged and neglected or discriminated against during the Sydney Olympics. Why should they be unable to share in the spirit of this wonderful event?In Australia only 15 per cent of our television programs are captioned. Our nation currently trails behind the United States and the United Kingdom in its level of captioning. Some 123,000 Australians have signed a petition in recent years on the topic of captioning. Like many who signed this petition, I believe that Australia should have captioning by 1 January 2001. We should stop this discrimination against the hearing impaired in Australia. I call on the commercial networks and corporations to display a stronger commitment to closed captioning, particularly during the Sydney Olympics. (Time expired)68306830Sercombe, Bob,MPMr SERCOMBEQK6MaribyrnongALP00—On June 10 the Minister for Employment Services referred to several errors in my return to the register of members' interests. I was not in the chamber when the minister made his remarks but was later informed of them by several people. Regrettably, the minister's comments were misheard, but it was on that basis on which I made a personal explanation later that day—that is, the personal explanation was made on an incorrect understanding of the minister's comments. I therefore thank the minister for drawing the omissions to my attention and I advise the House that the register has been corrected. I also withdraw the contents of my personal explanation.For the information of the House, and as the minister indicated, with respect to Ronacar Pty Ltd, I had correctly declared both directorships and shareholdings in the previous parliament. With respect to the company 26-28 Dalgety Street Pty Ltd, I advise that in essence this is a company share block of flats. My wife and I have an interest in one flat and this confers directorship—a rather old-fashioned arrangement of ownership rather than the more common strata title body corporate arrangement.68306830St Clair, Stuart, MPMr St CLAIR84BNew EnglandNP10—Last Friday in Armidale I had the pleasure of presenting an Australian blazer to Tim Wilson-Brown of The Armidale School. Tim will be one of 19 students selected to represent Australia at the 1999 Rio Tinto Australian Biology, Chemistry, Mathematics and Physics Olympiad held in four different countries across the world and competing against 80 different nations. The international science Olympiads are regarded as being the Olympic Games for science students. Tim was one of 800 finalists of secondary students from schools throughout Australia who participated in the selection and training process for the 1999 teams. Tim has been selected as a member of the four-student biology team who will go to Uppsala in Sweden next week to compete in the 10th International Biology Olympiad.What makes Tim's selection extra special is that Tim has only just turned 15 years of age. He is only in year 10 and is the youngest member of these teams selected, which are made up of mostly year 12 students. I would like to congratulate Tim Wilson-Brown on his achievements to date and I know that he will be a great ambassador for not only The Armidale School and Armidale but also New England and Australia.68306830Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—I bring to the House a most serious matter of significance on the issue of the flagrant disregard for religious sensitivity in Australia. I speak about the release of an advertisement recently released for the New South Wales ski resort of Thredbo. The advertisement depicts a statue of the Virgin Mary squirting tears of loneliness. This is an absolute disgrace and of gross concern to all Australians. Recently, brewer Lion Nathan also released an advertisement which outraged people by depicting a man in a confessional box obtaining the names of wayward women by deception from a Catholic priest.I join with the Catholic Church's spokesperson, Father Brian Lucas, who was reported in the Daily Telegraph on Friday, 11 June 1999 saying that the Thredbo advertisement is `cynical opportunism'. Such advertising simply attempts to exploit the controversy it creates in a bid to increase sales by ridiculing and attacking our community's faith and the things held most dear by all Australians. I defend any person's religious values and their right to be free to believe without insult, ridicule or mockery.The Australian people are wising up to these cynical marketing tactics of the like of Lion Nathan and those responsible for the Thredbo ski advertisement. Consumers, including corporate buyers, are boycotting their goods and refusing to purchase their products. I ask parliament to join with the increasing number of commercial buyers who, in conference with Lion Nathan and those responsible for the Thredbo ski advertisement, are boycotting their products and calling for the immediate withdrawal of their advertisements from exhibition. I urge members of all political persuasions to defend the rights of all Australians to be free of religious ridicule, this mockery and this cynical attack on the freedom enjoyed by all Australians. (Time expired)68316831Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—I rise again in the 90-second statement debate, as I did two weeks ago, to congratulate the federal government on their generosity to South Australia in the recent budget. As you would remember then, I congratulated the government on building the Federal Court building on Victoria Square at a cost of $73 million. Today I want to congratulate them for allocating $20 million for the upgrade of Portrush Road. As you would know, Mr Speaker, Portrush Road is in desperate need of upgrading between Magill Road and Greenhill Road. That money has been promised by successive Labor governments for 13 to 15 years. Finally, we have come up with the goods. Building is expected to start in the next two years with $6 million allocated for next financial year and $1.6 million for this financial year.I would sound a note of caution, however, that the people who are looking forward to the upgrade of Portrush Road should remember that the federal government's role is to provide the funding to the states and the states then actually upgrade the road and do that work. The federal government hands over the money and the states implement it. I hope the people who live on Portrush Road and those who live around those suburbs who are concerned will join with me in ensuring that the state government applies our funds as successfully as we hope, in a sensitive way and in a way that does not damage the environment in the Portrush Road area.I would also like to congratulate the federal government because we are a step closer to ensuring that the National Highway No. 1 that runs through Portrush Road is a highway that does not cause difficulties for the residents in the area. (Time expired)68316831Ripoll, Bernie, MPMr RIPOLL83EOxleyALP00—I am pleased to announce to the House that the Ipswich Attention Deficit Disorder Association has received a grant from the Gaming Machine Community Benefit Fund. I was proud to support the application and provide assistance throughout the application process. Attention deficit disorders are a medical condition affecting around five per cent to 10 per cent of Australian children. The impact of attention deficit disorder, ADD, and attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder, ADHD, is very traumatic for the child and the family. Children with ADD generally suffer from inattention, overactivity and impulsive behaviour. While this may describe all children sometimes, kids with ADD are like this most of the time. The disorder affects both the child's school and home life. They often fall behind in learning because of concentration difficulties. Their energy and impulsiveness make discipline very difficult to manage for parents and teachers.Children with ADD are not `bad kids'; they have a medical condition that can be helped, sometimes with medication and sometimes with therapy but always with understanding. Parents of children with ADD are eligible to apply for the child disability allowance, but beyond this they also need support and understanding from the community. Families affected by ADD can find support from groups like the Ipswich Attention Deficit Disorder Association. The association provides advocacy for ADD sufferers and the opportunity for families with similar problems to help each other.The grant to the Ipswich ADD Association will provide library resources and up-to-date information regarding learning disorders. The Ipswich ADD Association provides a valuable and essential service whilst improving awareness and understanding of learning disorders in the wider community. (Time expired)68326832Wilton, Greg, MPMr WILTONYK6IsaacsALP00—I am pleased to inform the House that the Lyndhurst Secondary College, a school with a great reputation for educational excellence in Isaacs, now has its own environment group. Following the success of its Environment Day in term 1, approximately 30 students have volunteered to participate in an environment group to help beautify the school environment. This affords students the opportunity to input into matters relating to the maintenance of school grounds. The group has a number of activities planned including the planting of some 100 native trees, putting in new bins, re-laying pavers and maintaining gardens. It is a credit to the students, the principal, Margaret Corcoran, and the SOSE Coordinator, Mike Jaremczuk, that this activity is being undertaken, and it is a testimony to the school's commitment to not only beautifying its own grounds but also the broader environment at large.68326832Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—I rise today to speak about the achievements of the Holland Park and District Meals on Wheels. It is one of four substantial Meals on Wheels operations in the federal electorate of Griffith. It was my privilege recently to attend their 29th annual general meeting. This operation services many, many resident senior citizens right across Brisbane's south side. In fact, this service alone has provided more than one million meals to people across the south side in the period of its operation. In the last year alone, some 96,000 meals were delivered to our senior citizens.I would like in particular to recognise the contribution of Mr Arthur Till, who has just been elected for the 16th year in succession as the President of the Holland Park and District Meals on Wheels. His contribution is quite remarkable. In fact, he left the district some 10 years ago to move to the Gold Coast, yet manages several times a week to commute back to Brisbane in order to ensure that this service continues to survive. This sort of spirit of volunteerism we do not see often in our community organisations today, and it is great to see it alive and well in organisations such as the Holland Park and District Meals on Wheels.Volunteerism is the essence of these organisations continuing, and unless we continue to see volunteerism of this nature in organisations which service our senior citizens and our community in the future then unfortunately those senior citizens will suffer greatly.68326832Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY4K6PageNP10—I would like to rise and thank the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and the Prime Minister, who has just come into the chamber, for their support for the sugar industry on the North Coast. During the tariff debate there was an agreement reached that not only the sugar industry on the North Coast but also the sugar industry in Queensland would get support because of the removal of tariffs. The Prime Minister has honoured his word on that particular issue.I note that an announcement has just been made, typically through the New South Wales government, giving no recognition to the Commonwealth. The fact is that any of these funds must be channelled through the states for legal reasons under the Constitution, but the Minister for Regional Development in New South Wales failed to communicate to the community that this was federal govern ment money that was passed through to the industry. I would like to make it very clear that I am sure the industry on the North Coast and in Queensland—$11 million went to Queensland as well for research and development in the far north, and I see the honourable member for Leichhardt, who would recognise very clearly what that means to the industry up there—is very grateful to the government for honouring those commitments. That money will go to a good cause. There is no doubt that in the far north of Queensland sugar content is a problem and the research and development money will be well spent in varietal research.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 2.00 p.m., in accordance with standing order 106A, the time for members' statements has concluded.Ministerial Arrangements683314:00:006833Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I inform the House that the Minister for Foreign Affairs will be absent from question time today. He is returning to Australia, having visited Belgrade as part of the government's ongoing efforts to achieve the earliest release possible of the CARE humanitarian workers. The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade will continue to act as Minister for Foreign Affairs.The Minister for Sport and Tourism is ill today and will be absent from question time. The minister representing the relevant portfolio minister, the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, will answer questions on her behalf.Miscellaneous683314:01:006833Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—If I could have the indulgence of the House, Mr Speaker, I know that all Australians would want me to convey on behalf of the nation our profound congratulations to the Australian cricket team on winning the World Cup.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—The Bankstown boys are at it.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—It was an absolutely outstanding performance—4T4MELHAMMr Melham—You can't put the Bankstown boys down.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—and even the member for Banks agrees with me on this occasion. To have seven straight wins and to have such a convincing victory in the final is an enormous tribute to Steve Waugh. The match showed the continuation of the return to form of Shane Warne, who was awarded the Man of the Match. It was a great sporting contest and an enormous tribute to the Aussie fighting spirit in sport that has made all Australians immensely proud.I had the very good fortune about two minutes before the presentation ceremony last night to get through to Steve Waugh on a mobile phone. I can only say that coming through the mobile phone was delirious pandemonium in the Australian dressing-room. Obviously the entire team was incredibly pumped up by the great experience that they had had, and I know all Australians would want my good wishes and their good wishes to be conveyed.It is the intention of the government, and I have discussed this matter with the Leader of the Opposition, to tender a parliamentary reception to the team. I have already discussed this matter with the Australian Cricket Board, and I hope the details of that can be nailed down and announced within a short period of time. I know that all members will want to come to that reception, along with others, to pay their tributes to a remarkable group of Australian cricketers and a remarkable group of Australian sportsmen.While I am on my feet, can I remark that it has been an extremely good weekend for Australian sport, because not only did we win the World Cup but also we won both the men's and the women's hockey, and the Wallabies recorded another remarkable victory in Perth. Might I also say—where is the member for Cunningham?—the Dragons were pretty flash at the weekend too.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I think it would only be right to extend similar indulgence to the Leader of the Opposition.14:03:006833Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—I thought you would at least mention Newcastle. Firstly, let me agree completely with the sentiments of the Prime Minister with regards our team and their terrific victory. It was a great outcome. Also, I welcome the announcement that he made of the preparedness for a parliamentary reception for our victorious World Cup combo. It was an inspirational night, even if it has left a few of us with a most uninspirational day as a result of having watched it all the way through. But it was great fielding, great bowling and great batting in cameo form because they did not really have that much to do after the bowlers had done their work. I think the recovery of Shane Warne during this series has been inspirational.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—Great captaincy too!PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—It was a terrific comeback. There has been some terrific batting, particularly by the Bankstown boys—as Mr Melham would not permit me to fail to mention.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—Ian Chappell should apologise.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—They have set themselves in an aura with which Australians love to be identified—that tough, fighting, knock-down, drag-out sheer professional guts that they displayed to get themselves there after having been written off halfway through the competition. There are worthy moral lessons here as well as great enjoyment of great sporting achievement. We in the opposition are proud to be able to join with the Prime Minister on this occasion and congratulate them on the great outcome.Questions Without Notice683468346834Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, now that the mission of the Minister for Foreign Affairs to free Steve Pratt and Peter Wallace has not succeeded, what is the next step you will take to secure their release?6834Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I am glad the Leader of the Opposition has asked me this question, and I will endeavour to address it with the seriousness that it deserves. It remains a matter of great regret to me and to the government that, so far, we have not been able to secure the release of these two fine Australians, who were not spies but engaged on humanitarian work inside the former Yugoslavia.The Leader of the Opposition will be aware from his own experience in government that when a situation like this arises there are a lot of things that are done and said behind the scenes which, if made public, might prejudice the outcome that we seek to achieve. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to accept it from me—and I am very happy to provide him with private briefings, if he so desires—that the government has, ever since these two men were taken into captivity, done everything it could do through the normal overt diplomatic channels, and also many other things through back channels, in order to bring about the release of these two men. You will also be aware of the efforts of the aid organisation CARE International.I can inform you that the foreign minister went to Belgrade at the weekend at the express invitation of the foreign minister on the understanding and in the belief that the prospects of a meeting with Slobodan Milosevic were very strong. It is apparent from what the foreign minister has told us since the weekend that domestic circumstances inside Yugoslavia conspired to bring about a situation where Milosevic felt that he could no longer see the foreign minister. It ought not to be interpreted from that that the prospects of release in the near future have gone out the window.But it is also self-evident that the Yugoslav state is in a very precarious condition. It has just emerged from a period of some 70-odd days where it was under the heaviest military bombing which has been embarked upon by any group of countries since World War II. The President of Yugoslavia himself is facing very serious charges in relation to criminal activity.You will I think understand that the pressures that are operating in this situation are extremely difficult. They are quite intense. Our objective is to get the men out, not to score every rhetorical point. Our objective is not to seek to win debating arguments to secure the release of Mr Pratt and Mr Wallace. As a consequence, we intend to bite our lips and our tongues in relation to some things that are said by quite a number of people who should not say them.I ask the opposition to accept that we are doing everything we humanly can. If the Leader of the Opposition wants further information, I am very happy to make that available to him, and I extend that same courtesy to the member for Kingsford-Smith. Our efforts go on unrelieved in order to secure their release and it ought not to be a matter of any partisan political point scoring that that release has not yet been secured.68356835Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALEVK6HughesLP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister outline to the House the programs the government has implemented to tackle the drug problem? Can the Prime Minister also provide information on proposals that will further strengthen efforts to combat illicit drugs in the community?6835Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Today is the beginning of Treatment Works Week, which is a week designed to point out to the community the benefits that can be achieved through a concerted, comprehensive attack on the drug problem within our community. All Australians share a concern about the level of drug taking. All Australians are committed to reduce it. We may differ and quarrel about the best method to be adopted, but there can be little argument that across the board there is a determination on the part of all sections of the Australian community with goodwill to reduce the level of drug taking within our community.The government's Tough on Drugs strategy involves the expenditure of more than $500 million and it represents the largest commitment at a national level towards fighting the drug problem. It is posited on the belief that you have to tackle the drug problem at three levels: you need to strengthen law enforcement, you need to provide more resources for education and you also need to be able to provide more resources for rehabilitation and treatment in relation to those people who wish to break their addiction.The criticisms that have been levelled at the government's approach suggesting that in some way we are focusing on law enforcement to the detriment of treatment and education are wrong. Ours is a balanced program. It is true that we are putting a lot more resources into providing additional strike teams, it is true that we are putting more resources into strengthening the law enforcement agencies; but it is also true that we are putting more resources into education and we are putting more resources into treatment.The major directional change that occurred at the recent COAG meeting illustrates our approach. At that meeting we secured the support of all the premiers across the party divide, as well as the two chief ministers, to an approach involving the diversion of people into treatment as an alternative to those people being captured by the criminal justice system. That approach complements the approach already taken by the New South Wales government, a Labor government, and by the Victorian government, a Liberal government, which offers to people who have a drug problem the opportunity of treatment rather than being caught up in the criminal justice system.We have invested not only a large amount of Commonwealth money in that diversionary approach but also a great deal of hope and expectation that it will provide a more effective response to the problem. It is not an easy task; it is a very big challenge. We all know how easy it is to despair. We know how easy it is to throw one's arms in the air and say, `It's impossible to tackle the problem successfully. We might as well give up, legalise it all, admit that we can't win the fight and say yes to every imaginable social fad in the area of drug treatment.' That is not the view of the government and it has been the experience of countries overseas that have gone down that path that, rather than reducing the problems of drug addiction, they have in fact multiplied them and they have added to the problems of drug addiction with other activities which have worsened the social condition of those countries, particularly in their larger cities.The government remains very committed to pursuing every element of its Tough on Drugs strategy and we believe that that three-level approach is the right approach and an approach that commends itself to the great majority of Australians.68366836Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is again to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister recall advising the parliament on 2 March 1998 in answer to a question from the member for Fraser in relation to protection of employee entitlements:The alternative that has been suggested—that some kind of trustee guarantee system be introduced similar to what operates in other countries—is one that we are looking at . . . Why is it the case that this government can borrow a regressive goods and services tax system from overseas but does not have the intellectual capital to examine employee entitlement protection schemes that currently exist in Japan, the UK, Belgium, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Spain, Austria, Denmark France, Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Italy, Israel, Greece, Ireland, Portugal, and in parts of Canada and the United States? How is it possible that nearly 18 months later we again have a situation where the former employees of Oakdale Colliery are to lose $6.3 million in entitlements?6836Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I do not, of course, remember the precise terms of that answer I gave in March last year. In accordance with my longstanding practice, I will have a look at the answer before accepting that the Leader of the Opposition's recapitulation of it is accurate. But I do remember that that probably would have been an answer given in the context of the circumstances arising out of the closure of a mining operation in the town of Cobar in New South Wales.Mr Beazley interjecting—ZD4Mr HOWARD—I acknowledge that it is in the context of Cobar. My recollection in relation to Cobar is that, as a result of activity undertaken at the government's request by the Australian Securities Commission, the overwhelming bulk of the money that was owing to the men at Cobar was recovered. I am glad that the Leader of the Opposition's question gives me an opportunity to remind the parliament that, in relation to Cobar, action taken was highly successful and the just entitlements of those men were delivered.I am pleased to inform the House that on 18 June the Treasurer wrote to the Australian Securities and Investment Commission to ask it to consider whether an investigation into the Oakdale closure was necessary. I remind the House once again, without in any way wanting to pre-empt or being in a position to predict what the outcome of that independent inquiry will be, that it was at the initiative of the government that action was taken by the Securities Commission last year to recover the benefits for the men in relation to Cobar.I also inform the House that, as announced on 16 June, Senator Minchin and the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business will meet industry associations—particularly the mining industry—to discuss responses to this issue. Both of those ministers will meet representatives of the Oakdale miners when they come to Canberra tomorrow. While this issue is a joint Commonwealth-state matter, the Commonwealth has moved in several Commonwealth-state areas. The Commonwealth is currently developing two options via the Ministerial Council for Corporations. The first of those is to introduce more effective penalties for company directors for misusing company structures to avoid payment of employee entitlements, and strengthening the existing related party and insolvent trading provisions of the Corporations Act. In addition, other options outside the Corporations Law are being considered by the Workplace Relations Ministers Council.As I mentioned, miners from Oakdale and other areas will gather in Canberra tomorrow. A delegation of those miners will meet my two ministers on 22 June. I also inform the House that Centrelink are administering entitlement rules according to the legislation. I understand that the response in those areas has been speedy.This is a matter of concern to the government and the community. There is a great and understandable sympathy within the Australian community about the fact that men who have worked in this industry all their lives could have at risk their redundancy payments and some of their other leave entitlements. I can assure the parliament that every avenue of the available law will be used if there is any action that ought to be taken to recover assets that might otherwise not be available to satisfy the entitlements of those men.68376837Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Does the Treasurer know of any recent commentary on the Australian economy? How will the further sale of Telstra benefit the economy?6837Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Mitchell for being concerned about and interested in the state of the Australian economy. I am aware of some recent commentary on the Australian economy, some of it ill informed—mainly emanating from Labor sources—but some of it well informed.No doubt the member for Mitchell has in mind the statement to the Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration made recently by the Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia. The Governor of the Reserve Bank indicated in his testimony that his view was that in all likelihood the Australian economy would grow in the current year in excess of four per cent, measured either in year average terms or in four quarters to June. In the budget we recently brought down we said that growth in 1998-99 would be about 4¼ per cent. That is higher than the G7 at an average of 1.7 per cent, higher than the OECD at an average of 2.2 per cent, higher than the US economy which is growing at a little under four per cent and higher than any of the countries of the Asia-Pacific region. That was done on the back of good policy, of getting low inflation and low interest rates in Australia, of putting our budget back into surplus and of paying down debt.I was asked what effect the sale of Telstra will have on the Australian economy. As is pretty well known, when this government came to office, Labor had Commonwealth net debt at $96 billion—96 thousands of millions of dollars. Twenty-five billion of that—25 thousands of millions of dollars—was racked up in the two years before this government came to office, when the Minister for Finance for the Commonwealth of Australia was none other than the Leader of the Opposition. Twenty-five per cent of the Commonwealth net debt was racked up in the two last years up until 1996 by the Leader of the Opposition.Since this government came to office we have not only put the budget back into surplus but now paid back $25 billion of Labor's debt—$25 billion paid off the mortgage of Labor's debt. If another 16 per cent of Telstra were to be privatised, by June 2000 Commonwealth debt could be down at $51 billion. We could have paid off $45 billion of Labor's debt. That would be a wonderful thing for future generations in Australia. No longer would taxes be collected to service Labor's debt. No longer would they have to pay higher taxes because of Labor's mistakes of the past. We would be able to free them from the deficit and debt legacy of the Labor Party and its failed finance minister.You might have thought that the Labor Party, having created the problem, would support efforts to solve the problem. That would be the decent and honourable thing. We on this side of the parliament cannot understand why the Labor Party would be opposing a strategy to pay back the errors and the failures of its term of office. We say this to the Labor Party: having created the problem, you should at least seek to be part of the solution. There is still time for this Leader of the Opposition to lead. There is still time for this Leader of the Opposition to try to undo some of the damage that he did to the Australian economy, to free future generations from debt, to give them lower taxes and better services, to give them the opportunity to pay back debt, and to get this economy back onto a sustainable growth path.Distinguished Visitors683710000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I am indebted to the Government Whip, Mr Sawford, for drawing to my attention the fact that we have in the gallery this afternoon a former South Austral ian colleague, former federal Minister for Health and former High Commissioner to the United Kingdom, Dr Blewett. I welcome him.UNKNOWNHonourable membersHonourable members—Hear, hear!Questions Without Notice683868386838Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Treasurer. Treasurer, can you confirm writing a letter to a constituent advising how they would be able to avoid the GST by ordering books offshore? Have you so little confidence in your new tax on books that you are already advising people on how to avoid it?6838Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—Of course, we are absolutely familiar with the way in which the opposition will misrepresent documentation.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Absolutely, every time.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Absolutely. It would not be an uncommon practice for them to do so. It would not be the first time that the opposition sought to misrepresent the situation. Let me make it entirely clear: books purchased overseas are liable to GST. In fact, I do not even know why I am asked this question, because the Labor Party opposes any GST on books purchased overseas. That is your policy. You oppose any GST on books purchased overseas. This is the Labor Party that stands up here in question time and says, `How come you are only giving rebates to 20c a litre on diesel excise when we are opposed to any rebate?' It is the Labor Party that stands up here and says, `How come you have taken food out of the growth tax for the states?' when it is opposed to any growth tax.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. He has been asked a specific question about a piece of correspondence from his office which makes amply clear mechanisms by which people can avoid paying a GST on books and journals imported into this country. It is not a question by the Labor Party about whether a GST ought to be applied to books domestically. We do not think there should be a GST at all. The question is of relevance. As far as this question is concerned, he is off the point.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Treasurer was making a comparison about the way in which GST is levied on a range of goods, it seemed to me. I invite him to return to his reply.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Mr Speaker, if I may say so, the point was just made by the Leader of the Opposition. He says he does not believe there should be a GST on books imported into Australia, so he will get up and he will ask a question on why it is that you are able to get around a GST on books imported into Australia. Hypocrisy has no bounds in the hands of the Australian Labor Party. This is the side of politics that believes that there ought to be broad based indirect tax on materials brought into this country, whether purchased overseas or produced in this country. We will ensure that the laws are enforced.68386838Haase, Barry, MPMr HAASE84TKalgoorlieLP10—Mr Speaker—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Kalgoorlie has the call. Members on my left will exercise a little more restraint. I call the member for Kalgoorlie.84TMr HAASE—Further to the Prime Minister's comments earlier about a winning weekend, Western Australia knocked off Tasmania in Kalgoorlie also.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Kalgoorlie will come to his question or will resume his seat.84TMr HAASE—My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade. Can the minister inform the House how Australian exporters, especially small and medium sized export firms, have been assisted by the Export Market Development Grants Scheme in the 1998-99 financial year? Has the minister finalised the export market development grants pool payment arrangements for this financial year and, if not, why not?6838Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNP10—I can report to the House that 3,021 Australian businesses received EMDGs this financial year totalling over $145 million. I thank the member for Kalgoorlie and the members for Mallee, Page and Riverina and also former ministers for trade for their recognition of the importance of the Export Market Development Grants Scheme and how it creates new export effort and extra jobs from that export effort. Indeed, the firms assisted generated over $5 billion worth of exports—a ratio of $36 of exports for every dollar of grants paid. This year's outcome means that every grant below $60,000 has in fact been paid in full to the companies, individuals or trusts that have been involved. The payout ratio for grants over $60,000 is pooled and will roughly work out at some 99 per cent in respect of that circumstance.The government's efforts to focus this scheme on small and medium sized enterprises have been particularly effective, and full marks to Austrade in that regard. Two-thirds of grant recipients are small enterprises; over 600 recipients are rural exporters; 866 recipients are new to the scheme, with many of these exporting for the first time; and 237 businesses became eligible to receive a grant, thanks to the lowering of the threshold from $30,000 to $20,000. I just briefly say that almost one in five of the EMDGs are in respect of the tourism industry. I do not even bill the Department of Sport and Tourism for that particular bonus budget allocation; it comes from my department. It is worth about $20 million to the tourism industry. When Jackie Kelly returns I will remind her that it has to be worth at least one allocation to the chess academy, sooner rather than later.Could I just add that the Export Market Development Grants Scheme is doing powerful work in boosting our export effort to the world and the tourism industry is very much a part of this equation. I am sorry if there is some reflection on that. I do not think it is intended because, at the end of the day, our biggest earner of hard currency is the tourist industry closely followed by a massive amount of exports of goods and services—and I remind the opposition that all exports of goods and services go GST free.68396839Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is again to the Treasurer. Treasurer, doesn't your letter mean that if people buy a book in Australia a GST will be added, but if it is imported through amazon.com no GST will apply? How can that possibly be good for the Australian book industry?6839Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—That is not the case. The application of GST applies to books, whether Australian produced or whether imported by an importer or a bookseller.UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—How?CT4Mr COSTELLO—I am asked from the Labor Party side, `How?' Let me ask this question: how does the wholesale sales tax apply to CDs imported from overseas? How does it apply? Now I will explain. It is the same rule as applies to GST.DT4CREANMr Crean—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: my question was very specific. It went to the difference between a book bought here and a book bought through amazon.com—the latter exclusive of the GST. How is that good for the Australian—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Treasurer is answering the question.CT4Mr COSTELLO—The rules which will apply to a GST are precisely the same rules as apply to WST. Let me take the example of CDs. The tax on CDs under the WST—although it is a complicated tax and I might be wrong—is, I believe, 22 per cent. If somebody imports a CD from overseas, it is taxable at the border under your wholesale sales tax system. If your big point is that customs officials do not open every parcel that is coming into the country, I would have thought that was fatal to your WST system.The truth of the matter is that we do not open every parcel that comes into the country, as everybody knows. But, with wholesale sales tax, under the $400 limit—which I think you are allowed to bring in on your person—if it becomes apparent that somebody is bringing in a CD, it is taxable at the barrier. It is the same as your wholesale sales tax system on cars. If a car comes to the barrier, it is taxable with your 22 per cent wholesale sales tax. It is the same in relation to GST. We have picked up the same rules in relation to GST as apply to wholesale sales tax. The tax applies at the customs barrier. Those items that are identified at the customs barrier are taxable at the customs barrier in the same way as they are taxable if they are sold directly for domestic consumption. What is more, it applies to all of those items coming in for domestic consumption, because those items are taxable to the end consumer. The rules which will apply are those rules which apply to WST, with all of the barrier import controls and applications as apply under the current system.68406840Forrest, John, MPMr FORRESTNV5MalleeNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Is the minister aware of proposals to further boost the social bonus that will be provided by the federal government if a further 16 per cent of Telstra is sold? What are the benefits for regional Australia of these proposals? What is the minister's response to suggestions that the package should not be supported?6840Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for his question and acknowledge the work that he does in his very important rural part of Victoria in promoting the interests not only of existing industries but also of those clever and innovative people who are looking for new opportunities both here and internationally.He is very well aware, of course, of the importance not just of getting the fundamentals right—which the Treasurer alluded to a moment ago by pointing out that we are now in a position, realistically speaking, to see Commonwealth debt cut from $96 billion to $51 billion, undergirding the lower interest rates and the inflation rate, now at its lowest level since 1963, that his farmers and others are enjoying in that electorate of Mallee—but also that modern telecommunications, the capacity to research and to communicate right across the globe, to develop electronic commerce and so forth are very much part and parcel of the exciting futures that can be found in far-flung regions.It is very welcome news that, in addition to that part of the social bonus announced during the last campaign, there will now be a further sum of some $314 million made available for a number of very important initiatives. Some of them fall under the Networking the Nation element, including $70 million for BARN, Building Additional Rural Networks, to support the introduction of innovative new telecommunications technologies and services in rural areas. This is particularly welcome because it recognises there is a lack of scale which is a major factor in making the delivery of many telecommunications services in rural areas economically viable. There is $45 million to assist local government authorities to provide their services online and to establish access points for advanced telecommunications services. A further $3 million, on top of the $25 million we have already committed ourselves to, will extend the mobile phone service. Anyone who understands regional Australia knows how important that initiative is.As I have mentioned, these are in addition to existing commitments such as a $250 million extension to the Natural Heritage Trust which now, amongst other things, involves 4,300 Landcare groups; that is, 4,300 groups across Australia developing approaches to sustainable agriculture and better environmental outcomes. Then there is the $70 million for the rural transaction centres. There is $120 million for SBS television all over the country, state by state—even in Alice Springs.Mr Snowdon interjecting—4K4Mr ANDERSON—There is some suggestion that the member representing the Northern Territory does not want SBS in Alice Springs. There is $158 million new money now for a new initiative to be known as the BITS program, Building IT Strengths program, that will encourage the development and growth of innovative information technology and telecommunications industries. About half of these funds will be used to establish incubator centres for small to medium enterprises in the IT&T sector.The pity of all of this is that not only do those opposite oppose the measures that have built the foundations for economic recovery in the bush—getting debt down and all of those sorts of things—but they oppose this initiative as well. It is a very sad reflection on a party that now says it has an interest in the bush. I notice they are talking about setting up a Country Party branch under the Labor Party's auspices in New South Wales. Can you believe it? That's what they are talking about doing. They say they have an interest in the bush and yet they want to oppose this very important initiative. Anyone in rural Australia can see through them. It is quite transparent. They don't give a damn about the bush.68416841Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOTXW4DicksonALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Can the minister confirm the report in the Financial Review of 19 June 1999 that the diesel fuel rebate administrative arrangements being negotiated by the government will not be finalised for six months? Minister, how can the parliament be expected to vote on these as yet unseen provisions in the next week if they have still not been agreed with the Democrats and will not be finalised for six months?6841Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The agreement with the Democrats, negotiated in good faith, will be delivered. The fact of the matter is really quite straightforward: we are proposing savings in transport for Australians of well over $1 billion. We are proposing cutting the excise—in other words, taxes—on rail by $160 million. We are talking about a whole range of other initiatives, such as upgrading bridges, which will allow for the more effective loading—5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. My point of order goes to the standing order as it relates to relevance. The question was not: `Do you think something about diesel is a good idea?' It is precisely about whether the arrangements are in place and whether the government is going to ask the parliament to vote on those matters before they are finalised.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. He has made his point of order. The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has the call and will come to the point of the question.4K4Mr ANDERSON—We are going to deliver on the commitments that we have made. You want to oppose that. There will be legislation coming into the House this week which will quite clearly give you the responsibility and the opportunity to demonstrate whether you are going to support these important initiatives for rural Australia.68416841Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON6K6FordeLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment Services. Is the minister aware of any recently expressed concerns regarding the government's highly successful Work for the Dole program? Can the minister inform the House of growing support for concepts such as mutual obligation and Work for the Dole in both domestic and international political circles?6841Abbott, Tony MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPEmployment Services10—I thank the member for Forde for her question. I am aware of some recent concerns about Work for the Dole, particularly as expressed in Western Australia. I wish to make a number of points in response. First of all, Work for the Dole participants are paid an extra $20 a fortnight to cover any additional costs they face. Second, Work for the Dole sponsors generally provide transport to hard to access projects. Third, Work for the Dole sponsors are required to provide any necessary special clothing. Fourth, Work for the Dole is not about training for training's sake but about developing the work culture and work ethic which job seekers need. Fifth, Work for the Dole sponsors are required to demonstrate that their projects will not displace current or future paid employees.As the House will know, in the recent budget the concept of mutual obligation was extended to job seekers up to age 34 in receipt of benefits for 12 months or more. That means that, all up, mutual obligation will apply to an estimated 300,000 plus long-term Newstart recipients in the coming financial year. As a condition of continuing to receive benefits, they will be required to engage in some form of structured activity such as part-time work, voluntary work, formal education or training, intensive and highly organised job search or Work for the Dole. Members opposite might be interested to know what their ideological soul mates in the British Labour Party think of this kind of approach. I am quoting the education secretary of Britain, David Blunkett, who said:Not working is not an option. This is `tough love' which doesn't punish, but offers help in return for endeavour.That's what the British Labour Party thinks. I am quoting from a London newspaper:Earlier yesterday, Mr Blunkett shrugged off complaints from some young people that they did not like the jobs on offer.`Thirty years ago I did not like the pay or the job I had but I went to evening class and took the day release course to get the job I wanted. I am asking youngsters to do no more than that.'There are even some outbreaks of commonsense amongst members opposite. I refer, of course, to Michael Thompson's splendid polemic against new class infiltration of the ALP that was recently launched by the member for Batman, who said:Despite the member for Melbourne's assertions, most ordinary Australians remain wedded to the community ethos of their parents—loyalty, saving, work, mutual obligations, patriotism and family.But there is one person who can be guaranteed as absolutely impervious to any new ideas, there is one person who can be guaranteed to live in the past—and that's the Labor lord opposite, still yearning for ministerial triumphs, like the Collins submarine and the Jindalee radar and the telecommunications cable roll-out and still trying to live down 11.2 per cent unemployment.68426842Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, are you aware that the member for Leichhardt has stated that Mr Rod Corey, the head of the Defence Estate Organisation, unwittingly misled the Senate estimates committee the week before last? Further, Prime Minister, are you aware that the member for Leichhardt has claimed that he would soon reveal a set-up over the exposure of his pecuniary interest in Cape York Concrete's contract with the Commonwealth? What action do you as Prime Minister intend to take to test the merit of the claim of the member for Leichhardt of conspiracy and to correct the Senate record accordingly? 6842Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—In accordance with my longstanding practice, even to the member for Cunningham, I do not intend to accept at face value his recapitulation of what somebody is alleged to have said. Having seen the letter the Treasurer wrote to the member for Hotham's constituent, I am well justified in not accepting anything that is put forward by those who sit opposite. The situation with the member for Leichhardt is that none of the allegations made against him of impropriety and of using his office have been substantiated. The member for Leichhardt remains an honest man; the member for Leichhardt is a hardworking local member. The member for Leichhardt will continue to enjoy the overwhelming support of his constituency. I have not heard too much more from the Labor Party about trying to hunt him out of his seat.68426842Hull, Kay, MPMrs HULL83ORiverinaNP10—My question is to the Treasurer. Has the Treasurer given advice on how to avoid GST on books purchased from overseas, and what is his response to such a suggestion?6842Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Riverina for her question. You will recall, Mr Speaker, that it has just been alleged in the House of Representatives by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, and backed up by the Leader of the Opposition, that I had written to constituents advising them on how to avoid GST. I now believe that they have a blacked-out copy of a letter which I wrote to Mr Wallace Kirsop on 25 May 1999, in which I said to Mr Kirsop:Thank you for taking the time to visit my office concerning the taxation of imported books . . .Whilst books, magazines and clothing are not currently subject to WST, it is intended that they will be subject to GST.DT4CREANMr Crean—Except if you import them.CT4Mr COSTELLO—That was what I said, was it? I continue:Currently, the Australian Customs Service (ACS) screens postal articles and cargo, and given the volume, this is a very resource intensive exercise. The relevant By-Law—this is the current relevant by-law—concerns goods of `negligible or low value'. The By-Law provides that:. Goods received by post can be cleared without Duty/WST—WST, Labor's tax—if the goods are valued at less than $1,000 and the Duty and WST—Opposition members interjecting—CT4Mr COSTELLO—But there is on CDs! Labor's tax is on CDs and on everything else. This is the Labor Party's by-law—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer will resume his seat. Every member of the House knows that that sort of behaviour is quite unacceptable. The Treasurer has the call.CT4Mr COSTELLO—I will keep on reading:. . . if the goods are valued at less than $1,000 and the Duty and WST combined is less than $50.. Goods received as air or sea cargo—amazon.com, I suppose—can be cleared without Duty/WST if the goods are valued at less than $250 and the Duty and WST combined is less than $50.The ACS intends to maintain this treatment under a GST . . . Opposition members interjecting—CT4Mr COSTELLO—Your rules! As I said, your rules are to be kept under a GST, meaning that imported goods are taxable and, under a de minimus rule, can be cleared if the tax is less than $50. I then go on to say:. . . although a complete proposal has not yet been developed.I table the letter. The current rules will be applied to the GST.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer will resume his seat. The Chair will not tolerate that sort of behaviour and warns the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the Manager of Opposition Business.CT4Mr COSTELLO—If that amounts to an instruction on how to avoid GST, it amounts to an instruction on how to avoid WST—because they are your rules. As I said in my answer, your rules will be applied in toto at the customs border on a GST system. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has seriously misled this House. He has been dishonest again.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—There is no GST if you import books.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I call the Leader of the Opposition.68436843Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, are you aware of the written statement by Flight Sergeant Jones dated 8 June 1999 which reveals:At approximately 8.30 a.m. 20 April 1999 Mr Larsen arrived at the project site RAAF Base Scherger requesting information as to why Boral Concrete had not been asked to tender for the concrete for the project, to which we replied, `The reason that you were not asked to tender was the short notice given to the site manager and myself, the site foreman, to procure the items required for the project.'Prime Minister, are you also aware of the written statement of Flight Sergeant C.M. Goddard—on which you relied a week or so ago—on 10 June 1999, which states:I contacted Boral Industries in Weipa for costing on supplying in excess of 400 cubic metres of concrete.Prime Minister, isn't it a fact that these statements are contradictory on the key issue of whether Boral was asked for a quote on the concrete at RAAF Scherger? Which is correct and, if you do not know, will you find out?6843Moore, John, MPMr MOOREEI4RyanLPDefence10—I am advised that all the procurements were carried out under the guidelines of the Department of Defence.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for La Trobe has the call.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for La Trobe will resume his seat.WU5O'CONNORMr O'Connor—That answer's too long.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Corio!Mrs Crosio interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Prospect!ET4BEVISMr Bevis—The Sergeant Schultz answer.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—I know nothing. I said nothing. 10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition! I call the member for La Trobe.68446844Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4LaTrobeLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Does the minister have any information on the numbers of students enrolled in Australian universities this year? How does this level of enrolments compare with those of previous years? And how do the government's policies to meet unmet demand compare with alternative policies?6844Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the member for La Trobe for his question. I know how dedicated he is to increasing higher education opportunities for young people in his electorate. I am pleased to inform the House that, once again, record numbers of undergraduate students are enrolled this year in Australia's universities. In fact, the figures have gone up every year under the Howard government. The first figures for 1999 show that there now are some 40,000 more undergraduate students in universities than there were under the Labor government in 1996; it has gone to a total of 402,372 students.Members of the House need to recognise that these increased numbers of undergraduate students would not have happened if we had persisted with the policies of the Labor Party. The Labor Party locked tens of thousands of young working-class Australians out of Australia's universities, and it did so by restricting entry in a number of ways which this government has now taken away. Our policies have opened the door to university for tens of thousands of young Australians. And there is still no agreement on the other side of the House as to how Labor will respond to this situation or whether it would reimpose these controls.The member for Batman, in his famous foreword to Michael Thompson's book, makes the point that many people within the party and the broader labour movement have been concerned for some time at the directions the party has been taking in crucial areas such as education, welfare and social policy generally. But, of course, he is not the spokesperson for education on the other side. The Leader of the Opposition is reported in the Australian on 12 June as saying that the member for Batman is three years behind the debate. They are a pack of happy little vegemites over there on the frontbench of the Labor Party.But ALP backbenchers apparently are rallying to the cause. The Australian on that day reports that they are `submitting a flurry of policy proposals and ideas' but some are `complaining they cannot reach Mr Beazley'. The Leader of the Opposition, to be fair to him, has admitted that he has been hard to get in touch with. The article says:The Labor leader concedes he needs more contact with the backbench and has decided to get out more and organise meetings with MPs.He is packing his lunch, he is getting a map and he is setting out to try to find the backbench.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will come to the question.BT4Dr KEMP—I was asked about the prospect of alternative policies. As a result of the ideas coming up from the backbench, a group of MPs, including frontbenchers, are forming around the more approachable Labor deputy leader, Simon Crean, who happens to be a close Ferguson ally. I do not think anyone expects those ideas to come forward effectively through Mr Simon Crean.MG4LEEMr Lee—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. My point of order is on relevance. The minister is defying your instruction for him to return to the question.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Tell us about the education budget, David.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Manager of Opposition Business has already been warned. The minister will come back to the question of education policies.BT4Dr KEMP—Indeed. What I was pointing out when I was asked about alternatives is that there is a policy vacuum on the other side of the House, and the spokesman is none other than the member for Dobell. The government has made two significant changes to entry to university: we have provided additional financial support to students who have been taken in by universities above agreed targets, and we have allowed universities to offer for the first time fee paying places to Australian undergraduates—and there are now some 1,740 of these fee paying undergraduates enrolled.The policies of this government have opened the doors to Australian universities to tens of thousands of students who were locked out by the Labor Party. And the policy chaos which existed and still exists on that side of the House shows no prospect whatever of providing a satisfactory alternative.68456845McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. Does the Attorney-General stand by his claim that he is not aware of any breach of the Corporations Law by the member for Leichhardt? Is he aware of the comment the member for Leichhardt made on the ABC's AM program on 14 June in respect of his companies that:I handed over the responsibilities with regards to directorships etc to my accountant . . . Is the Attorney-General aware of comments by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission's lawyer Michael Gething that a company secretary cannot contract out of their obligations under the Corporations Law? Attorney, in light of these comments, will you request ASIC to investigate whether any breach of the Corporations Law has occurred?6845Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I do stand by what I said. I am not aware of any breach by the member for Leichhardt of any obligation under corporations or securities law. One has only to contemplate the range of situations that directors and secretaries face in their work to see that the sort of proposition you are putting has no practical merit. An executive director of BHP is not going to know about everything going on in that company. A plumbing contractor is, on the other hand, potentially able to know everything because he is the only person doing it. A non-executive director will not know what is going on on a day-to-day basis.On that basis, Mr Entsch as a non-executive director is perfectly correct. Company secretaries, as the member from his previous life as a solicitor would know, in general terms delegate much of their responsibilities to the employed accountants. What Mr Entsch has said seems to me to be perfectly compatible with that practical arrangement.68456845Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANEWN6GroomLP10—My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Can the minister inform the House of the improved outlook for winter cereal production across southern Queensland and northern New South Wales from recent rains? Can the minister also outline the hope for flow-on benefits for the rural and regional communities?6845Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTrade10—I thank the honourable member for Groom for his question with regard to this year's winter cereal crops and the prospects. One of his former colleagues in the grains industry indicated in the media last week that the recent rains we have had, which have been up to 50 millimetres across those areas mentioned by the member for Groom, have been worth about $1 billion to the Australian economy. Those rains have allowed thousands of farmers to complete their cereal sowings across that sector of northern New South Wales and southern Queensland.I am pleased to inform the House that this year it has been forecast that record areas will be sown to winter crops. ABARE forecast that around 19 million hectares will be sown. Areas sown to wheat are forecast to be up three per cent to 12 million hectares. Canola is forecast to climb to 1.5 million hectares, which is up a massive 28 per cent. As a result, wheat production is forecast to increase by 3.5 per cent to 22 million tonnes in this year's season. It should also be noted that, as a result of our government's policy, at the end of this month or the beginning of July the Australian Wheat Board will become a grower controlled company in line with our government's policy of getting the growers in industry in control of their industry organisations and in a better position to manage the sale of that commodity on the international playing field.More importantly, it is worth while noting that, on the basis of our government's policy underpinning the agricultural pursuits in Australia, as from 1 July 2000, we will be able to provide major benefits to those grain growers across Australia with regard to the reduction in freight costs that have been the subject of much debate recently across Australia. We will massively reduce the cost of the diesel excise as far as road transport is concerned. But, most importantly, as far as the grains industry is concerned, we will completely remove the diesel fuel excise from the rail system which is going to provide enormous benefits to the grains industry across Australia.68466846McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—My question is to the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation. Can the minister confirm that the Corporations Law requires a company director or company secretary to exercise the degree of care and diligence that a reasonable person in a like position in a corporation—SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—He is asking for a legal opinion.5I4Mr McMULLAN—No, I am not.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The Manager of Opposition Business will, as he usually does, respond through the chair. If the Minister for Forestry and Conservation has a point of order, he will make it but not from his seated position.SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—Mr Speaker, I propose that that question is out of order. The member asked `Can the minister confirm' a certain state of law, and that is asking for a legal opinion.5I4Mr McMULLAN—Mr Speaker, on the point of order: are you responsible for—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Manager of Opposition Business.5I4Mr McMULLAN—I want to speak to the point of order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I invited you to do so.5I4Mr McMULLAN—Thank you very much.Mr McGauran interjecting—5I4Mr McMULLAN—Who says I can't? If you seek the call, you can speak on it. I have and I am.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Manager of Opposition Business is no more guilty than the Leader of the House right now. The Manager of Opposition Business has the call. His obligation is to address his remarks through the chair.5I4Mr McMULLAN—Thank you, Mr Speaker, but I do have the advantage that I know the standing orders about it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Manager of Opposition Business will come to his point of order.5I4Mr McMULLAN—The situation is this: the question as drafted and as read so far—and the rest of it when I get to read it—does not seek a legal opinion.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I will determine whether it seeks an opinion or not.5I4Mr McMULLAN—I am entitled to put my point of view with regard to it, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I am waiting for it.5I4Mr McMULLAN—As drafted, it is specifically seeking confirmation of a statement of fact. That is not the same as seeking a legal opinion, nor has it ever been so interpreted in this House.MG4LEEMr Lee—Further to the point of order, Mr Speaker: you should at least hear all of the question before you make your ruling.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The chair has in fact endeavoured, as it always does, to ensure that every valid question is allowed to be aired. I had not in fact ruled the question out of order. The Minister for Forestry and Conservation had every right to make a point of order. I do not believe that the Manager of Opposition Business has sought a legal opinion, and I invite him to continue with his question.5I4Mr McMULLAN—Can the minister confirm that the Corporations Law requires a company director or secretary to exercise the degree of care and diligence that a reasonable person in a like position in a corporation would exercise in the corporation's circumstances? Is the minister aware that his front bench colleague the member for Leichhardt has stated that he has handed over all his responsibility as a director of five companies and secretary of three to his accountant? As the minister responsible for Corporations Law, has he sought advice as to whether this is an appropriate way to deal with these corporate responsibilities? If so, will he table that advice? If not, will he seek that advice and advise the House of the outcome?6847Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—I am glad that I continue to pay my dues for my practising certificate, given that I have been asked for an opinion in relation to Corporations Law.Mrs Crosio interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Prospect is warned! The minister was asked whether or not he had sought advice.DK6Mr HOCKEY—I have not sought advice.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I am not seeking an opinion from the minister; I am asking him to respond to the question.DK6Mr HOCKEY—There are a number of questions there. I concur with the answer previously given by the Attorney-General in relation to the matter about the member for Leichhardt.68476847Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—My question is to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Minister, can you inform the House of what this government has done to address the longstanding concerns of former naval personnel who served as part of the Far East Strategic Reserve?6847Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—I thank the member for Dunkley for his question because it allows me to advise the House of action this government has taken in relation to naval veterans of the Far East Strategic Reserve. More importantly, prior to the 1996 election, we said that we would be reviewing anomalies that were of much concern to many of the veterans in many areas of service throughout this century.After 13 years in government, the Labor Party had done nothing about the anomalies that existed in relation to the naval veterans of the Far East Strategic Reserve and, in 1997, what we did was extend repatriation benefits to those veterans of the Far East Strategic Reserve. But, in my discussions with veterans of the Far East Strategic Reserve, they still had some concerns relating to medals and also the adequacy of the benefits that were flowing from that initial review. That is why I have announced an independent review into veterans' entitlements and the repatriation benefits and medals for the Australian Defence Force between 1955 and 1975.This independent review will cover areas of service including the Royal Australian Air Force at Ubon, the Royal Australian Air Force at Butterworth in Malaysia and the service in Malaya during the period of the confrontation with Indonesia. It will also look at whether prima facie evidence is presented to review those possible anomalies. The review will also examine the particular reference of the naval component of the Far East Strategic Reserve, and the reference is specific in comparing the conditions prescribed for the naval contingent with the conditions for those personnel from the other two services.This review will involve consultation with the ex-service community. Public hearings have already been advertised, and I would certainly urge members on both sides of the House to contact their own associations or veterans and constituents in their own electorates who have had concerns about this area, because this government is getting on with the job and doing the reviews we said we would prior to the 1996 election. I think this is certainly good news for those veterans of the service in South-East Asia between 1955 and 1975, because this is an independent review of that service.Miscellaneous6847684715:10:006847Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—I move:That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Treasurer moving a substantive motion with regard to his allegation that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition misled the House with regard to the application of the GST in the importation of books through the Internet. We gave this person the opportunity to move what he was hinting at before, and he squibbed it. He squibbed it. This is a person who can dish it out but can't take it.Motion (by Mr Reith) put: That the member be not further heard. The House divided. [3.15 p.m.](Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 ——Voting details are recorded in the Votes and Proceedings .Question so resolved in the affirmative.15:19:006848Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—On the motion, the Treasurer has finally tripped over his own snare. He has confirmed that it is—Motion (by Mr Reith) put: That the member be not further heard. The House divided. [3.21 p.m.](Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 ——Voting details are recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Question so resolved in the affirmative.Original question put: That the motion (Mr Crean's) be agreed to. The House divided. [3.23 p.m.](Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 ——Voting details are recorded in the Votes and Proceedings .Question so resolved in the negative.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .684810001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate ministers:6848343XJ6Anthony Larry MPTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of certain residents of Tweed Heads draws to the attention of the House the unnecessary noise disturbance experienced by them due to excessive circuit training by aircraft at Coolangatta Airport. Your petitioners therefore request the House to:1. Ensure flight direction of circuit trainers is shared equally between East and West of the Airport:—This was resolved by the Airport Environment Committee in December 1997, but it is not being implemented.2. East circuits not to extend beyond Border-Park Raceway and the Shell Garage at Tugun.3. Allow only one plane to train at a time and limit the number of night circuits.4. If it is not possible to make the above changes then we request that all circuit training be conducted at a less noise sensitive Airport—perhaps Murwillumbah.Please note! Unlike the Commercial Airline Services that are used by most residents and their families, the circuit training is of no benefit to the local residents, but they are adversely affected by the noise and air pollution, and devaluation of their properties. We see no reason for them to train over our densely populated area at all.Mr AnthonyXJ6Mr Anthony(from 343 citizens)684897OT4Charles Bob MPTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:Considering that:1. the government has proposed a Goods and Services Tax (GST) and, relying on the outcome of the recent elections, intends to introduce legislation for such a tax;2. the government's proposals, as published, discriminate between the providers of orthodox and complementary medicines and services by making the former GST-free and the latter subject to a 10 per cent GST; and 3. many Australians desire freedom of choice as to what medicines and services they use.Therefore, your petitioners request that, in the design of a GST, the House ensures that complementary and orthodox medicines and practitioners are treated equally, so that:1. all therapeutic goods on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods, and all herbal remedies prepared extemporaneously by herbalists and other natural therapists from raw materials, are GST-free; and2. all services provided by herbalists and other natural therapists are GST-free.Mr CharlesOT4Mr Charles(from 97 citizens)68491095483LGillard Julia MPTo the Honourable 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 the pending disposal of the RAAF Base at Point Cook, Victoria, and the importance of this airfield and its historic buildings in the establishment of military flying in Australia, and development of civil aviation during the early part of this century.The RAAF base at Point Cook in Victoria is planned for disposal following the 2000/2001 financial year. Residential development is approaching the base, and the airfield is at risk of sale for redevelopment (the result at nearby Laverton airfield).This could result in eventual relocation of the RAAF museum or the loss of its airfield, as happened with the RAF museum at Hendon in England.Point Cook was established as the Central Flying School in 1913 as the first military flying base in Australia, and remains the oldest continually operational base in the world.Point Cook is the birthplace of the Australian Flying Corps. The unique AFC memorial is located at Point Cook, honouring those Australian aviators who served and gave their lives in World War One.Point Cook is the birthplace of the RAAF and the Australian Naval Air Service. It played an important part in the nation's military and civil aviation development during the 1920s and 1930s.Point Cook undertook pilot training for over 75 years, many of its original buildings and hangars remain on the site, and the base continues to be home to the RAAF museum, one of Australia's premier aircraft and aeronautical collections.Your petitioners therefore request the House to take steps to preserve the heritage of RAAF Base Point Cook, keep Point Cook as an operating airfield, keep the RAAF Museum at Point Cook and encourage the development of Point Cook as a focal point for aviation heritage, aviation preservation, education and tourism.Ms Gillard83LMs Gillard(from 10,954 citizens)68494983NHall Jill MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:These petitioners of the Division of Shortland and adjoining areas are opposed to the National Competition Council (NCC) Report proposals to deregulate Australia's postal services. We are gravely concerned that this would drastically reduce the revenue of Australia Post and result in adverse impacts on most Australians (including increased postal charges and reduced frequency of services), especially for those in rural and remote areas.Your petitioners respectfully request that the House call on the government to reject the NCC Report proposals in their entirety and to support the retention of Australia Post's current reserved service and the uniform postage rate, and the existing cross-subsidy funding arrangement for the uniform standard letter service.Further, we ask that the existing community service obligation of Australia Post be extended to encompass a minimum level of service for financial and bill paying services, delivery frequency, a parcels service and access to counter services, through either corporate or licensed post offices.Ms Hall83NMs Hall(from 49 citizens)68494583NHall 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 45 citizens)68491883NHall Jill MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House that a majority of Australians voted against the introduction of a Goods and Services Tax (GST). We believe a GST is a regressive and unfair tax that impacts savagely on middle to lower income Australians.Your petitioners request that the House does not support the introduction of a Goods and Services Tax.Ms Hall83NMs Hall(from 18 citizens)68501583NHall 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 15 citizens)68502483YHoare Kelly MPTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:-Our concern that our right of choice of Health Care is being discriminated against. Health care is exempt from GST. Remedial massage therapists and Natural Health Therapists, for example herbalists, are not exempt from GST. We see the benefits of such therapies as enhancing our wellbeing, complementing the role or our doctor of choice. We are totally opposed to this discrimination, it is unfair to the Australian community.Your petitioners ask that the Parliament ensure that all health choices and care are exempt from the GST. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.Ms Hoare83YMs Hoare(from 24 citizens)6850308HH4Jenkins 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 308 citizens)6850208JK6McClelland Robert MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.I am totally dissatisfied with the environmental impact assessment process which is currently reviewing the government's proposal to build a new nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights in suburban Sydney. ANSTO's consultants have made it abundantly clear that they will prepare their statement without any consideration of the accumulated wisdom or wishes of local residents, or the technical expertise of the Australian non-nuclear scientific community. In the light of the obvious deficiencies in the current EIA process, we call upon you to initiate a full and open public inquiry under the Environmental Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act.Your petitioners ask that the House will join them in ensuring transparency and accountability in EIA.Mr McClellandJK6Mr McClelland(from 208 citizens)68505JK6McClelland Robert MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in ParliamentI strongly oppose construction of a nuclear reactor and/or nuclear waste reprocessing plant 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 five citizens)685121KV5Neville 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:catering and sporting facilities;legal and sexual counselling;childcare services; andsupport to university clubs.Rural services especially would 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 21 citizens)6851781XT4Ronaldson Michael 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 the appalling brutality perpetrated against the women and children of Kowanyama community and other similar communities, as reported by Tony Koch in the Herald Sun on 13 November 1998.Your petitioners request that the House demand that those in positions of power and authority accept their responsibilities and stop these atrocities right now. This situation is no longer acceptable to the citizens of Australia.We believe the following should be some of those actively engaged in rectifying this matter:- the Federal Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr John Herron; the Federal Minister for the Status of Women; the Australian Human Rights Commission; the Liquor Licensing Trust of Queensland; and ATSIC.Mr RonaldsonXT4Mr Ronaldson(from 781 citizens)Petitions received.Private Members' Business6851685115:31:006851Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—I move:That this House:(1) acknowledges the necessity of preserving the sustainability of the Australian fishing stocks;(2) recognises the economic potential of quality seafood exports;(3) commends the industry for its work on by-catch reduction devices (BRDs) and turtle exclusion devices (TEDs) and the protection of nursery grounds;(4) acknowledges the value of the vessel monitoring system (VMS) as a cost-efficient method of vessel location and crew safety and especially of regulating closures by strategic area locations rather than by time; and(5) calls for sanity and equity in balancing the protection of the marine environment and the legitimate expectations of fishermen, their families and those communities reliant on them.We as a nation are blessed with the world's third largest fishing zone—nine million square kilometres—for which we have a unique cooperative management system involving industry, government and the scientific community. The industry contributes $1.9 billion a year to our economy before value adding. Seafood exports make up $1.5 billion of our trade effort. This figure is growing at 15 per cent per year, placing it in the top five food export earners after beef, wheat, wool and diary.I want to address this motion in terms of developments in the Queensland trawl fishery and, in particular, as it pertains to my electorate and the major fishing ports of Bundaberg and Gladstone, to 1770 and, more widely, to Yeppoon, Hervey Bay and Tin Can Bay. This motion was framed out of a concern for the families involved in the south Queensland trawl fishery in particular and Australian fisheries in general. There are recent examples of where cooperative management has produced positive outcomes, but when cooperation is forsaken problems arise. Recent developments in the Queensland trawl fishery seriously question the ideal of cooperative management, and I suggest it is not the fishermen who are to blame.The trawl fishery is Queensland's largest commercial fishery, producing 10,000 tonnes worth about $150 million each year. There are 800 vessels operating, and these employ 2,500 fishers. Bundaberg is the second largest trawl port in Queensland and Gladstone is not far behind. That fishery provides an interesting case study against which to test the validity of my motion today. On Thursday, the Queensland commercial fishing organisation released a trawl management plan proposing a seasonal closure in both the northern and the southern Queensland trawl fisheries. This closely followed the release of a CSIRO report into prawn trawling in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, reaction to which has generated some angst in the industry. The QFMA plan would have severe impacts on the viability of many small family trawl operations fishing in the southern scallop and king prawn fisheries due to the timing of a blanket shut-out. The plan was handed down despite it being roundly rejected by the industry at consultative meetings from Hervey Bay to Yeppoon.I believe—as do the majority of fishermen in my electorate—that there are alternatives to seasonal closures of the entire fishery. These alternatives will still adequately safeguard the resource itself, the environment and the livelihood of trawl operators as well as their export markets. The alternatives include spatial closures, effort restrictions and gear restrictions. These fishermen acknowledge the vital importance of preserving sustainable stocks. They also acknowledge that there are some legitimate concerns about the current stocks of prawns and scallops, but they argue it would be better to have spatial closures covering scallop nurseries and the areas where juvenile prawns mature rather than, in time, closures. Seasonal closures do little for the ecology and less still for the protection of juvenile stocks. By contrast, you can enforce spatial closures to suit the scallop nursery locations and juvenile prawn habitats. In other words, we have the technology to protect sensitive areas and keep the rest of the fishery open. After the six-week seasonal closure—culminating in the start of the cyclone season, I might add—fishermen with no cash flow for the previous six weeks will be forced to seek a catch at almost any cost rather than maintaining best practice to secure a quality catch in a sustainable way. Desperation will drive a practice referred to in the industry as `pulse fishing'. This is described by one industry executive as `world's worst practice'. To illustrate the point, two years ago at the Natives Sports Club in Bundaberg I attended a meeting of 150 leading fishermen from the Sunshine Coast to Yeppoon. In one of the most fiery protest meetings I have seen, the fishermen successfully countered the assertion that scallop stocks were overfished in Hervey Bay, arguing that cold currents which killed the spat or the eggs of the scallops had been the principal culprit in catch decline.As an alternative to the major seasonal closure, fishermen proposed at the time that three nursery areas of 10 nautical miles square be closed on a permanent basis off Bustard Head, Yeppoon and the African Gutter off the Fraser coast. This resulted in a record scallop catch the following season—an example of cooperative management at its best and an acknowledgment of the practical knowledge of fishermen themselves. Another example of this type of industry driven response was seen in the Tin Can Bay prawn fishery. Fishermen there supported a year-round closure of an area 10 nautical miles by three to ensure that prawns developed to eight to 10 centimetres before migrating out of the protected zone, thus benefiting the industry and the environment alike.These same Central Queensland fishermen have been at the forefront in adopting turtle exclusion devices, known as TEDs, to ensure that swimming turtles escape from their nets. They are also the leaders in adopting bycatch reduction devices, BRDs as they are known, to allow free swimming fish, sharks and other species to escape the net. At present, the majority of trawlers—50 per cent to 80 per cent, it is estimated—in some ports are using either TEDs or BRDs as part of their normal fishing practices, and they will shortly become mandatory.One promising development has been the appearance of locally designed TEDs and BRDs, which have much greater appeal to local fishermen. It was for the design of one such device that Bundaberg fisherman John Olsen recently won a DPI design award. Although TEDs and BRDs reduce catch, fishermen are voluntarily using them to produce a higher quality catch of a particular species while adding to the sustainability of the industry overall. I have attended meetings where fishermen have called for lighter chains and running boards which effectively skim across the bottom of the seabed. These fishermen deplore the fact that some cowboys do not observe accepted best practice of using 400 horsepower motors, but use 500 horsepower motors to pull heavy boards and chains along the seabed like a plough. This action appals the majority of fishermen, but little has been done by authorities in this field.Interestingly, in a letter to the minister following the release of the CSIRO prawn trawling report, Mr Olsen called for $6 million over five years to be spent on a detailed analysis of the best trawl gear—hardly the action of an environmental rapist.I might point out that, despite the image on your television screens of bright little fish swimming in exquisite soft coral, this is not the environment fished by these fishing trawlers. The reality is that trawling goes on nowhere near these environments, quite apart from the obvious net damage which would ensue. In fact, with sophisticated sonar and radar technology, the art of net making is dying out as pilots are better able to avoid any obstacle on the ocean floor.The industry in my electorate has also been active in pursuing the compulsory fitting of vessel monitoring systems to boats to ensure the protection of permanently closed parts of the fishery and the reef as well as other marine park areas and nursery grounds. The Queensland fishery now leads the world in the adoption of VMSs as the largest single user of satellite monitoring technology. The fitting of VMSs will become compulsory for all trawlers from 1 July 1999 and has been compulsory for scallop fishermen since 1 September last year. Since vessels can be accurately pinpointed at any time, it would be much wiser to avoid seasonal closures and use strategic spatial closures protecting juvenile and nursery grounds. It is not generally well known—even after the release of the CSIRO report to which I referred earlier—how much of the reef is really available for fishing. Of the 350,000 square kilometres which constitute the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, 135,000 square kilometres, or 44 per cent, is available for fishing. But 12 per cent is not trawled at all. Of the remaining 32 per cent, 22 per cent is trawled with only one pass or sweep per year.(Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Is the motion seconded?OK6NAIRNMr Nairn—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.15:41:006853Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON8T4ReidALP00—On the surface, the wording of the motion is such that everyone may agree with it, although the previous speaker obviously put a particular emphasis on one aspect of it. We certainly all recognise that in 1997-98 with a total of $1.5 billion the Australian fishing industry was, and still is, of vital importance and a major trader with Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong and China. Equally, we have the third largest fishing zone in the world, although we ourselves do not utilise a major portion of it. They are aspects that we all agree with. However, I would put a different emphasis on the aspects of this particular motion.It was very timely that I recently read a major book called Cod by Mark Kurlansky, which has been an international bestseller. It notes some of the international phenomena with regard to fishing. On page 195, he refers to the Canadian situation. Weeks before the then fishery minister of Canada, Mr Mifflin, had talked about the revival of cod fishing in Canadian waters, a fisherman, Mr Rose, said:We found 15,000 cod in the South Bay, and everyone said the cod are back. Hold on! Ten years ago, the biomass, the population, was 1.2 million.The book deals with the situation in the United Kingdom. On page 209 it says:According to the British government— not according to Greenpeace, not according to environmentalists, but according to the British government of the time—70 per cent of the species in British waters are being overfished. In the North Sea, the catch dropped from 287,000 metric tons in 1981 to 86,000 in 1991. Like Canada's northern stock, British cod are now reaching maturity at a much younger age than the normal three to five years, and large cod are increasingly rare.That book recounts the essential decline of the industry and the jobs that have disappeared over time. As early as 1995-96, the Parliamentary Library had a paper called On High Seas?—Australia's Fishing Industry . At that early stage it noted:At the present time the fishing industry is facing the major challenge of maintaining or increasing profitability when there is little likelihood of increase in production tonnage and possibly a decline. Restructuring to reduce excess capacity and overcapitalisation is one option. Overcapitalisation and the concomitant overcapacity is a feature of the fishing industry generally.I should refer again to Kurlansky's book for a moment and to the way in which he charts the degree to which this industry is subsidised internationally, in the European Community and by Japan. In the case of Japan, many millions of dollars have gone into credit that will never be repaid by the industry. So I have no dispute with aspects of the motion moved by the member. It talks about sustainability, how much it contributes to the country, et cetera. But I think we have to spend a little more time in being careful rather than in finding reasons why protection methods should be attacked. I thought the main point he was putting forward was that we are being overcautious. In contrast, I would feel that, for the long-term viability of the industry and the long-term preservation of those jobs, we have to err on the side of that caution. Similarly, in Fishery Status Reports 1998 it was commented that the previous report had reported:3 species were overfished, 11 fully fished, 2 underfished and the status of 11 was uncertain. Of the species or fishery/species groups covered in the individual status report chapters presented in the current reports, 4 are overfished, 12 are fully fished, 1 is underfished, and the status of 13 is uncertain. So once again that report expressed some concerns. With the member for Lyons, who is also speaking in this debate, I have been involved in a number of treaty considerations by that committee. Another aspect there is the question of bycatch and the need to have great care in that area. That same Fishery Status Reports says:The bycatch of important marine species, including seabirds, turtles and dugong, is a significant issue, as is concern over the loss of benthic habitat due to dredging and trawling.The previous speaker referred to trawling. It continues:While these are direct impacts from fishing, the productivity of valuable stocks is also being threatened by environmental impacts arising outside the fishing sector—and it goes on to talk about ballast water. As I say, I can readily identify with the strict wording of that motion but I would perhaps put a greater emphasis on the need for the government and the industry to be very careful in not exploiting the resource and indeed to actually—in fact rather than rhetoric—deal strongly with sustainability.15:46:006854Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRNOK6Eden-MonaroLP10—I have great pleasure in supporting the motion of the member for Hinkler. Fishing is certainly a significant industry within my electorate of Eden-Monaro, which, from the coastal point of view, covers from north of Batemans Bay right down to the Victorian border. Within that area we have major fishing fleets operating out of Batemans Bay, Bermagui and Eden. They operate in the south-east trawl, the tuna fishery and various other things. There is also a very large recreational fishery along the coastal part of the electorate, with Narooma, Moruya and Merimbula probably being more specifically involved in the recreational area rather than the commercial area—but certainly they have significant fleets. Fishing is a major source of income to that region along the coast and for those towns of Batemans Bay, Bermagui and Eden.The motion gives us an opportunity to recognise the importance of this industry and also to focus on some aspects of it. The issue of sustainability is a very important one. The member for Lyons participated with me in the previous parliament on the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Primary Industry, Resources and Rural and Regional Affairs, which produced an excellent report, Managing Commonwealth fisheries: the last frontier, which canvassed a lot of the issues that are in this motion and put forward a number of recommendations, many of which have been taken up. I am not sure at this stage whether some have been taken up, or how far the fisheries management has taken them, but certainly they have put in place a number of recommendations we made to improve sustainability.But it comes down very much to two aspects: the research aspect and the way in which the industry works with the research organisations. Research is probably one of the most significant aspects that needs to be considered and that aspect is included in this motion by the member for Hinkler. In that committee, we made a comment in regard to research:It was obvious there remains some antipathy between researchers and industry. This is based on a history of generally poor relations between these groups. It is essential these problems be broken down and the communication between researchers, industry and managers improved to enhance the quality of research. The committee does not believe the industry is being utilised sufficiently by the scientific community. One of the single greatest resources of knowledge about the fisheries environment is the industry itself and it is often being overlooked during research. However, industry still feels greater use could be made of their knowledge. Importantly, industry now recognises the importance of fisheries research, which is demonstrated by their willingness to contribute financially to research programs.That is a very telling comment from the committee about the research aspect and getting some of these things right. These all ultimately lead to circumstances where you might have closed areas at certain times or in certain fisheries.I also support some of the comments of the member for Hinkler, in that there are many ways to skin a cat. The vessel monitoring systems that are going in are certainly assisting in that area—one of the recommendations that committee made in its report was that that system be implemented to assist in the overall management. Communication between the research people, the management people and the industry is the overriding thing. It would be wonderful if we could just go out and count fish like we can go out and count a lot of other resource areas, but unfortunately we cannot. If we could do that, in some sort of giant underground laboratory, we would be able to get a better result, I suppose, but that is impossible. Therefore, all aspects of the industry need to work together to have a proper understanding of the particular fisheries. Some of the recommendations that were made in that committee have helped that. Certainly it is an aspect that we continue to support, to ensure that this vital industry for Australia—not only domestically but export-wise—is enhanced and that we do not overfish our areas but at the same time do it in a justifiable way. (Time expired)15:51:006855Sercombe, Bob,MPMr SERCOMBEQK6MaribyrnongALP00—As the motion moved by the member for Hinkler suggests, the management of Australia's marine environment and marine resources requires careful balancing between competing needs and also between the variety of uses to which those resources and that environment can be put. The motion is important because it underlines the importance of the fishing industry as a fundamental part of the equation with needs that have to be addressed. The honourable member for Hinkler is far too loyal a member of the coalition to have directly in his remarks given a biff to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Robert Hill, but it is pretty clear that there are a number of concerns underlying the motion and underlying concerns in the fishing industry about the way the minister has conducted himself in a number of matters. There was an article in the Australian newspaper on 27 January of this year which was headlined, `Minister cast as raw prawn in trawling row'. That article says:ENVIRONMENT Minister Robert Hill had misrepresented a recent report into prawn trawling on the Great Barrier Reef in a bid to grab management of the industry, the Queensland Commercial Fisherman's Organisation said yesterday.The group has called for an independent body to hold an investigation into the way the report's release was handled. It goes on to say that Senator Hill released a report written by the CSIRO to back up claims he had been making, but the organisation's spokesman Ted Loveday said that Senator Hill was engaging in a power grab. In more recent times we have seen the minister foreshadowing export controls on the fishing industry using the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act. The minister has claimed that he has consulted with state colleagues and the industry on the matter, but certainly the fishing industry seems to have no record of the sorts of consultations that they would deem to be appropriate. So I think it is fairly clear that underlying the matters that the member for Hinkler is bringing before the House today is a very strong concern, which the fishing industry is vigorously agreeing with, about the way in which the environment minister has conducted himself in recent times with respect to the industry.We all agree on the need to preserve the sustainability of Australia's fishing stocks. Certainly other speakers have put forward some alarming statistics of the drop-off in catch rates and the like. Those are subject to a number of different interpretations, but we are dealing here with an industry which, as the member for Hinkler indicated, is of very considerable economic importance to Australia. The figures which I have—which I suspect are now somewhat out of date and underestimates—are that the gross value of Australian fisheries production in 1997-98 was $1.859 million, with exports valued at $1.181 million. As I said, I believe that figure is now higher. Even if those figures are still correct, it is an industry of some considerable importance to this country.The motion does talk about the work the industry has done on bycatch reduction devices, turtle exclusion devices and protection of nursery grounds. I think there is plenty of evidence that the industry in fact has taken appropriate steps in recent times on those matters. In an article in one of the fishing magazines back in 1998, Mr Loveday—who I referred to before—had this to say about a state trawl committee conference that he had attended: Two weeks ago I was at a meeting of some 70 trawl fishermen from throughout Moreton Bay, and if we had said two years ago that the compulsory introduction of TEDs—turtle exclusion devices—in Moreton Bay in 1998 was a possibility, I think there would have been a violent outbreak.The only response we received two weeks ago was, `Why wait until the middle of 1998, why don't we do it from the beginning of `98?I think that indicates the developing consciousness within the industry on the importance of these matters. The same cannot be said, I do not think, in terms of efforts by the Commonwealth government. I believe the draft Commonwealth policy on fisheries bycatch, which was due to be finalised at the end of 1998, is still incomplete. So it is really pretty important for the Commonwealth to catch up in this respect and to provide the leadership, in conjunction and cooperation with the industry, that is so much needed. A whole range of balances are necessary, and the government in partnership with the industry needs to pursue them. The government needs to be looking at habitat protection; it needs to be looking at coastal development. (Time expired)15:56:006856Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—This motion needs support from the House. It starts off with the need to preserve sustainable Australian fishing stocks. Of course, that is something that everybody in this House would give support to. It has already been mentioned by the member for Eden-Monaro that in the last parliament some of us brought down a report which had a lot to do with bringing forward sustainability of our fish stocks, and there were recommendations in there about it. The government has failed, I believe, to act on very many of those, and we certainly have not had a report back in recognition of that report and the good work that is in it. That again highlights the failure to look at our fishing industry and our fishing stocks in a national way. One of the recommendations I pushed for was to get a state seafood council and have it funded in some way, possibly by levies, so that we had a national body that could focus on national issues and on the fishing industry on a national level.The member for Reid spoke of some of the experiences that he had just read about in relation to the cod industry in other parts of the world. It came through from the work we did on the committee that the world's fishing industry is basically 50 per cent overcapitalised—bigger boats, more technology, you can see the fish, and we have been taking too many. There is a need right around the world for us to look at this industry and to look at the fisheries in a much more sympathetic way.The second point in the member for Hinkler's motion asks that the House recognise the economic potential of quality seafood exports. You only have to look at the Tasmanian salmon industry to see the quality of those seafood exports and the economic pluses for Tasmania. Some of us from Tasmania have put up a fight to make sure that this government gives some recognition to the pluses that it brings to regional Australia and to the state of Tasmania.Among other recommendations, the honourable member for Hinkler dealt with the reduction of turtle exclusion devices from protective nursery grounds; the need to protect the giant albatross in the Southern Ocean—the Joint Committee on Treaties has touched on that in its report on a treaty with Japan—and long-liners which did not seem to have much interest at all in sustainability in its by-catch and what it caught. Turtles also get caught up in that. With the technology that we have today we should be able to go about our fishing using devices which exclude those species in the sea that we are not trying to catch.There was a recommendation that we recognise the value of the vessel monitoring system—a cost-effective method of vehicle location and for cruise safety in today's technology. I understand it is happening on some scallop boats now, but it is still not as widespread as it should be. The closure of strategic areas by location rather than by time should be investigated—the possibility not just of marine parks but of areas which we know to be nurseries which have been fished for some time around our coast and within the sea that we can exclude from time to time. They may need a few dormant years with no fishing taking place within them. That sort of research needs to be explored to see if those temporary no-go areas can be a plus for us.We should give consideration to the balance in the protection of the maritime environment and the legitimate expectations of fishermen, their families and communities. There has been a lot of knowledge built up in the fishing industry and among fishing families around the Australian coast. We should utilise that knowledge, as this report recommends. I am very disappointed that the government has not given a response to this report. Hopefully, in the future, it may give a national response to the fishing industry. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The time allotted for the debate on this motion has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.685716:02:006857O'Byrne, MichelleMs O'BYRNE84SBassALP00—I move:That the House:(1) draws to the attention of the Government the vital role that the Wheat Freight Subsidy plays in Tasmania in underpinning up to 1600 jobs in the baking, chicken, stockfeed and pork sectors; and(2) calls for the Government to extend the Wheat Freight Subsidy Scheme for a further three years on a calendar year basis to provide essential industry security.The motion before us today concerns the future of the Tasmanian Wheat Freight Subsidy Scheme. When I originally gave notice of this motion in March, my intention was to ensure that the government was fully aware of the importance of this scheme to Tasmania. At that time the future of the scheme was unclear. That uncertainty remains, despite the commitment given in the budget—a point I intend to come back to later.Members will recall that the 1998-99 budget papers provided funding for the Tasmanian Wheat Freight Subsidy Scheme only until 30 June. The Howard government planned to shut down the Tasmanian Wheat Freight Subsidy Scheme at the end of this financial year despite the fact that there had been no assessment of its effectiveness and efficiency. No-one had checked to see what multiplier effects the scheme generates in the broader Tasmanian economy. No-one had done a proper assessment of how many jobs it has created and sustained. It was an easy target for the Treasurer and for the Minister for Finance and Administration. Not a lot of money to add to a growing surplus perhaps, but easy money. According to the budget papers and departmental officers, funding would simply end on 30 June this year.If this government was genuinely committed to this important scheme, as claimed by Senator Newman, ongoing funding would have appeared in the forward estimates last year. Provision would have been made in the 1998-99 budget for the out years. Clearly, the government planned to scrap it and, in doing so, was prepared to put at risk the jobs of up to 1,600 Tasmanian workers. The ongoing viability of the baking, chicken, stockfeed and pork industries was left unclear.During the last federal election, the government was forced to deliver a vague commitment to the future of the Tasmanian Wheat Freight Subsidy Scheme. That commitment came from a very angry Senator Newman. She was exposed on this issue and she knew it. In the campaign, both the industry and the opposition highlighted the government's plan to end the Tasmanian Wheat Freight Subsidy Scheme, hidden in the budget papers. But, rather than argue a case for the retention of the scheme, she chose to attack those industries and a number of individuals who dared to speak out in support of their future and the future of those people they employ. The commitment she gave during that campaign was not as a result of her efforts on behalf of her constituents; it was as a result of an effective campaign by those affected industries and those on this side of the House.It was a commitment given only after the Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association quite responsibly raised concerns; only after Pivot managing director, Roger Mychajilyk, said his company's flour milling, stockfeed and baking operations could close if the government did not provide ongoing funding; and only after the manager of the Tasmanian Grain Elevators Board, Tony Wright, high lighted the fact that 60,000 tonnes of wheat brought across Bass Strait worth around $13 million was transformed into $175 million worth of product by Tasmanian workers. These key industries had a right to be concerned. When it comes to the Tasmanian Wheat Freight Subsidy Scheme, this government has got form. It signalled its intention for the scheme in its first budget. The Tasmanian Wheat Freight Subsidy Scheme was all but gutted in that infamous 1996-97 budget.Those members with an interest in Tasmania and in general good policy would be aware that the then Labor government introduced the scheme in 1989. It was reviewed in 1994 and was extended for a further five years at a rate of $2.7 million per year. Funding was also provided to help meet the costs of upgrading handling and storage capacities in Tasmania. This was based on a dollar-for-dollar arrangement with the Tasmanian government. But, as I said, the Howard-Costello budget of 1996-97 all but gutted the scheme. The government removed all infrastructure assistance and cut the actual subsidy to its current level of $1.2 million. This was just short of a death sentence for the Tasmanian Wheat Freight Subsidy Scheme and the industries that relied on it.This action also breached an agreement struck between the then Prime Minister and the then Tasmanian Premier in August 1993. That agreement was reaffirmed in a letter from the then Minister for Primary Industries and Energy to the then Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries in March 1994. That agreement set out the arrangements for a period of five years. In fact, in May 1996, officers from the Tasmanian department of primary industry and the manager of the Tasmanian Grain Elevators Board met with the personal staff of the then Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, Mr Anderson. That meeting was to work through details of proposed capital development and matching funding under the terms of the above agreement.But on 20 August the Treasurer, Mr Costello, simply ignored that five-year agreement. He ignored the fact that his colleague Mr Anderson had been developing proposals with the Tasmanian government and industry for infrastructure development to further improve the efficiency of grain handling in Tasmania. One assumes they were negotiating in good faith only months earlier. He cut the scheme back to the bare bones.The then Tasmanian Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Bonde, wrote a stinging letter to Mr Anderson about the treatment dealt out to his state. He was entitled to do so. He said that he was `astounded at the announcement of the proposed cuts' and that these cuts were `in direct contravention to the agreement' and `would place in jeopardy a major portion of grain using industries in the state'. I do not know that the Tasmanian minister even received a reply to this letter.Despite the assurances given in the lead-up to the last election, alarm bells were again sounding in Tasmania in February of this year. My colleague Senator Kerry O'Brien sought advice from the officers of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry about the future of the scheme. He was told that its future would be considered as part of the budget process, but he was also told that there had not been any analysis of the scheme as part of that process. So we are going to go down the budget path with no knowledge of the impact on Tasmanian industries.Again, the Howard government was forced to defend its position in relation to this scheme. A spokesperson for Senator Newman said the government had never intended to scrap the scheme in 1999. He said the scheme would continue at least to the year 2000. The responsible minister, Mr Vaile, was also forced to make public comment. However, Mr Vaile was reported as saying that the scheme would continue for a 12-month period, from July 1999. He said the scheme would only continue until the government's tax package was operating.The government has agreed to bring on this debate in an attempt to convince Tasmanian Liberal senators that it has somehow delivered on this issue. But the beneficiaries of this scheme and the nearly 1,600 workers they employ are not convinced. Quite frankly, neither are we. What the government has done falls far short of what is required by the industry. The scheme has only been extended for two years, despite the provision of funding for a third year. It will be funded at a rate of $1.2 million for 1999-2000 and 2000-01. It will be the subject of a review in 2000-01. That is only 12 months away. That is the extent of our commitment.We don't know what form this review will take, but history tells us that the review will be designed by Treasury with a financial outcome, not good industry policy, being the key objective. Treasury will not be seeking to improve the scheme and the industry it supports. While officers of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry will manage the review process, I can assure you that the Treasury will be in there every single step of the way. It will, at least from a Treasury and Finance point of view, be a review designed to justify further cuts or the total removal of the scheme.If the government wants credit for acting in the interests of its citizens in Tasmania in relation to this matter, it will ensure that the following matters are considered in its review of the Tasmanian Wheat Freight Subsidy Scheme. It will ensure that the review takes proper account of the impact the freight subsidy has on the Tasmanian economy generally and those industries directly involved in particular. It will ensure that the future infrastructure needs of grain handling are properly considered and what role both the federal and state governments might play in this regard. It must look at the impact of any changes to the scheme on transport infrastructure across Bass Strait. It must also investigate changing funding for the scheme from a financial to a calendar year basis to enable a more efficient and cost-effective negotiation of shipping contracts. But the key to this review must be and always has been the need for a comprehensive assessment of its impact on Tasmanian jobs.In conclusion, there is one action this government can take prior to the review, and we on this side of the House will be very happy to support it. It could ensure the future of the scheme by enshrining it in legislation. We realise that this does not necessarily mean that the Tasmanian Wheat Freight Subsidy Scheme will exist forever. In the future there may be many better ways of ensuring that value-adding industries in Tasmania do not face a significant freight cost disadvantage when compared with their mainland competitors. What it would mean is that the future of the scheme—and the same argument can be applied to the Tasmanian freight equalisation scheme—is not in the hands of faceless, nameless Treasury and Finance officials at every budget time. It will ensure that the future of the Tasmanian Wheat Freight Subsidy Scheme is the responsibility of the parliament, as it should be.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! Is the motion seconded?BV5ADAMSMr Adams—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.16:12:006860Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANEWN6GroomLP10—I am somewhat amused at the assertion by the member for Bass that her intention in this debate is to ensure that the government keeps its promise. I guess if you are from Tasmania and you have spent longer under a Labor government in the last couple of decades than you have spent under a coalition government you probably need to be a little suspicious of government promises. But let me just remind the member for Bass that, like all our other election promises, this promise has been kept. If she is so keen to ensure that we keep all our election promises, may I suggest that she and her colleagues support a far greater initiative to reduce the input costs of some of the industries that she speaks about in her bill. I will just name a few of them: bacon, chicken, stock feed and pork sectors. Why just Tasmania, I ask? Those industries are all around Australia.The coalition government has a clear and definitive policy to reduce the freight costs those industries face both on their inputs and on their outputs. We know what it is. It is the fuel rebate scheme. We know what the Labor Party's position on it is—they are opposed to it. Why doesn't the party opposite lend some support to our argument that we can reduce the costs to those industries and to exporters by introducing a broad based consumption tax? If they are so serious about a $1.2 million freight subsidy, which we have sup ported and which we, as the member for Bass said, are committed to continuing for the next 12 months with a review, and if they are so keen to ensure that those sorts of supports to industry are maintained, why don't they get serious? Why don't they extend the opportunity to government to support all of industry in Australia?Why don't they support the introduction of lower freights to those industries? Why don't they support the lowering of input costs to those industries? Why don't they support increasing the competitiveness of those industries—not just in Tasmania, important though Tasmania is, but across the whole of Australia? Why do they stand by one policy thread, the issue of the Tasmanian wheat freight subsidy? I would suggest that the reason they concentrate on this slim area is that they need to reassure the people of Tasmania that they are relevant in the parliamentary process. Unlike the promises they broke to Tasmanians when they were in government, about things like the Wesleyvale pulp mill, they should get involved in the real debate and support the government in keeping its promises right across our electoral sphere.Of course, we have kept those promises and we are endeavouring to keep those promises in that one last but crucially important area, and that is the introduction of a new tax system. If the Labor Party wants to be relevant in the debate to ensure that industries such as the ones named in this bill are competitive, efficient and able to employ the people it is asserted they employ, then I suggest they get behind us on legislation which is far more important than that which is covered by this motion.It is important that the Labor Party get involved in something, because right now most of the policy issues relating to Tasmania are not being handled by the Labor Party, who have sidelined themselves continually in a series of debates. These matters are being handled by the coalition with the support of Senator Brian Harradine. After that, nothing matters in Tasmania. The party sitting opposite choose to concentrate on the fine print without giving Tasmanians any cause at all to think that their issues are in good hands with the Labor Party down there.For them to suggest that Senator Jocelyn Newman was exposed on this issue really highlights the fanciful areas they get themselves into in their desperate attempts to show their relevance. It is my understanding that Jocelyn Newman was a great proponent of the continuation of this subsidy and that she spoke repeatedly to the Prime Minister on this matter. To her credit, she won the day, despite the fact that it is hard to find many supporters of this freight subsidy in the agricultural industry in Australia. Dare I say that some of the wheat growers in Tasmania are paying a price for this subsidy, because the way subsidies work is that they lower the cost of wheat to the consumer. That means that the farmer gets less when he supplies it without that subsidy. I would be interested to hear what the wheat farmers in Tasmania think this freight subsidy is doing to the price they get at the farm gate.The Labor Party says that the scheme has been gutted, but it has been constantly reviewed. I know the Labor Party does not have economic management credentials, but we like to manage our money and ensure that wherever we are spending money it is (a) achieving a result and (b) cannot be better utilised somewhere else. Through a series of responsible reviews which have highlighted how this subsidy is working, there have been gains in handling and transport, but there still need to be some gains in storage capacity. This matter needs to be addressed specifically.In fact, the member for Bass highlighted the fact that we need to look at specific areas. I could not agree more. An across-the-board, laissez-faire subsidy on an open-ended basis, which is what the member for Bass is suggesting, is not the way to bring about reform. The way you bring about reform is the way the coalition handles these sorts of issues, and that is through the involvement of Minister John Anderson, Minister Mark Vaile and the Treasurer, Peter Costello. If there is to be a sound economic process in this subsidy—and that is what it is, a subsidy—then it has to be done with foundation and with the view of achieving an outcome. It has to be done from the point of view of a subsidy not being required and not costing Australian taxpayers money for years and years to come.In the end, though, what will save Tasmanian industries is the removal of the diesel fuel excise and the removal of the unfair wholesale sales tax system which Labor continues to support and which it increased without any consultation with the people it impacts upon. The introduction of a new tax system by the coalition will make the biggest difference to the industries named here; industries which rely on inputs, industries which want opportunities to export and industries which supply the livestock industry which is always under competitive pressure from overseas. They are the industries which need to be freed from the unfair and unreasonable taxes which the previous Labor government imposed upon them.The federal government is committed to continuing this Tasmanian Wheat Freight Subsidy Scheme for as long as it is seen to be needed. We have made the necessary allocations in the budget to do that, and we will continue to ensure that the reform in transport continues. One has only to look at the general reforms that have occurred and the assistance which the federal government has provided for freight and passenger transport to Tasmania to know that that will be the case.If the Labor Party took a leaf out of our book and continued to ensure that election promises were upheld, we would not be spending the time of the House debating this matter because we would know that if it is promised by the coalition government it is delivered.16:21:006861Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—The honourable member for Groom has been a member of the grain industry for many years, but I understand we still have a single desk selling operation and one central spot where we sell grain. Perhaps that is the right way of doing it, I do not know. He says that we should have some sort of free trade across the Bass Strait to the little island of Tasmania and he wants to pick on us down there. I am sure he would also argue against central wage fixing, but he would argue for selling grain in a central way through the one spot. The hypocrisy on that side is immediately exposed and his understanding of the history of this matter is very limited. Tasmania has been moving towards a different system.My colleague the member for Bass mentioned that Senator Sherry and Senator O'Brien have raised this matter recently in the Senate. Also, because that stretch of water is a major factor in raising costs, my Liberal predecessor for Lyons, Max Burr, spoke very much in favour of this subsidy back in the 1980s when it was being put together. When changes were being made in relation to wheat subsidies around Australia, there was certainly a need to look at how this factor affected the island state, the little state of Tasmania, and the protection needed to be given to our domestic baking industry in making sure that it survived in such a way as to be able to compete with, and not be overrun by, the mainland.You have to remember that it was Tasmania that once fed New South Wales and gave Victoria its start. So we have a bit of history in helping the states and we should be given some consideration for the work we have done over the centuries in putting this federation together. I do not want the House to write that off too easily.As for the history of the reduction, the then minister of the day, John Kerin, put in place the five-year subsidy and its writing down of 25 per cent over five years to help change the circumstances in which Tasmania found itself. Those circumstances were of having silos in three different locations; boats had to visit three different ports and, with the extra costs generated by that extra unloading and handling, it was an expensive operation. To upgrade from those circumstances was not going to be simple—and I would expect the member for Groom to understand that you just cannot change overnight the storage of grain in silos.However, there have been major changes. Bevan Badcock, a member of the TFGA, has spent a considerable amount of time working on this matter. We now have a very new storage capacity at Bridgewater, which is on the border of my electorate. Large numbers of new silos have been located there in which they can store as much grain as they wish. I understand that is working out very well because of the great increase in flexibility of their operations.Consideration has been given to Tasmanian growers and soil has been set aside. People have been contracted by companies in the chicken industry, including Inghams, to try to grow grain for them and the feed market, and that will continue. But we do not have mass acreage in Tasmania. We do not want to lose our chicken industry, and we have been threatened with that—that we will lose it and have to import chickens into Tasmania from Victoria or New South Wales. We want to keep our chicken industry and the jobs that that encompasses. We also want to keep the other assets that we have in association with this industry.I believe that we are moving towards our goals, and we need to continue to do so. But we also need certainty. This government had failed to give us that certainty. It was endeavouring to rip this away, as it endeavoured to rip away the circumstances in the budget before last where we had set up mechanisms to help some of these changes take place. The government pulled our efforts away, knocked them down, without good and proper consultation. We are asking for a three-year opportunity, with a review to be undertaken at the end of that time. That will give us some certainty in the circumstances. (Time expired)16:26:006862St Clair, Stuart, MPMr St CLAIR84BNew EnglandNP10—I concur with the member for Lyons and the member for Bass: Tasmania is a wonderful place. Having been there and having done a lot of business in your forestry industry, I agree with you wholeheartedly. So, when we talk of the Tasmanian wheat freight scheme having been extended for an extra year through to 1999-2000 and that a review will be done then, and when we consider that another $1.2 million is being put into the forward estimates through to 2002-03, I wonder why those opposite are going to vote against the reduction in diesel excise—I still cannot come to grips with that. I say that particularly in respect of the member for Lyons, who I know is involved very much in small business and other issues; he knows the benefits that would come with that reduction.I will just give the House some indication of the benefits that will be gained by all of Tasmania. As the member for Groom knows, all of Tasmania will receive 23c a litre off the price of diesel for its trucks. That needs to be stressed: this is not just for part of Tasmania; it is for all of Tasmania.Then there is the removal of excise from fuel for the Australian shipping industry. That will save the industry itself some $28 million a year. This is what we are talking about: we are shipping wheat, on subsidy, across to the beautiful Apple Isle. I would have thought that particularly the member for Bass and the member for Lyons would support that sort of thing. Yet the Labor Party appears to oppose any reduction in the costs of doing that sort of business. The Labor Party again—this is the same issue, we are talking about the waterfront—opposes waterfront reform. Here we are talking about the transhipment of a product from the mainland to the Apple Isle, yet those opposite want to vote against waterfront reform.It amazes me that, at a time when things are difficult in the country as it goes through change and we are trying to help smaller communities and smaller areas, members opposite want to vote against all the workers in that industry getting a tax cut.BV5ADAMSMr Adams—Who, wharfies?84BSt Clair, Stuart, MPMr St CLAIR—Members opposite want to vote against all the people in that industry getting a tax cut—all the drivers who are involved in it; all the farm workers who are involved in it; all the people who would benefit from the $12,000 million in tax cuts which are to be delivered to the people of Australia—and, of course, in particular the people of Tasmania.The Labor Party is against increasing real pensions. The Labor Party will vote against an increase, in real terms, in pensions. Yet those opposite come in here and want an extension of a subsidy. The benefits of tax reform will deliver to the people of Tasmania many more benefits than a subsidy ever will deliver. The point was made earlier that the coalition government does acknowledge the vital role that the wheat freight scheme had to play. It is estimated that some 765 jobs and some $81 million in turnover are supported by the Tasmanian wheat freight scheme. I do understand the passion with which the speeches were delivered, but it is important to know that when the scheme was put into place in 1989 it was really only a transition agreement to allow the Tasmanian cereal processors, end users and consumers time to adjust to deregulation of the domestic wheat market in Australia, which took place in 1989.A review of the wheat freight scheme in 1993 found that the aims of the program had to a large extent been met and that efficiencies had been achieved in handling and transport but that there had been no progress in upgrading storage capacity. It was therefore extended for a further five years until 1998-99. A review of the scheme will be held after the 1999-2000 period which will look at the progress in upgrading the storage facilities. In closing, I have to say that the Labor Party has again shown it is out of touch, out of date and out of the game in bringing much needed tax reform and savings to the transport industry not only for Tasmania but for Australia as a whole.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 Debate6863Question proposed:That grievances be noted.686316:32:006863Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—My grievance today is not so much that the Prime Minister is stuck in the past; my grievance is that he wants the whole nation to stay back and keep him company. This is the man who, having been rejected by his own generation, has taken refuge in a previous generation. For John Howard, the prime ministership is not about the nation's future but about his own past. In getting the prime ministership, his only aim was to pay back all those who had tried to stop him along the way. This is a man whose well-developed reflex is to punish like they did in the good old days. All the so-called reforms in the areas of tax, industrial relations and social security are only punitive efforts at revenge—half-hearted attempts to turn Australia into The Land That Time Forgot .John Howard has steadfastly resisted any opportunities to allow the country to move forward. The glaring example of this is the way he has sabotaged the process of reconciliation with indigenous Australians. As Prime Minister, the one vital role he could play was to apologise on behalf of the Australian people for all the hurt and destruction caused by past government policies, including to the stolen generation. Only the Prime Minister can make this symbolically important gesture. Not this Prime Minister, though—no Redfern Park speech from him because he is just not up to it.The politics of social inclusion and progression are anathema to him. We see it in his opposition to the republic—a historic inevitability. The fear of change is quite remarkable. It was also embodied in the Prime Minister's proposed preamble. It got a laugh, but it was one of embarrassment—the straight refusal to acknowledge indigenous custodianship of our land, the talk of mateship, the talk of being free to be proud of our country. The Prime Minister did acknowledge that there were people here prior to 1788. Big deal! He does not go further than that because he is not capable of making that step forward.He wants us to take a giant leap backwards by entrenching his own distorted view of the past in the Constitution—once more, a list of his petty grievances, a failure to lead. It is worthy of a South Park script with John Howard as Mr Garrison always getting his facts wrong and Tim Fischer as Mr Hat chiming in with, `You can say that again, Mr Garrison.' John Howard is the living embodiment of zero tolerance, zero tolerance for social and cultural progress. He is anti-reconciliation, anti-republic, anti-multiculturalism, anti-union, anti-worker, anti-public education, anti-public health—the list goes on and on.John Howard is a mean spirited man leading a mean spirited government. He has raised mean spiritedness to an art form. Even the surviving matriarch of the Menzies era has little time for John Howard's anachronistic vision for Australia. Anachronisms belong in museums and historical texts, certainly not in parliament or in leadership positions. Dame Rachel Cleland, aged 93, is the widow of Sir Donald Cleland who, with Sir Robert Menzies, was one of the co-founders of the Liberal Party. She is the woman Richard Court's deputy leader has described as `a conscience of the party and, when she speaks out, she can do so with an authority that virtually no-one else in Australia has'. When interviewed for a recent Australian Story, Dame Rachel Cleland said of John Howard:. . . I think he is governing an Australia that no longer exists. He's governing in his mind an Australia that existed 30 years ago.He lives by the maxim: out with the new and in with the old. Just look at the major changes he has made to the prime ministerial suite since taking office. He got rid of the tastefully understated modern lounge suite that was expected to last for 200 years and replaced it with a good old fashioned $10,000 green leather chesterfield lounge. To paraphrase Ross Peake, he has turned his office into something resembling an old-style gentleman's club but with less style.It is just the sort of furniture that Menzies would have approved of, so why not go the whole hog and match it with Menzies' desk as well? It has actually happened. He has taken it out of its museum setting in Old Parliament House and put it into the museum setting of this backward Prime Minister's office. It has not stopped there. Kirribilli House now has an $82,000 dining suite circa 1835, complete with black horse hair fabric covers.We must not forget the Prime Minister's plan to bring the Speaker's chair up from Old Parliament House. The feasibility study alone cost $12,000 to tell the Prime Minister that it was a really stupid idea. Eighteen million Australians could have told him that for free had he been in touch with the feelings of the Australian people in 1999 rather than 1950. No wonder the Secretary to the Joint House Department, Mike Bolton, has said that the original furniture in the Prime Minister's office would return the day John Howard left office. `A midnight arrangement—I hope it will happen,' he has said on the record. This is indeed a tragicomic government.Under John Howard's leadership, the government hangs delicately in the twilight zone between black comedy and farce. The afternoon tea with Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven, the refusal to live in the Lodge—all scenes worthy of a Monty Python sketch. We have here a man who prides himself on being the drip tray for all the passive-aggressive tendencies that can accumulate in a society at any one point in time.While Labor is the voice of the dispossessed, John Howard is the voice of the impotent. In generations to come, cultural historians will recall with an ironic smile that the Howard era was the period in Australian history which will be known as `The Great Stagnation'. In keeping with this inability to move forward, the name John Howard has become synonymous with the political backflip, with reneging on promises. Think of the promises made during the 1996 federal election campaign, promises that were set in concrete. The concrete obviously had too much sand or too much water in the mix, because it did not hold for too long. Once the coalition came to office, those promises became non-core promises, ones that could be broken.Speaking of concrete makes me think of the ministerial code of conduct, another fine example of the John Howard political backflip. Hailed with such fanfare when the coalition took office, the code of conduct promised a new era in disclosure and accountability and an unprecedented standard of ministerial conduct. Unprecedented is right—seven ministers resigned in 18 months. What is the Prime Minister's response to this disgraceful showing? Did he make the code tighter? Did he insist that the remaining members of his ministry should meet the standards in the code of conduct? No. John Howard's ministry seemed to have difficulty clearing the bar, so he lowered it. The code of conduct turned into a set of guidelines.The latest outrage surrounding the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources has shown that even these guidelines are not worth the paper they are written on. The member for Leichhardt is clearly in breach of the guidelines, but the Prime Minister, stuck as he is in reverse gear, is incapable of keeping his commitment to the Australian people when it comes to keeping his own ministry in line. In fact, given the number of times the Prime Minister practises the political backflip, you would think he was in training for the Sydney Olympics. I can just see it as an exhibition event in the year 2000. So John Howard should take heart: he will never play cricket for Australia, but he would break world records representing Australia in the backflip.In fact, John Howard deserves recognition for his unswerving commitment. We should immortalise this achievement with a new entry in the dictionary. After all, `Thatcher' has made it into the vernacular and inspired her own `ism'. What an honour for John Howard to follow in the footsteps of his muse. So it would go something like this:Howard: noun, a political backflip; the act of breaking a commitment.Howard: verb, to break a commitment; to renege on a promise; to regress.Howardly: to behave in a Howard-like manner.Howardice: lack of commitment; inability to keep a promise.The only occasion the Prime Minister has flaunted tradition is his decision to open the Olympics, which would normally be the reserve of our head of state, the Queen. For a man who joined the criticism when Paul Keating dared to place his hand on the Queen's back, it has been a rush worthy of Mark Yeats on Dermott Brereton in the opening seconds of the 1989 grand final in the way the current Prime Minister has pushed the Queen off that podium. The monarchists should perhaps consider suspending their leader but, then again, it is hard to suspend someone who is suspended in a time warp of the 1950s.In last Saturday's Sydney Morning Herald, Kookaburra gave us another fine example of Howardice by the Prime Minister. When Australia made it into the World Cup final, Kookaburra reported Howard as saying:"I don't think everybody will be at work first thing on Monday morning and I think everyone will understand that," said the sportive Prime Miniature . . . And later:A follow-up question, "Are you asking employers to be lenient?" made Howard get all tetchy. "No, look, I don't get into that trivia," he said.This is a man who aspires to be yesterday's hero, but what else could we expect from a man who has never escaped from what Barry Humphries refers to as the `Age of Laminex'?686616:41:006866Washer, Mal, MPDr WASHER84FMooreLP10—I wish to bring to the attention of the House a most welcome and widely supported immigration bill that was voted down in the Senate and how this has adversely affected some hardworking families in my electorate. The Migration Amendment Regulation 1998 enabled the parents of migrants to apply under a new visa category to be reunited with their children in Australia. This visa allowed the sponsors, usually the children, to contribute financially to the costs, particularly the health costs, associated with bringing their elderly parents to this country.As members of this House would be aware, it can take some years for a visa application of any class to be finally approved. With the new visa, known as subclass 113, the sponsor paid a charge of $6,060 in two instalments, and an assurance of support of $4,000 for the main applicant and $2,000 per additional adult. The assurance of support is a legally binding commitment to repay the Commonwealth of Australia any benefits that may be paid to those covered by the assurance in the first two years after they arrive.These new parent visas were then processed separately to the usual parent visa category and were subsequently processed faster. The parents of the Leggett family in my electorate who had been waiting nearly two years on the old 103 category parent visa jumped at the opportunity to apply for the new subclass. The family were quite prepared to pay the additional money. They recognised, like the majority of Australians, that if elderly parents are to live with their children in Australia the sponsors should be prepared to contribute towards the cost of such expenses as health care and income support.The visas were processed, new health checks were completed and, in March this year, the Australian High Commission in London informed the Leggetts that their visas were on the verge of being issued. They readied themselves to join their family in Australia and rejoiced in the thought that they would be here for their youngest granddaughter's second birthday. But the elderly Leggetts were not aware that on the other side of the world in the Senate chamber in the Australian parliament Labor and the minor parties defeated this regulation using the incredibly naive and simplistic argument that this visa was a battle of the haves and have-nots, the rich and the poor. Once again, the Senate ignored the wave of support of the Australian community and blocked this regulation.Now the Leggetts are back in the queue of the old subclass with their hopes dashed and their plans ruined. Families like the Leggetts were prepared to pay extra and make a substantial contribution to their parents' upkeep in Australia. This does not make them wealthy nor does it stop other applicants who were not prepared or who were unable to make an extra contribution to be able to come to this country. It is becoming increasingly clear that many on the other side of this House think that hardworking Australians on an average income are somehow wealthy elite living the high life.Their approach during the election campaign to the lack of income tax cuts for average Australian wage earners was testimony to this, not to mention their objections to the 30 per cent rebate on private health insurance. It was argued that private health insurance was for the rich instead of quite rightly recognising that there were many Australians, even those on pensions, who wanted to have health insurance but could not afford it because of high premiums. It was also argued that money should be spent on public hospitals despite the fact that fewer people in the public system would take the strain off the system, providing a better service for those who could not afford health cover.The same principle applies to this now defunct parent visa category. Rather than stopping those in the queue who could not afford the more expensive visa coming to Australia, it was reducing the size of the queue. Fewer applicants in the queue would have meant more approvals before the cap was met for that year and a faster chance of being issued a visa. The people waiting behind the supposedly wealthy Leggetts were close to being issued a visa when the Leggetts moved to the new subclass. Now they will have to wait longer because the Leggetts are back in their queue.I borrow the analogy of the line at the football used by Democrat Senator Bartlett during the Senate debate on this regulation when he voted to defeat the hopes of the Leggett family. Senator Bartlett said that if there is a long line to get tickets for the football it would not be fair if another line were started for people who are prepared to pay more so that they can get into the ground faster. I put it to the senator that, at the football, there are also fans who have paid extra to become a member of the football club so that they do not have to wait in line each week. Then there are the people who may have bought a dearer ticket in the stands and entered through a different gate. Then there are the fans who rang a week before and bought their tickets over the phone, paying a booking fee and a credit card charge. Imagine the queue if all these people had no option but to buy the same ticket as everyone else. This would mean the fans whose sole option it was to queue would have to wait so long that they would miss the first quarter or, worse still, not be able to get in at all.This new parent visa was suggested by the immigration minister after his extensive consultations when travelling around Australia last year. One of his public meetings occurred in my electorate, and I commend the minister's approach of involving the community on a face-to-face basis. It is most welcome by my constituents. Not one criticism was made towards this new parent visa by either the general public or the peak bodies involved in immigration issues. In fact, these groups suggested that a category should be introduced for sponsors prepared to make a commitment to care for their parents and be financially responsible for them. It was suggested because the Australian community wants a balanced and sensible approach to immigration matters in this country. Measures such as a two-year waiting period before newly arrived migrants can access support from Centrelink was widely accept by the Australian community. This was another example of a balanced approach to immigration policy.Shifting the emphasis to skilled workers and business migration was another commonsense move. These immigrants have an immediate and positive effect on the Australian economy and place little strain on our social security and public health systems. I understand that, along with the Leggett family, 2,800 parents waiting for visas took the option of this new subclass between 1 November last year and 31 March this year. This was when the Senate rejected the regulation that brought about this new subclass. As an aside, because this was just a regulation and not actually a piece of legislation the new visa could be taken up before the parliament approved the change. I am told it is very rare for a regulation to be defeated by the Senate, and having a new visa offered then taken away so quickly just added to the anguish of these families.There was a large number of families in Australia prepared to sponsor their parents under the new parent visa subclass. As only 273 of the new visas had time to be issued before it was defeated in the Senate, I know there are thousands of families out there who must have been bitterly disappointed when they heard the reasoning offered by non-government members of the Senate. This was a widely supported, commonsense measure that was defeated by ideological nonsense. I call on non-government members to reconsider their approach to this policy or risk remaining out of touch with the voting public for longer than they think. A few days ago the Leggetts celebrated their daughter's second birthday without the presence of the grandparents because of this Senate decision.686816:50:006868Gillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD83LLalorALP00—My grievance today relates to a matter of considerable importance to my electorate, to the western suburbs of Melbourne and to the people of Australia generally—namely, the way in which we treat those with disabilities in our community. Well over one million Australians have a profound or severe disability and cannot meet their daily living needs for self-care, mobility and/or communication without help from someone else. That statistic means that this problem of having a profound or severe disability affects one in 16 people. It would seem a simple test for a civil society that such help would be provided gracefully and without miserliness or penny pinching. In many homes across Australia, that care is given with complete generosity of spirit. Indeed, 80 per cent of the self-care, mobility or communication help needed by people with profound and severe disabilities is provided by families and friends.But once we move beyond the home into an area where government should properly provide we start to see miserliness and penny pinching come to the fore. We see inexplicable state and regional funding disparities which mean that, while the pattern throughout Australia is of unmet need, in some areas, such as my own electorate, the problem is devastating. In the past 10 years the number of people with profound or severe disabilities has increased by 39.49 per cent. Of course, many of these people are of working age and have a capacity to work if given the appropriate assistance. Obviously work not only provides income but also provides challenges, stimulation and human contact. It creates a role in which we develop and display skills and feel valued. This is as true for those Australians who have a disability as it is for those of us in this parliament and in the work force beyond.Under the 1991 and 1998 Commonwealth-state disability agreements, the Commonwealth took responsibility for providing employment services to people with disabilities. Yet if we chart the Commonwealth's contribution in this area we find an inadequate response, given the growing need. Indeed, the Commonwealth's contribution in this area has fallen in percentage terms. At the start of this decade, in the financial year 1989-90, the Commonwealth contributed 21.15 per cent of the total funding made available to Australians with profound and severe disabilities. By 1998-99, that had fallen to 19.46 per cent.As alarming as this statistic is, even more alarming are the large and inexplicable variations in the amount of Commonwealth assistance provided to the various states and territories. The National Council on Intellectual Disability has produced a chart which shows the amount of Commonwealth funding in 1998 per state per person with a profound or severe disability under the age of 65. It shows that South Australia receives from the Commonwealth $809.48 for each person with a profound or severe disability under the age of 65, while Western Australia receives only $408.97 per head. Victoria has the third worst result behind WA and the ACT, and in Victoria we receive $478.02 per head.Given that the vast state of Western Australia has the worst result, such differences cannot be explained by variations in the cost of providing services in remote or rural locations. Rather, this is an inequity pure and simple, which means that the disabled in some states are worse off than the disabled in other states. If each person with a disability were to receive from the Commonwealth the level of funding that the Commonwealth is prepared to provide to the disabled of South Australia, then we would immediately see an extra $192 million a year appear in the Commonwealth budget for disability support services.Given the huge unmet need in this area, including at least 38,000 disabled Australians who are in critical need of, but do not receive, supported employment services, it seems obscene for the government not to make such additional funding available and to allow such regional inequities to continue. In that regard I can only echo the sentiments expressed by the President of the National Council on Intellectual Disability, Mr Kevin Stone, when, in response to the Howard-Costello budget this year, he said:This Government has for over 12 months ignored a report by the Australian Institute for Health & Welfare which demonstrates the absolute crisis that over 13,000 Australian families are in.He went on:With so many people in urgent need the $5.4 billion surplus is not a matter of pride but shame for Australians and anger for the many families who have asked for so little to have their needs met.The problems with lack of funding, and gross inequity of funding, do not stop at the level of states and territories. I have had leaked to me a document from the Department of Health and Family Services, as it then was. For 1996-97, this document shows for the regions in Victoria the percentage of the population reliant on the disability support pension and the percentage distribution of funding made available for supported employment services, open employment services and advocacy. I am advised that little has changed in the picture since these figures were compiled.In the western metropolitan region, and specifically the Altona-Werribee area in my electorate, we find that 2.9 per cent of those who receive the disability pension reside in that area, and therefore my area covers 2.9 per cent of the population in need. But when we look at the funding equation we find that the Altona-Werribee area gets 0.2 per cent of the funding for supported employment programs, only one per cent of the funding for open employment services, and for advocacy funding we get a big fat zero. Overall, the Altona-Werribee area gets 0.5 per cent of the total funding available for employment and advocacy services, despite 2.9 per cent of the population in need being in the area.Compare this with the circumstances of Melbourne's affluent inner eastern suburbs which, with 3.9 per cent of the relevant population, attract 6.9 per cent of the available funds. Given the huge unmet needs in this disability area, I would in no way advocate a reduction of funds to any geographic location. However, basic fairness requires that extra funding be made available to assist areas like my electorate where the difference between need and funding is so gross. This is an inequity which screams out to be fixed and this government should proceed to do so.Whilst on the subject of disability and matters that need urgent government attention, I turn to a different issue but one which could quite simply be fixed by the government. It affects one of my constituents, a Mr Gary Callegan, and potentially affects up to 2,454 students in Victoria. Gary is a brave young man who suffers from the terminal disease muscular dystrophy. He is confined to a wheelchair. Having turned 18, Gary was asked to choose an alternative course from the Yooralla Special School in Glenroy where he had previously been a student. Gary selected a Futures for Young Adults program run by the Muscular Dystrophy Association. He picked it because he wanted to mix with students who share his particular difficulties and work with an association that understands his needs. Gary started the course in February this year and is making good progress.The Muscular Dystrophy Association's Futures for Young Adults program is fully funded by the Victorian Department of Human Services as it is perceived to meet the educational needs of students who suffer this debilitating disease. Unfortunately for Gary, despite operating under the auspices of that government department, the Department of Human Services, the course is not accredited by the Department of Education. This is in spite of the fact that the Futures for Young Adults program was established as a joint initiative by the departments of Human Services and Education. As a result of the failure to have it accredited by the Department of Education, Centrelink has removed Gary's pensioner education supplement. So we have the ridiculous situation where a young man, against the odds, attending a course which is fully recognised by one government department, has lost his pensioner education supplement from Centrelink because of bureaucratic bungling, one presumes, between the Department of Human Services, the Department of Education and the federal government in terms of course recognition.I raised this matter with the relevant minister on 5 May 1999 in a letter to her and am yet to get a reply on this very important issue. I seek one forthwith. (Time expired)687017:00:006870Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSONFB6WentworthLP10—Three weeks ago I returned from overseas, having been part of a parliamentary delegation to the Philippines and Japan. The delegation included, among others, the member for Moore, the member for Wills, the member for Cowper and some of our friends from the other place. Whilst an official report will be tabled in the House at some stage in the future regarding our observations on that trip, I would like to make a few remarks about what we saw during the trip, especially in Japan.We found a country facing its seventh year of what many there believe is a never-ending economic slump or recession; one in which many of the old verities that supported the Japanese economy and the Japanese way of doing things are now being cited as causes of the present decay. In the face of that, unfortunately, a lot of Japanese policy makers have chosen to believe in what they know best rather than search for new solutions. I think this means that Japan's economy will not recover soon. Despite some peculiar GNP figures last week which purported that the economy was growing very fast, we ought to see Japan as its own people see it to be now—this really is the hard political reality—that is, an economy mired in a slump that no-one really understands. This is not like the oil shock of the 1970s. It is a home-grown disaster; one grown out of misguided econotribalism. It is perhaps the worst consequence of the lunacy that we saw in the 1980s: asset values were rising fast enough at that time to fool people into believing that reform was an unnecessary trouble.You might ask whether that situation sounds a little familiar. Where do you have rising asset prices, a form of political gridlock and a sense of comfort or superiority in having done it better than anywhere else? Sad to say, that is sometimes the case in Australia today. We still have a growing economy. We have, I think, a sense of achievement and perhaps even a feeling of superiority over other economies in our neighbourhood that are not doing so well at the moment. Certainly there is worse to come after the end of this month: we have a political situation where a gridlock is often the case and important bills cannot get through. That is what it was like in Japan in the eighties. Many people there thought they could put off reform for a while because things were fairly comfortable, but the sad reality is that that is sowing the seeds for later disaster.One thing that struck me about the economy in Japan is that land prices there are still falling. There is no quicker way to strangle bank credit than to allow the value of collateral to shrink. These days you might even say that the best businesses are those without any land assets at all because at least their balance sheets are not a hostage to deflation. One of the problems we found is that the capital markets in Japan are still quite sclerotic. Although the asset backed securities in the collateralised loan obligation markets have developed a bit in recent years, it is still not enough. Many investors—individual people who do have a large amount of savings—cannot at the moment get access to sufficient risk and the proper return that comes with that. They are reduced to having their funds on deposit in the bank or wherever at minuscule interest rates—0.1 per cent or, in many cases, nothing at all.Without some reform whereby the spigots of capital can be turned on—and many good quality small businesses depend on banks for financing at the moment—without turning on the spigots of capital in other means, that sector of the economy will not recover because the banks are still heavily protected in a political sense. A lot of their bigger customers were taken away from them in the eighties as the equity markets developed and were able to supply capital directly to large corporations. The banks kept to themselves lots of the small businesses as their customers, so they naturally resist any form of deregulation that would allow other forms of financing to allow small businesses to get their capital. You have a lesson there that heavy regulation equals a form of sclerosis and that equals wasted opportunity, unemployment and so forth.That notion has not really penetrated Japan's political firmament. There is no sign of urgency among the political leaders there, and we thought there were very few signs of new ideas. The political delegation had a meeting with Mr Sakaiya, who is the Minister for the Economic Planning Agency. The name alone ought to suggest something profoundly wrong—a government that has an economic planning agency. Not once in this senior minister's presentation to our delegation was there any mention of new industries such as e-commerce, IT or multimedia. It was all about fiscal stimulation packages. And yet, in the same week that we were there, Lee Kuan Yew—surely the most capable man in 20th century public life—was visiting Japan and, in doing so, urged the Japanese political establishment to recognise and to plunge into the Internet—the World Wide Web.At the same time, the national telephone company, NTT, probably the most dominant corporation in Japan, still charges Internet users by the three-minute price unit. So there you have it again: heavy regulation, imposed by a corporation that has immense political strength, works to stifle growth. The World Wide Web, the Internet, is big in Japan but e-commerce is struggling because of a lack of secure transaction protocols and, indeed, an antiquated credit card system. Again, the banks are being protected by their political friends and a special interest group is being favoured instead of the national interest.The Prime Minister, Mr Obuchi, is a good man. He is able to skilfully operate the Japanese political system. An effective leader has to have that sort of skill. He is also a very modest and sincere man, and hence he is very popular with the public. But it must be said that he shows no great sense of urgency about things, either. He has custody of a nation with a rapidly ageing population. He has reform proceeding at a snail's pace and with no modern Meiji style reformation in sight. We have to conclude that time is running out. You cannot beat the demographic clock—as the population ages very quickly and the ratio of salary-earning citizens to dependent citizens rises very quickly—and something must be done in a very radical sense to boost productivity if you are to keep national income at its present levels.In view of all this, we in Australia should not get too cocky. We still have things in our political and taxation firmament that I regard as plainly absurd. We have very high company tax rates, and we have a confiscatory capital gains tax, both of which work to repel the capital that we need to boost the real incomes of our citizens. Soon we have to tackle business tax reform, under the guidance of the Ralph committee. That sort of reform is not about 2005 or 2010; it is about 2020. Yet half of what you might call the de facto cabinet, that is the Democrat senators, believes in the sorts of things that have devastated Japan and Korea—that is, an economy managed by political arrangement. They do not say, `Stop the world, I want to get off.' They say, `We know better than the world, let us arrange it.' In the meantime, with our borders rapidly disappearing as IT proceeds, the taxation of capital income is going out of fashion. The clear headed among us can see that it is enterprise that will help boost incomes, not handouts that depend on large flows of taxation revenues to governments. Governments do nothing much any more other than to keep people below their potential. (Time expired)687117:10:006871Roxon, Nicola, MPMs ROXON83KGellibrandALP00—I would like to speak today about a site in my electorate known as the defence estate of Maribyrnong. It is the old explosives site. People in my community have lived with the site operating as the major centre of production for munitions in this country pretty much since the start of the century. It is 160 hectares in my electorate which nestles into the elbow of the Maribyrnong River. It is a beautiful site positioned very close to a lot of the amenities in the electorate and one of the last remaining areas that is still controlled by the Commonwealth, but it is due to be sold some time in the coming years for purposes that at this stage are not clear.I raise the issue of the sale of this site in this place today because the significance of the site is something that many people in my community are well aware of. The significance goes beyond the environmental impact and the potential for this site on the Maribyrnong River to have great benefits for our community. It includes some very significant historical industrial sites and some Aboriginal sites of significance. I have recently been told that it is also said to be the home of General Bridges' horse, Sandy, the only horse that returned from the First World War to Australia and he is buried at this site. So I am raising a number of issues because I would like to encourage the government and the defence minister—who I have invited to come and visit the site; he has as yet declined to take up that offer, but I am hoping that he will do so in the future—prior to this sale to take into consideration the significance of the site and the many ways that it can benefit our community, and also to take account of some of the social issues within the community that can be accommodated by the sensible use and disposal of this land.As I said, the site is 160 hectares. For a similar development in the region, we have already sold off the ammunitions site in Gordon Street in Footscray—I think the plans are that there will be 3,000-odd houses. It will be high quality housing with sweeping views across the river to the city of Melbourne and across the Flemington racecourse. They will be some of the most beautiful positions for housing in my electorate. Similarly, the explosives site would offer that sort of high quality residential housing. I am sure that developers will be very keen to purchase this land. It is my concern, however, that the government needs to take account not only of maximising its potential income from selling the land to the highest bidder but also of the significance of the site. I urge the government to look at putting some appropriate conditions on that sale that will take account not just of the issues that I have already raised but also of the other significant housing issues in my electorate. Just in my electorate of Gellibrand, there are approximately 6,000 people on the public housing waiting list. It is an electorate which has a large number of its people in fairly low socioeconomic groups. Until recently, we have had a lot of low cost accommodation and a significant amount of public housing. There are great concerns within our community that, as the west is discovered a little more by some of my other colleagues and their constituents, it is becoming a very attractive inner-city suburb—as indeed it has been for some time but that has not been recognised by many others in the community. It is gradually being gentrified. Whilst we are always very keen for the value of housing to improve in our own areas and for people to be able to live in good accommodation, we would also like to make sure that those families who have grown up and lived in the area for many years are able to afford to stay in their homes or have appropriate accommodation provided in close proximity to the areas where they have worked and lived for many years.There is some precedent for this sort of thing to be discussed. We have had a development in Williamstown, at the rifle range, where a percentage of the development was set aside as low cost and public housing. That was done jointly under the federal and state Labor governments approximately 10 years ago. It meant that the area had all of the benefits of a high quality development at the same time as accommodating some of the community need for there to be affordable and public housing provided to those in the community who could not afford to buy. A house in Williamstown on the rifle range, built two years ago, recently sold for $750,000, which sent shock waves through the real estate community and those wanting to purchase houses in my electorate. I would be very concerned if the development or the sale of the defence estate at Maribyrnong was seen simply as an opportunity for us to provide extremely high cost, high quality housing.A lot of work has already been done by the two councils—the City of Maribyrnong and, on the other side of the river, the City of Moonee Valley—to look at the significance of this site. The historical societies have also been quite active in identifying some of their concerns, as has the Living Museum of the West. But more needs to be taken account of in the process that will be commenced in the next couple of months—although it may take some years for various decontamination issues to be dealt with before the sale would go ahead.I am concerned that we take account of how special this site is. Because it is approximately 10 or 15 minutes from the CBD, it is one of the few sites in Melbourne where you could have easy access to such extensive parkland. If we were to ensure that there was open space maintained along the river banks, we would have a green corridor that would stretch all the way from the Yarra right through to Brimbank Park. This would be an extraordinary thing for our community to have. It would be a great asset for the rest of Melbourne to be able to travel from Port Melbourne by punt across to Scienceworks, up the river from Scienceworks to the Living Museum, potentially to this site if there were to be some historical development or even just a picnic area, and all the way to Brimbank Park through Pipemakers Park.In the western suburbs of Melbourne people laugh if we talk about our tourism potential. It is not the people in our suburbs that laugh, but if you talk to anybody else about it people seem to find the concept one of great hilarity. In fact, there is enormous potential for us to develop the area into a fantastic recreational area for residents of Melbourne to use for daily picnics, for their families and for historical learning activities.The industrial history of these sites cannot be underestimated. As I said at the beginning, this explosives site was really the heart of the production of munitions in Australia for many years. A huge number of people were employed at these sites—thousands and thousands of people. At its peak I think there were 7,000 people employed just at this explosives site. It is very difficult to go anywhere in my electorate where a person has not either themselves worked in those factories or had their father, mother, cousins or brothers work there for some significant time. Mostly they were lucky enough to attain their apprenticeships at these sites. There is a great bond and a great sense of it being property that should be kept within the public domain in some way, to recognise the importance of the site to our community as a whole.Another little-known fact is that this was the site of our first racecourse in Melbourne, before that racecourse was moved across the river to Flemington. A big open space remains which was the site of the first track. There are also some fantastic old stables—Fischers stables, built at the turn of the century, one of the remaining examples of the sorts of structures that were built in those times—which would lend themselves wonderfully to some sort of racing museum perhaps, or other public purpose that that building could be put to. Those stables have a fantastic view across Melbourne and it would be a great loss to our community if they were to be kept simply for private use or sold in some way which limited the capacity of the rest of the community to be able to enjoy that site. I encourage the minister to take up my offer to come and visit the site. This campaign was begun well before my time, but I regard it as very important to pursue. It is a valuable site. It offers a lot of potential for the development of the region. It can provide fantastic housing for a large number of people but we need to make sure that we also have some community value kept in the site. I would encourage the minister and the government to take account of those issues.687317:20:006873Schultz, Alby, MPMr SCHULTZ83QHumeLP10—I rise in this grievance debate tonight on the issue of ovine Johne's disease. Imagine living in a family of three, surviving on your son's fortnightly Austudy payments of just $148. Picture, after 20 years of running a successful farm, working hard enough to provide a comfortable lifestyle for your children, suddenly waking up with no income, useless livestock and possibly being forced to sell your property. Envisage trying to get help during this crisis, to find your family's and your contribution to Australia's economic stability ignored, being shut out by govern ment agencies, cruelly mistreated by the New South Wales state government and unable to be considered for federal exceptional circumstances funding.These circumstances are not a delusion. They are a reality for many rural families in New South Wales, and indeed all over the country, whose properties are currently affected by ovine Johne's disease. Heartache, anger, frustration, family break-ups, emotional breakdown and financial ruin have become a harsh and taxing reality for individuals affected by the disease. As of 30 April 1999, there were 426 farms affected and 538 suspected of having OJD in rural New South Wales alone, most of which are under quarantine. I have serious concerns about this poorly handled, deteriorating fiasco that is the OJD problem in Australia. Not surprisingly, recent testing has shown that the disease, first believed to be restricted to a small proportion of flocks, has been found in most areas capable of cultivating the virus.The state and federal governments have responded to this epidemic by announcing that they jointly agreed to coordinate a $40 million program—to which the federal government will contribute about $9 million over six years—to monitor, research and develop restocking incentives and flock assurance programs. Firstly, what is the likelihood of eradicating this disease by destocking and restocking when OJD can survive in soil? Secondly, how do the authorities handling this catastrophe expect to eradicate the disease when the process of testing and researching is to take six years? Thirdly, and very evident in my electorate, when are the narcissistic bureaucrats responsible for attempting to eradicate the disease going to wake up and support the people who have affected properties as well?The cases I mentioned earlier are not hypothetical but true depictions of what constituents in my electorate are experiencing. We are considering charging all of these stud owners a levy to finance the $40 million program to attempt to eradicate the disease, first detected in 1980, probably around for 20 years before that, and now at epidemic proportions. Where have the state agricultural departments been for the past 30-odd years? Western Australia, which claims to be OJD free, does not intend to contribute to this levy. Producers who trade interstate will be charged twice under this new arrangement. It is beyond my comprehension how this levy, or a transaction levy, is the answer to a far-reaching, deeply ingrained problem.I refer back to the case of a family from Tarago living on a child's Austudy allowance to survive after they were detected with OJD. A five-year quarantine was placed on the property, and for the last two years no sheep have been detected with the disease. But they are unable to sell, except to abattoirs, or buy stock for another three years. This ridiculous, unfair and emotional situation is compounded by the owner's attempts to obtain financial support from Centrelink. In view of the fact that the size of their properties makes them asset rich, they are ineligible for financial assistance. In all of my experience as an elected people's representative, I have never seen such ignorance.Certainly, the state governments are the ones responsible for this disaster, but why cannot the federal government extend a hand and help? Political inaction and games have again clouded what is important. Let us get rid of the red tape, forget whose role it is and simply help. Governments, through their inability to feel and see this problem in its entirety, are playing with people's lives.I have to make one point. The National Ovine Johnes Disease Program recently announced that OJD zones were agreed by the veterinary committee, meaning properties will be referred to as either a `controlled zone status' or `residual status'. This will benefit stud owners not affected by the disease. But, again, what about the ones who are? They are already belittled by their neighbours and other producers and considered null because of their status. This zoning is not going to help.This brings me to my next point. One of my constituents was contacted by the Department of Agriculture to undertake a faecal pool test. The owner was told that the outcome would not change their status of `OJD free'. Out of the whole stud, just one faeces of 269 samples was found with OJD bacteria. Shortly afterwards, the farm was shut down and considered `suspect'. What kind of individual from a government department enters a family property, misleads, performs an experimental test and ruins the family's lives all in one day? The individuals in question have since had no choice but to give their farm to their children. Subsequently it has been discovered that, although they gave out two shares to each of their sons valued at $400,000 each, they have given in excess of a net amount of $500,000, which would have made them eligible for the Farmers Assistance Scheme.Let me quote in part from correspondence from a constituent to the New South Wales Farmers Association to illustrate the difficulties they are facing. I quote from a letter from Mrs Joan Limon of Sunnybrook, Tarago:I am writing to inform you of the heart ache being experienced in this area because of the treatment by the government, not the disease of OJD. Below I have outlined my husband's and my personal experience as part of the nightmare that comes with an OJD classification.1. For several years we paid top price for rams from a registered stud. Several years ago my Father-in-law purchased some stud ewes from the same property. Our last purchase was a ram for close to $2000.00 on 26.10.1995.2. At the beginning of 1997 we received a letter from the stud to say they had tested positive to OJD—our nightmare had begun.3. In January 1997 we were told by our local RLPB . . . that we would have to have sheep tested as we had been found in a trace from the stud. We were told by the vet concerned that we were now in a type of quarantine in that we could no longer trade normally, rather if we wanted to sell any sheep they could only be sold direct to an abattoir.We felt like "lepers" and felt terrible that we had inadvertently put all our neighbours in jeopardy despite the fact that we had not noticed any signs of sheep dying due to OJD, even though we had been purchasing sheep from that same stud for years.We were both devastated, my husband who was born and raised here particularly so. No longer were we in control of our own destiny. The emotional effect of an OJD classification cannot be underestimated.The letter goes on:4. At the end of January 1997 we had 50 sheep . . . blood tested and another 5 killed for autopsy. All the tests that were undertaken proved negative. Over the period up until this day, they had another 450 sheep tested, and the pathology tests came back negative. The end result is that they have had 506 sheep tested—500 blood tested; 6 killed and autopsied—all results were negative, and they are still classed as `suspect'. By the time they wait their three years, they will have been quarantined for nearly five years.I have to say that the motto in government appears to be, `When they are down, kick them.' I have to ask, considering all the points I have made today, how many individuals would risk their livelihood, their career and their living standards to have their flock tested for OJD only to be placed in these zones and have restrictions on selling and purchasing stock. These families know that they could face a sudden loss of income, emotional heartache and demeaning treatment from other producers with just one positive case of OJD. This is a national problem that is not going to disappear and, while the new $40 million program could be successful in decreasing cases of OJD, we will not know for six years. Could someone please explain to me how all the families and individuals affected by this disease are expected to survive until this time?May I respectfully suggest that the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and the Minister for Community Services could well consider the heartbreaking issues centred around the OJD problems that I have raised with a view to demanding a more realistic approach than their state counterparts—who are in fact the people responsible for all of the impositions placed on these individuals who now, unfortunately, see themselves in a situation where they cannot survive financially. In terms of the stress they are under, one wonders what the ultimate result of these OJD restrictions is going to be for those families.687517:30:006875Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—Tomorrow hundreds of coalminers will converge on Parliament House in this national capital. They are coming here not to seek more money, not to seek better working conditions, not to seek shorter working hours, not even to seek better safety conditions in the coalmines in which they toil; they are coming here simply to seek what is legally theirs; simply to seek assistance in securing the money they are losing each time a large mining corporation goes under and, as a result, fails to produce the workers' entitlements that have accrued.Among those miners will be former employees of the now closed Oakdale colliery. They will be representing themselves and their workmates who, between them, have lost some $6.3 million worth of accrued employee entitlements. People like Trevor Lane, who worked at Oakdale for some 25 years and, as a result of the employer's actions, has lost some $110,000. Tomorrow's rally forms just one part of the CMFEU's national campaign to recover that money and to protect, in future, the entitlements of not only coalminers but all Australian workers.One would be entitled to think that that is a campaign which will enjoy the support of every member in this place, whether they be members of the Labor Party, the Liberal Party, the National Party or indeed, Independents. But the question is: would that be a correct assumption? Sadly, it appears the answer to that question is possibly no. We may know more by this hour tomorrow, following a meeting of the CFMEU with the Prime Minister. But how hopeful can we be that the CFMEU will get a positive response from the Prime Minister? The best way to determine the answer to that question is to look at the Prime Minister's track record on this issue. On that basis, I have to say that I am not all that hopeful.Let us take a look at that track record, at what the Howard government did for those who lost their entitlements at Cobar, Woodlawn, Grafton, Rockhampton and now at Oakdale—there are so many examples. We will find that the Prime Minister has done a big fat nothing. He indicated during question time that he wrote a letter to the ASC. That is very helpful, but what we need here is legislation. This parliament is here to produce legislation, and I would have thought legislation to protect the accrued entitlements of Australian workers would take a great priority.It is not as if this Prime Minister has not had plenty of opportunities to support those workers. He had the opportunity to support the private member's motion put forward by the member for Prospect during 1998—a motion I understand she has once again on the Notice Paper in an attempt to drive that legislation through the parliament. That bill would, of course, make compulsory an insurance premium to protect those accrued entitlements. He had the opportunity when the member for Fraser introduced his Employment Security Bill during 1998, but again the Prime Minister and the government failed to take up that opportunity.Now, despite telling 2UE's Alan Jones last Friday, `We are not going to do things that are going to remove existing security for workers in relation to their basic entitlements,' he is sitting back and allowing his Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business to, if you like, abolish the black coal industry's central long service leave fund. That is one of the few mechanisms we currently have to protect workers' entitlements. In the black coal industry they have a central fund. The accrued long service leave funds go into that central fund and are portable as coalminers move from one mine to the other. So, at a time when we are calling upon the government to protect the accrued entitlements of workers, the Howard government is walking off in the other direction in its determination to introduce more insecurity for Australian workers about their hard-earned employee entitlements.The CFMEU has a plan in place of the government's failure to take up the opposition's private members' bills. We would like to see this dealt with by legislation that covers all Australian workers, and we will continue to work towards that end, but in the meantime the CFMEU has a good plan. That plan is to place a 10c per tonne levy on coal production in this country. That would produce something like a $20 million fund which would be independently administered and would be available to workers in the coal industry who have been retrenched and have found their employer unable to meet his or her commitment to accrued entitlements.If the bill of the member for Prospect had been picked up by the government, it would not have acted retrospectively, which is a shame. It would not have helped the Cobar miners, for example, because it was introduced after that event. However, it will help those in the future. The fund the CFMEU has in mind, though, will act retrospectively. Those at Oakdale will have the ability to apply under the fund to secure the $6.3 million they have lost. That is very appropriate. I will be supporting it, and I am sure the opposition will. I call upon members of this House of all political persuasions to show some moral conscience and get behind what I think is a very effective and worthwhile scheme.In the limited time I have left to me, I want to say something about the GST and how it affects my small business constituency. An irrefutable fact coming out of the GST debate is that the compliance costs attached to the GST will fall disproportionately and most heavily on the small business sector. That point is unchallengeable, and no member in this place could possibly argue against it. Since the deal between the government and the Democrats that situation has been exacerbated. As the Treasurer puts it, the nightmare on main street involved in differentiating between those products that will be GST liable and those that will not will put an impossible task in the path of the small business constituency.I think that point is very relevant to the retail committee's inquiry on the ability of the small business sector to compete with the big end of town. If that inquiry is about measuring the small business sector's ability to compete in a highly concentrated market, surely the additional compliance burden of the Democrat-government deal is relevant to that committee. Last sitting Wednesday, I went to that committee—I went about it the right way; I attempted to do it in a bipartisan manner—asking it to seek some additional resources so that the committee secretariat can look at this additional compliance cost burden and factor it into its deliberations on the small business sector's ability to compete with the big end of town.Alas, the government members of the committee were not going to have a bar of it. They were not going to expose the government any more to the impact of the GST on small business. Out of frustration, I came into this place the next morning and moved a motion to suspend the standing orders in an attempt to bring a private member's motion forward. That motion expanded the terms of reference of that committee to allow it to investigate the additional compliance costs brought on by the Democrat-government deal. Allowing it would have been appropriate. I am quite disgusted that the government, in a veiled attempt to protect its own reputation, failed to allow it to happen.If it is serious about looking at how the small business sector is struggling to compete with the big end of town, why would the government not allow for the expansion of those terms of reference and, therefore, allow us to take into consideration the disproportionate way in which the GST impacts upon the small business sector? It again shows that this government is long on rhetoric but very short on action when it comes to the small business sector. (Time expired)687717:40:006877Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—The harvesting of Queensland's 1999 sugar crop has started, but the outlook and, at least, the medium-term prospects for the industry and those many thousands of people directly and indirectly reliant upon it are not sweet. The industry outlook was described recently by the Queensland Canegrowers' general manager, Mr Ian Ballantyne, as catastrophic. If the harvest is blessed with favourable weather, the Queensland sugar industry, which produces 95 per cent of Australia's output, should yield about five million tonnes. This compares with 4.5 million tonnes last year, which was the lowest in five years and followed exceptionally wet weather. In 1998, more than 2.5 million tonnes of cane was left unharvested and commercial cane sugar levels fell to 12.23 units, the lowest level in decades. In 1997, in comparison, the yield was 5.4 million.This year, regrettably, the industry is faced with the lowest prices since 1985. They are less than half the prices last year, as the world is literally awash with sugar. This massive oversupply of sugar on the world market has seen the price crash to between US5c and US5.5c per pound, with a recent, albeit brief, crash plunging the price below US4c per pound. The current price equates to a dismal $160 to $165 per tonne.The industry has been protected from the worst ravages of the international market by the astute forward marketing strategies of the Queensland Sugar Corporation, by hedging on the New York sugar futures exchange, and by some long-term supply contracts. Thus, the Queensland industry can expect an estimated final price this season of between $258 and $275 per tonne, with the final price expected to be close to $265 per tonne. However, that compares with an average of $340 to $350 per tonne over the past three seasons.Excessive rain, floods, harvest damage and retarded growth arising from the extended season and lost mill time, as well as extreme incidence of condemned cane, which is cane produced but of too low a quality to pay for, marked the 1998 season. This was a depressing legacy for the 1999 crop and was made considerably worse by Cyclone Rona early this year. A state of natural disaster was declared in sugar areas in August-September 1998 following heavy rain. When Cyclone Rona swept in shortly after, the effects were exacerbated by the already sodden conditions.Production and, therefore, potential income has been further slashed by Cyclone Rona and subsequent heavy rains and flooding. Overall production loss and CCS loss—that is, the sugar content of cane—have been devastating. Queensland Canegrowers have estimated that the compounding effects will generate losses in excess of 40 per cent on most severely affected farms, with a total 100 per cent loss where recent planting has occurred. Thus, the Queensland sugar industry, which largely means the Australian sugar industry, had a disastrous 1998 and is expected to have an even more disastrous 1999 season because of a rare combination of adverse weather conditions.However, if that were not enough, the world outlook for sugar coincidentally is one of unrelieved gloom. Queensland Sugar Corporation's senior manager of financial risk, Mr John Bird, has said that there is little relief in sight for the industry on the world market. As I said earlier, it has only been the astute marketing strategies of the corporation that have saved the industry from what would probably have been a major catastrophe from which it may never have recovered. It is time we recall that the National Competition Council wanted to dismantle the single desk selling power of the Queensland Sugar Corporation. The National Party fought hard against this proposal and, fortunately for the industry, we won. I shudder to think what state the sugar industry would be in now if that proposal had become a reality and a devastated industry was reduced to a bitter internal squabble to gain market access.It is an accepted historical fact that there are variations in the international price of sugar. However, the coincidence of events on the world market recently has been virtually unprecedented. Queensland Canegrowers have produced an excellent analysis which shows that the price drop expected for the 1999 season will be the second largest price drop in any year since 1949. In that half century, the only larger fall occurred in 1981 after a sudden surge in the price which was characteristic of the market at that time and which was not unexpected as a market correction. There has been a progressive drying up of demand in many countries which act as so-called swing consumers, particularly Russia, which is suffering from an internal economic collapse, and China, which is moving towards self-sufficiency, particularly with the official encouragement of the consumption of alternative sweeteners such as saccharin. The economic meltdown in Asia has had its effect, and this effect is compounded by the fact that Thailand has had a better than expected crop. Latest estimates suggest a lift from 45 million tonnes to 52 million tonnes. This will find its way into already sluggish Asian markets.However, our biggest threat comes from Brazil. In January this year, Brazil—already the world's largest sugar producer—devalued its currency by a massive 40 per cent at a time when it held large stocks of raw sugar. Until 1997-98, about 60 per cent of Brazil's harvest was used to produce about 14 billion litres of ethanol fuel a year, and this production had been steadily increasing. However, by mid-1988, it became apparent that production of ethanol was well in excess of demand. As ethanol stocks rose and the domestic price of the fuel fell, sugar millers in Brazil, which are mostly capable of producing alcohol or sugar, switched largely to sugar. Thus, Brazilian sugar production rose by a staggering 17 per cent in 1998-99 and, inevitably, sugar stocks rose. The Brazilian government decided to massively devalue its currency, which allowed an aggressive international marketing campaign. Trade experts attribute the stock drawdown by Brazil to have brought down the market by about half since December 1997.The challenge of Brazil's sugar cannot be underestimated. Dr David Rutledge, the Chief Executive of the Queensland Sugar Corporation, estimates that Brazilian sugar exports are now 32 per cent more competitive than they were prior to that country massively devaluing its currency. However, in his recent paper entitled Sugar: the challenges from Asia, Dr Rutledge, after surveying the grim situation, noted:Nonetheless Queensland raw sugar remains competitive. The quality of the Queensland product remains one of its strongest selling points.He continued:It is important that industry responses to low world prices do not compromise the integrity of the product. The industry's marketing package continues to place a high degree of importance on meeting customer requirements.Dr Rutledge believes that maintaining supply flexibility will be an important component of Australia's response and that opportunities to supply additional quantities of sugar into Asia will emerge as consumption growth recovers in Indonesia, Malaysia and Korea. He concludes:Overall there will be ample opportunities to market Australian production. I did note with great satisfaction that the recent highly successful trip to China by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade, the Hon. Tim Fischer, was crowned by an agreement by China to allow improved market access for Australian primary produce including sugar. This improved access does rely upon China becoming a member of the WTO, and every Australian farmer will be hoping that no unnecessary impediment is placed in the way of China achieving membership. I would also like to add that the Philippines has recently bought $30 million worth of Queensland sugar, some of which will be going into their famous coconut pie, which is being marketed in Australia by Woolworths. I hope people enjoy coconut pie.To return to the market situation for sugar, however, while there is cautious optimism about the future of the world market, there is no denying the plain reality of a crisis today. My National Party colleagues who represent sugar producing electorates and I are concerned that every effort be made to identify strategies and solutions to the existing problems. While industry bodies and industry experts have their undoubted expertise and key roles, all too often their views and opinions of the grassroots of the industry are not taken fully into account. It is intended that National Party colleagues in seats representing the sugar industry will adopt an outreach approach and actively seek to involve themselves at the coalface of the industry. With the support of the Deputy Prime Minister, we have initiated a task force to look at ways in which we can support and assist farmers to ensure that they remain viable through this most difficult time.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. J.A. Crosio)—The question is:That grievances be noted.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills6879Messages received from the Governor-General reported informing the House of assent to the following bills: Income Tax Rates Amendment (RSAs Provided by Registered Organizations) Bill 1999 Telecommunications Laws Amendment (Universal Service Cap) Bill 1999 Criminal Code Amendment (Bribery of Foreign Public Officials) Bill 1999 Financial Sector Reform (Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill (No. 1) 1999 Financial Sector (Transfers of Business) Bill 1999 Miscellaneous688010000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. J.A. Crosio)—The Speaker advises the House that the Deputy Speaker has fixed 21 June 1999 at 8 p.m. as the time for the next meeting of the Main Committee, unless an alternative day or hour is fixed.Committees68806880688010000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. J.A. Crosio)—The Speaker has been advised by the Chief Government Whip that he has nominated Mr Brough to be a member of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Resources in place of Mr Baird.Motion (by Mr Abbott)—by leave—agreed to:That Mr Baird be discharged from attendance on the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Resources and that, in his place, Mr Brough be appointed.6880688017:51:006880Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—On behalf of the Minister for Finance and Administration, I move:That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Refurbishment of 4 Treasury Place, Melbourne. The government has approved the provision of $15.8 million from the Federation Fund to undertake the refurbishment of the Commonwealth Offices at 4 Treasury Place, Melbourne, subject to the normal Public Works Committee processes. No. 4 Treasury Place was constructed in two stages between 1911 and 1913 as the first purpose-built federal building. The building consists of six levels and a total gross area of 6,364 square metres. It is located on the eastern fringe of Melbourne's central business district within the Treasury Reserve and adjacent to a number of state government owned buildings of similar age, character and historical significance.No. 4 Treasury Place is of national significance because of its close association with the history of the Commonwealth of Australia, and it is of continued importance today as the Melbourne offices of the Prime Minister, cabinet, Melbourne based ministers and visiting ministers, the Governor-General and former Governors-General. Having regard to the significance of the building and its place within the historic Treasury Reserve precinct, retention of the building in Commonwealth ownership and continuation of its historic use as Commonwealth parliamentary offices is considered the most appropriate course of action.The building will, accordingly, continue to be leased by the Ministerial and Parliamentary Services group of the Department of Finance and Administration and by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. It is proposed that non-government senators and members who currently are located in private sector leased premises elsewhere in Melbourne be accommodated within the building, with consequent rental savings.The proposed refurbishment works include repair of the render work and application of new finishes, demolition of the non-original fourth-floor additions, restoration of the slate roofs, replacement of all building services and refurbishment of amenities throughout the building. Public access will be provided to an information resource centre which is proposed to be established within the building basement. The proposed works will restore and protect this valuable heritage asset while providing the building tenants with an efficient and safe working environment with reduced building operational costs. The level of disruption associated with the proposed building works necessitates the relocation of tenants to alternative accommodation for the duration of the refurbishment works. The proposed refurbishment works are expected to take about 14 months, and the official opening of the refurbished building will form an important part of the Centenary of Federation celebrations in Melbourne early in the year 2001. I commend the motion to the House.17:54:006881Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—The opposition supports the refurbishment of 4 Treasury Place, but there is one caveat that I wish to place on the record. In the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration it will be noted that he made reference to the prospect of non-government members and senators currently occupying rental accommodation elsewhere in Melbourne being relocated within 4 Treasury Place. As it currently stands in the speech, that is a very open-ended expression. It would include members such as me, and I am not necessarily all that keen on moving just at the moment. And I am sure that members representing areas such as Dandenong and Altona would not necessarily be all that keen on moving to 4 Treasury Place.I have sought clarification from the parliamentary secretary's office on this point, and I have been advised that this is intended to refer only to 90 Collins Street, Melbourne where currently there are two non-government members with offices: Senator Conroy, the shadow minister for financial services and financial regulation, and the member for Hotham, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. So I just want to place on record that the reference in the speech relates only to those two members and their current rental circumstances.I would also add an additional caveat that, to the best of my knowledge, there has been no discussion or consultation with either the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or Senator Conroy about this proposition. So, in stating our support for the refurbishment of 4 Treasury Place, it should not be taken that we are in any way accepting any forcible change to those offices without further appropriate consultation, which I am sure there is no intention of denying on the part of the government.17:56:006881Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—I thank the honourable member for Melbourne for his contribution. As he pointed out, there are currently only two opposition members permanently located at 90 Collins Street: the honourable member for Hotham and Senator Conroy. My understanding is that Senator Conroy has indicated a wish to move somewhere other than 4 Treasury Place but that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is prepared to go to 4 Treasury Place. But with this there is no compulsion being imposed by the government. Those two members will have the opportunity of moving to 4 Treasury Place, if they so wish. Of course, it will save money if they choose to do so. If they choose to go elsewhere, then that is a matter for them.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills6881r7816881Debate resumed from 30 March, on motion by Mr Slipper:That the bill be now read a second time.17:57:006881Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—The Commonwealth Grants Commission Amendment Bill 1999 is fairly straightforward. Essentially it extends the powers of the Commonwealth Grants Commission to look into payments made by the Commonwealth with respect to Aboriginal affairs and the various categories of payments that come within that area. I wish to make some observations with respect to the Grants Commission and the current approach of the government to those issues, payments to the states and the like.The substantive issues relating to this particular legislation really fall within the scope of my colleague the shadow minister for Aboriginal affairs. So I will leave to him the advocacy of those particular matters and deal essentially with the Commonwealth-state financial relations issues that flow from this particular piece of legislation, the role of the Grants Commission and the government and the changes the government is making with respect to Commonwealth-state financial relations and, indeed, which it perhaps ought be making but is not.The first observation I wish to make is that in the A New Tax System or ANTS package the government essentially is neutering the previous role of the Grants Commission in being the arbiter of the carve-up of Commonwealth payments or general purpose payments to the states as between the various states, and particularly the balance that applies with respect to the entitlements of the individual states which flow from a highly complex formula.It was pointed out at the time by the opposition that, in the A New Tax System (Commonwealth-State Financial Arrangements) Bill 1999 , the provision was made for the GST revenues that are to be allocated to the states to all be allocated on the basis of the decision of the Treasurer as between the individual states. This is a quite dramatic change from the traditional approach which has applied where the Grants Commission has been involved in determining the relativities that should apply as between the states.The Grants Commission is not even mentioned in that piece of legislation. It does effectively enable the Treasurer, after consultation with the individual states, to determine what the distribution of the GST money should be between the various states. It is significant that, as a result of the deal between the Democrats and the government, some of the features of the original package which were trumpeted as being particularly important, in particular the abolition of nine state taxes, have been substantially modified. We now see that six of the nine state taxes have effectively been put off into the never-never as a result of that arrangement.It is also worth pointing out that, under the original tax package, the proportion of state revenue which was to be derived from the states' own revenue sources was to drop from 57 per cent to 42 per cent. In other words, under the existing tax system, roughly 57 per cent of all state revenue derives from state taxes and charges or non-Commonwealth sources of revenue. Under the new tax system, as originally submitted by the government, that proportion was to drop to 42 per cent. It is not clear to me what the new proportion will be as a result of the changes that have been made to the package. The government may have calculated this figure but, given the confusion that has surrounded the proposed changes to the existing state taxes and charges and the non-abolition of particular taxes that were previously going to be abolished, I suspect that it probably is not yet clear.Nonetheless, it is clear that, irrespective of the modifications arising from the deal with the Democrats, the new tax package will mean that a substantially smaller proportion of state revenues will come from sources over which state governments actually exercise control. In other words, we are seeing an exacerbation of the problems of vertical fiscal imbalance. Vertical fiscal imbalance is the imbalance between the raising of the revenue, the responsibility for making decisions with respect to taxation, on the one hand; and the responsibility for spending that revenue on the other.It has been a source of longstanding comment and criticism of our federal system in Australia that there is substantial imbalance between those two responsibilities, and that tends to generate a number of problems. I am not one who gets carried away with this issue. I do think it does have some significance but, nonetheless, it has been an issue on which the Treasurer, for example, has held forth at some length in the past, so it is rather ironic to see him presiding over a new tax arrangement which will seriously exacerbate something which he has in the past said is a significant problem.I also want to draw to the House's attention a question which was raised by the Auditor- General in a recent report on payments to the states which is relevant to this legislation, and the scrutiny and management of those payments. The Auditor-General recently undertook an examination of specific purpose payments to the states, which are payments that are made attached to a particular program or with certain strings attached to them.The Auditor-General found that, for example, in the 1996-97 Commonwealth budget year, the costs to the Commonwealth, particularly borrowing costs, could have been reduced by the sum of $32 million had the payments to the states been made in smaller and more frequent advanced payments. The Auditor-General also found that, with respect to the roughly $69 million of administration costs associated with the making of specific purpose payments to the states:. . . significant SPP administrative cost savings may be achieved by developing appropriate SPP performance indicators that better measure SPP efficiency.It is also interesting to note that the Auditor-General made the following observation as well:The most disappointing aspect from the 1997-98 survey was the limited inclusion of performance indicators, targets and milestones in SPP Agreements and/or any associated documented administrative arrangements.We are essentially dealing with a situation where the Auditor-General has identified substantial structural or systemic weaknesses in the arrangements between the Commonwealth and the states with respect to the transfer of money through specific purpose payments. This is something which the federal government has really failed to address and take any notice of, and it has failed to extract the available savings that could be sought as a result of improving the administration and efficiency of the system of specific purpose payments.In the context of this legislation, it is rather ironic that the government is seeking to increase the powers of the Grants Commission in order to facilitate the examination of how money goes to the states with respect to Aboriginal programs and the relative balances between the states, but is failing to deal with what are much more fundamental problems in the structure of the payments to the states that have been identified by the Auditor-General.I should note in this context that a couple of weeks ago I wrote to the Auditor-General urging him to give serious consideration to the Roads of National Importance Program in his endeavours, which is a program introduced by the current government that I believe has insufficiently rigorous criteria for decisions with respect to which roads will be funded by the Commonwealth. I am pleased to say that the Auditor-General has just written back to me indicating that he already had this matter in hand and that he will be conducting an examination of the Commonwealth roads program, including the roads of national importance category, in the very near future, a matter which I am sure the shadow minister for transport and regional services will also take some considerable interest in.I look forward to seeing the results of that examination when we see some of the roads that have received Commonwealth funding under the Roads of National Importance Program and some of the other roads which have not, and ask ourselves what we think of the relative national importance of those various roads. It will be interesting to see what the Auditor-General says about the criteria under which those decisions are actually made.Finally, may I reiterate my concern in this context about the 1999 federal budget papers and the change to accrual accounting which saw the removal of the forward estimates with respect to functions and subfunctions in the federal budget. As a result, that has made the transparency of the budget considerably less than it has been in the past, in spite of the fact that it was possible for the Department of Transport and Regional Development to produce accrual accounting based forward estimates in its 1998 portfolio budget statement and it was possible for the Department of Health and Aged Care to submit forward estimates based on 1999 budget figures in recent estimates hearings.So there is no question that these things can be done but, sadly, the government has determined to remove this data from the federal budget. If there have been transitional problems involved in this process, I call on the government to acknowledge that publicly and indicate that it will return the forward estimates to the next federal budget. That is all I have to say on the Grants Commission legislation. As I indicated before, the opposition will not be opposing the bill in the House or the Senate, and I will leave it to my colleague the shadow minister for Aboriginal affairs to deal with the substantive matters in the legislation which obviously relate primarily to his portfolio.18:09:006884Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANEWN6GroomLP10—Thank you to the member for Melbourne for his support for the Commonwealth Grants Commission Amendment Bill 1999 , although I must admit that I am at a loss to understand his point with regard to the near farcical method of appropriation of funds through Premiers Conferences. Whilst I do not say that in any way to belittle the important role of the Grants Commission, I think anything that moves away from the theatre of the premiers coming down here, thumping the table and pretending they are hard done by will certainly be a move for the better. What we will see under the A New Tax System that we hope will pass through the Senate in the next two weeks is a far more logical and secure process for the states in terms of their receiving their funding from the Commonwealth taxes.To move to the more pertinent issue of the Commonwealth Grants Commission Amendment Bill 1999 , let me say that, in the lead-up to the 1998 election, the coalition government made a commitment to indigenous and white Australians that we would work with the indigenous community to develop a fairer and more appropriate process to improve funding allocation for indigenous groups and peoples. This commitment aimed to ensure that a needs based distribution of funds was allocated to improve the position of indigenous Australians through an independent assessment of their overall need for services and programs.In my electorate of Groom in south-east Queensland, there are approximately 3,000 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders living in Toowoomba, the electorate's main centre, and a further 3,000 living in the surrounding area. These Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are currently assisted by a number of indigenous organisations, including the Downs Aboriginal and Islander Company, the Downs Aboriginal and Islander Women's Support Group Inc., the Goombungee Aboriginal Housing Company Ltd, the Goolburri Aboriginal Corporation Land Council, the QEB Sports and the South-East Queensland Aboriginal Corporation for Legal Services. These all allocate and administer federal government funds.Despite the efforts of groups such as these and the efforts of the state and federal governments, as is evident throughout Australia, many indigenous people are still struggling to maintain a satisfactory standard of living, to find and keep employment and to remain crime, drug and alcohol free. Despite the years of effort and billions of dollars in funding for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander programs, the statistics are still appalling. For example, mortality rates amongst indigenous adults aged between 25 and 54 are six to eight times higher than for other Australians and are persisting at this level. Indigenous peoples have unemployment rates at more than twice that of the general population and, if it were not for the government's Community Development Employment Program for indigenous people, the rate would be four times higher. Indigenous school retention rates are half those of other students, and so the list goes on.This bill aims to address seriously these grave issues by enabling better targeting of government funding. The bill gives the Commonwealth Grants Commission the power and responsibility to both conduct an inquiry and develop continuous measures for indigenous and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission funding so that resources can be targeted more effectively into areas of greatest need.It should be noted that in 1995 the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission's Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner recommended that the Commonwealth government initiate a comprehensive study by the Commonwealth Grants Commission on the potential application of the fiscal equalisation principle amongst indigenous communities in Australia. This recommendation came following presentations and submissions by Aboriginal people to the Commonwealth Grants Commission in December 1992 and throughout 1993 appealing for both an inquiry and an application of fiscal equalisation to Aboriginal communities, Aboriginal local governing bodies and other Aboriginal service organisations.The Commonwealth Grants Commission is an independent statutory authority which is renowned worldwide for its independence and absolute freedom in its recommendations to federal government and, therefore, it is well placed to perform this task. The nature of the inquiry will necessitate the Commonwealth Grants Commission working closely with the departments and agencies charged with the distribution of funding for indigenous-specific programs. In addition, the inquiry will allow Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to themselves make written or oral submissions to the Grants Commission about the nature and magnitude of their concerns.I believe the absolute independence of the Grants Commission is essential in dealing with the complex and sensitive issue of indigenous funding and relations with regard to this inquiry. This will ensure that any findings are deemed credible by both the indigenous and the general community. The inquiry aims to be concluded by December 2000 so that arrangements can be made according to inquiry findings for fair and equitable Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission and other indigenous-specific funding in the 2001-02 federal budget.However, I must stress that indigenous peoples are by no means forgotten in the current federal government budget laid down for 1999-2000. A record amount of money—some $2.23 billion, an increase from $1.98 billion in 1998-99—was committed to indigenous-specific program expenses in that budget. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs portfolio accounts for only 56 per cent of total indigenous-specific program spending. These specific program expenses will be distributed not only from the Aborigi nal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs portfolio—which, as I just said, accounts for only 56 per cent of the total indigenous program spending—but also from a range of mainstream portfolios particularly targeting health, housing, education and employment.This funding aims to fulfil the government's 1998 election commitment to indigenous Australians to assist them to move `beyond welfare'. This aim of government has been strongly supported by Aboriginal leaders, including Noel Pearson. I have met with Noel Pearson on a number of occasions and talked with him at length regarding the issues relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. I share the desire he has to see these people freed from the vicious circle of welfare dependence. I refer to an article from the Courier-Mail of Friday, 30 April of this year which quotes Mr Pearson. Mr Pearson makes a number of very pertinent points with regard to the current parlous state of some Aboriginal communities and the way he sees welfare as a poison rather than an assistance. He says in the article that he has appealed to us as the government to help break the welfare dependency of indigenous people so they can live a more healthy and dignified life—I just say `hear, hear' to that. He goes on to say:"We have to get rid of the welfare system from Aboriginal community governance in Cape York Peninsula, and get rid of the welfare mentality that has taken over our people . . . The article states:Mr Pearson advocates a changed system in which money coming into communities—and there are 13 on the cape which he specifically refers to that cover some 12,000 indigenous people—is controlled by "a new interface" between the federal and state governments and ATSIC.He said the new administration needed to be "holistic and de-welfared" . . . Again, I can only give my full support to that. Furthermore, he said:"Welfare is a resource that is laced with poison and the poison present is the money-for-nothing principle."The article concludes with Noel Pearson saying: "Aboriginal people should participate in the real economy—where you don't get money for nothing, you have to work. Aboriginal people lived at the lowest, most miserable end of the market economy for most of colonial history and the time has come to change all that. Welfare is a parasitic exploiter."The Government is paying these people to sit around the canteen to drink and destroy the prospects of their children—destroy society. The madness of that system has to stop."This bill will assist us to help break that welfare dependency and ensure that the assistance programs that the government puts in place are well targeted and able to ensure that the Aboriginal community becomes part of our community and grows and prospers as we grow and prosper.With the Howard-led coalition government, I am working in my local area to ensure that initiatives which bring the financial freedom to our indigenous population are put in place. Some of the government's initiatives include a new program to address Aboriginal employment through the creation of the Indigenous Employment Program, involving total expenditure of $52 million in 1999-2000. A further $6.8 million will be spent for improving access to primary health care facilities as well as additional expenditure on current initiatives, including $6 million for better access to medicines and $3.6 million for additional assistance for residential aged care. Furthermore, there will be a growth in education expenditure of $16.3 million, which will include programs to improve literacy, numeracy and school retention rates.One thing to note in this funding discussion is the fact that the proportion of the population identified as Aboriginal has continued to increase well in excess of natural increase. In fact, in 1996 the census showed that there were 352,970 people identified as indigenous—up from 80,000 in 1966 and 33 per cent more than in the 1991 census. This can be partly explained by the fact that a child only needs to have one parent who is identified as indigenous to claim an indigenous origin. This steep increase both places pressure on government programs and accentuates the need to make more progress in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander programs.Ultimately, this bill and the subsequent review aim to ensure that the funding of programs and the service for Aboriginal people, through ATSIC and other indigenous agencies and specific portfolio areas, is adequate, equitable and largely effective in reducing the social problems faced by Aboriginal people. It is not my intention to regurgitate the allegations of abuse and misuse of funding for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in the past. However, it is essential that indigenous people throughout Australia receive as much or as little as they need to confront the problems they are facing. In doing so, we need to ensure that the government, indigenous organisations—be they ATSIC, Aboriginal legal services or Aboriginal housing companies—indigenous groups and individuals are provided with avenues and mechanisms to fully justify their financial grants through a structured process of accountability.It is not enough to offer Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders only financial support. As a government we must ensure that relevant funds reach those in need and do so in a transparent and accountable process. In my short time as the member for Groom, I have met with numerous indigenous organisations and individuals in my electorate and have developed a good working relationship with them. I have had a number of these groups and individuals approach me over the past eight months concerned and angered over allegations of misuse and misappropriation of government funds, of nepotism and of other inappropriate behaviour. If only to halt the mistrust and conflict within Aboriginal groups, let alone to assure the government and the wider community that precious taxpayers' money is being used where it is most needed, there must be a new and independent system of allocating, distributing and accounting for indigenous funds. This bill provides that system. It will also address other issues raised with me by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander representatives in Groom.The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander region is based at Roma in Queensland and includes not only my electorate of Groom but also adjoining electorates and the Aboriginal settlement of Cherbourg. Groom has a significant population of indigenous people, and in fact the city of Toowoomba has more indigenous people residing in it than many other indigenous townships such as the one I just mentioned, Cherbourg, yet it does not receive a fair distribution of funding, in my opinion, in regard to this factor. Under this bill, it is envisaged that the commission will be able to inquire and compare the relative needs of indigenous Australians in key areas by geographical region. This will ensure that where there is an alleged or apparent anomaly the commission will be able to establish the facts of the situation. This will be of great assistance in removing the politics and controversy which seem to always surround the allocation of funds in not only my electorate of Groom but also, I understand, right around Australia. In a related issue being considered and addressed, it is my experience that some Aboriginal individuals, groups and organisations charged with administering indigenous funds do not have the directorship experience or expertise and/or are not knowledgeable in the processes of proper financial and company management. As a result, the processes of these boards sometimes leave something to be desired in terms of good corporate governance. I say this not to accuse or lay blame on persons or organisations but rather to highlight a further area to be addressed and one which relates to the billions of dollars spent by government on behalf of taxpayers to specifically address indigenous needs. Within the community, questions and allegations of wastage and misappropriation of taxpayers' money are continually raised in regard to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander funding. In fact, any alleged corruption within these ranks may be no more to do with corruption than to do with innocent mistakes and a lack of proper knowledge of proper processes. I think we need to help where we can in this area.It is unfair to the general tax paying public and to those charged with impossible responsibilities to continue to allow financial decisions to be made by those who, by their own admission, are not adequately skilled or trained in corporate governance or trained in the allocation, management or distribution of government financial assistance. I have taken the first step of working with an Aboriginal housing company in my electorate to see if we cannot address this problem. They have made it clear to me that they are keen to ensure they operate in the best and most accountable method possible, and I am currently working with them to ensure that they are able to upgrade their skills in corporate governance and acting as directors of the housing company.I state this example to illustrate to this House that the board may be only one of many in my electorate, in Queensland and perhaps throughout Australia who inadvertently are not operating to the best of their potential. As such, these boards could improve the quality of service to the people they have been elected to serve through some extra training and some extra gaining of skills.The Commonwealth Grants Commission Amendment Bill 1999 , by allowing the commission to inquire and set down measures for indigenous funding, for the first time in Australia's history will only heighten the importance of improving the skills and accountability with regard to indigenous funding. The commission's reputation as a fully independent body can only assist this inquiry, and the measures that arise from it will ensure that funding is received by those indigenous organisations, groups and individuals who are most in need. I certainly will be informing the Aboriginal groups in my region about this bill and its subsequent inquiry and urging them to submit their facts, views and ideas to the Commonwealth Grants Commission so that the results do indeed benefit those in need on the Darling Downs. My constituents in Groom will welcome this bill, and I very much look forward to the positive results it will bring to the indigenous people in Groom and throughout Australia.Sitting suspended from 6.28 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.20:00:006887Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM4T4BanksALP00—The explanatory memorandum for the Commonwealth Grants Commission Amendment Bill 1999 states:The amendments to the Commonwealth Grants Commission Act allow the Government to ask the Commonwealth Grants Commission to develop measures of relative disadvantage that could be used to target resources for the indigenous community more effectively to the areas of greatest need.I say at the outset that I and the opposition welcome this amendment bill and give it our total support. The particular section that is to be inserted into the act is section 18, headed `Inquiries relating to indigenous persons'. That section reads as follows:The Commission must inquire into and report to the Minister upon any matters that the Minister refers to the Commission relating to:(a) works and services in respect of indigenous persons that are provided or funded (directly or indirectly) by the Commonwealth or an authority of the Commonwealth or;(b) a grant of financial assistance under section 96 of the Constitution to a State for the purpose of being applied by the State, or an authority of the State, to pay for works and services in respect of indigenous persons in the State or;(c) a grant of financial assistance made by the Commonwealth to a Territory, or an authority of the Territory, for the purpose of being applied by the Territory or the authority to pay for works and services in respect of indigenous persons in the Territory.This amendment is overdue. There is a bit of a history to it, and I am indebted to the Parliamentary Library for again producing an excellent digest on the current bill. I will, with the appropriate acknowledgment, draw on that digest to give a bit of the history. I think it sets it out much better than I can.A workshop was organised by the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation on 18 and 19 November 1998. Mr Bob Searle, the Secretary to the Grants Commission, explained that Aboriginality is one of the disability factors behind the commission's recommendations on how Commonwealth general revenue grants should be distributed. His paper, `The Threshold of Benchmarking', states:Aboriginality is a specific disability factor in 18 of the 40 state functions the commission analyses as it attempts to equalise the capacity of each state and territory to deliver the average standard service.The workshop also identified problems with the state of available data regarding indigen ous disadvantage. The executive summary said:Since reliable data is an essential tool of effective benchmarking, this is clearly an obstacle that must be overcome as quickly as possible.The workshop reflected that there had been misinterpretation of the role of ATSIC, and the executive summary said:Within current resources ATSIC is hard-pressed trying to meet its core obligations as a source of policy advice and as a monitor of program delivery to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. It is certainly not in a position either through its legislative charter or in terms of its capacity to fill the gaps left by mainstream providers at either the state or Commonwealth level.The guide goes on to say:These statements indicate that arguably there are advantages to the commission having statutory authority to investigate the equities in the funding of works and services for indigenous people.The guide also points out that another issue to be noted regarding the bill is the role of the commission in monitoring issues of indigenous disadvantage and that that has been on the agenda for some time. In `Going Forward: Social Justice for the First Australian', a submission presented to the then Prime Minister, the Hon. Paul Keating on 17 March 1995, there was a recommendation that the commission should be given the power to establish measures to assess the performance of state and territory governments in addressing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander needs. Indeed, the footnote says:This submission was identified as the first major task of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation in its second term, and its recommendations were based on extensive consultations with indigenous communities organised jointly by the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation and ATSIC.I am the Labor party's representative on the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation and I can recall also receiving material from the current Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, Senator Herron, in the last term of the parliament where he did highlight the question of benchmarking. I do commend him because I believe it was on his initiative that this benchmarking came through. I remember that at the national ALP policy debate in Hobart last year we also supported the idea of benchmarking and testing the states as to where the money was going.I just give this history to show that this government has delivered on what were recommendations in the previous Labor government. This is above party politics. It has cross-party support because it is the right thing to do. Too often we have a situation where ATSIC is regarded as the sole provider, and it is often criticised when the truth of the matter is it is only part of the equation. ATSIC needs to be there in partnership with state and territory governments and the Commonwealth government, but there is a lot of money going from the Commonwealth to the states and the territories. We hear about accountability for ATSIC. This is a method of providing accountability for the money that we give to state and territory governments.Quite frankly, in the past state Labor governments have been remiss in not spending the money that has been given to them by the Commonwealth appropriately. I put it on the record that it is my view that we should be targeting the money more directly to this area. I do not believe in giving money to the states unfettered. There needs to be the partnership arrangement, and we need to benchmark. I applaud this amendment to the Grants Commission because it will, hopefully, provide the Commonwealth government with professional and timely information as to where the money is going and the ability to decide needs.The bill will extend the powers of the Commonwealth Grants Commission to enable the commission, on reference from the Minister for Finance and Administration, to inquire into and report on works and services carried out with direct or indirect Commonwealth funding through a Commonwealth grant to the states and territories. I repeat that the opposition welcomes the initiative which we believe will be useful for gathering information to better target Commonwealth funds while also assisting the analysis of the effectiveness of state and territory programs funded by Commonwealth money. It is my view that people do not mind money going to indigenous causes; they just want to make sure that it is properly spent, that it is not being wasted and that it is being done appropriately. I think that is a noble cause, and this goes part of the way to allaying those concerns.The idea regarding the role of the commission in monitoring issues of indigenous disadvantage is not new. As I have already said, a submission by the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation was presented to the former Prime Minister, Paul Keating, on 17 March 1995 recommending that the commission should be able to assess the performance of state and territory governments in addressing indigenous needs. The then Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, Mr Michael Dodson, included in his 1995 report a summary of submissions made by a number of Aboriginal organisations to the commission during its 1993 review of the relativities of the distribution of funds between the states and territories. All government agencies involved in the provision of services and programs to indigenous Australians will benefit from information resulting from the commission's proposed reporting powers. This information will assist in clear benchmarking for services provided across any level of government services which involves Commonwealth money.Of particular interest for the opposition is the potential for the commission to investigate the effectiveness of Commonwealth funded services provided by states and territories. Benchmarking the achievements in indigenous services has always been difficult, especially with those services provided by the states and territories. The states and territories have an appalling record on the provision of some of the most basic services to indigenous Australians, services that the rest of the community takes for granted. This has often resulted in the disadvantageous conditions in which many indigenous people have to live. Some of these jurisdictions have improved their handling of indigenous services while others are in dire need of improvement. This amendment bill offers the opportunity to benchmark the achievements of the states and territories in the use of funds originating from the Commonwealth, ensuring that Commonwealth money is spent appropriately in both its purpose and outcome. The amounts of money are not insignificant. Identified Commonwealth specific purpose grants to the states and territories for indigenous programs was estimated at nearly $220 million in 1998-99, down from the 1997-98 figure of nearly $237 million, mainly in the vital areas of health, infrastructure and education.The information provided by the commission would also be of value to ATSIC, providing the government is prepared to use these proposed powers in a constructive rather than a critical way. The recent performance audit by the Australian National Audit Office on the delivery of housing and infrastructure to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities was favourable to the work done by ATSIC in providing Aboriginal housing services. However, the report noted at page 13:While ATSIC collected appropriate performance information from NAHS projects for 1997-98 it was not adequately analysed or reported at the state/territory and national levels.In other words, reporting was identified as an area for improvement and of importance for future strategic targeting. With ATSIC's limited funding, the Commonwealth Grants Commission could complement ATSIC's own evaluation of its program results. I previously mentioned the workshop and that quote. But, again, we come back to the need to be monitoring ATSIC programs through not only the commission reporting process but also, and perhaps more importantly, those essential services that should be provided by the states and territories.The opposition therefore wholeheartedly welcomes this initiative to gather, analyse and interpret further information regarding the effectiveness of indigenous programs involving Commonwealth money, whether directly or indirectly. It will add to the future delivery of these programs and make benchmarking more effective and achievable. I do, however, have one concern. That is also outlined in the `Concluding Comments' in the Bills Digest. It basically says that there is no compulsion in the legislation for the reports gathered by the commission to be tabled for public consumption, only where legislation relevant to the subject matter of the report is to be introduced. Such information should be available regardless of its relevance to immediate proposed legislation. This measure seems to fly in the face of indigenous self-determination by the possible constriction of information to the commission and the office of the minister for finance, away from indigenous people themselves and those who provide services for them.There are several research facilities, including those with a specific indigenous focus such as the Australian Institute for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies and the Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research at the Australian National University, which would also find such information of great value to their research. These organisations provide an invaluable body of information on which we all rely for the formulation of public policy in the area of indigenous affairs. In short, I am saying the commission should be given these powers to inquire but we should not hide the results of the report.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—It does not hide it.4T4Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM—No, I am not saying it does. But I say to the honourable member that we support the bill but we are saying, `Let's make it transparent; let's make it more publicly available.' That is all we are saying. We are worried that it might not be as readily or freely available as it should be. I think the best way to overcome the problem of ignorance is to get the material out to as many organisations as possible. That is why we welcome this bill. As I said, it is an initiative that was being worked through by the previous government. We lost office before we brought it in. So I commend this minister for continuing down the track and taking the advice.The problem in recent years has been the misinformation that is out there in the community—the view that ATSIC is the sole provider. We are conducting a review into the Land Rights Act of the Northern Territory at the moment and what staggers me is the reviewer, John Reeves QC, giving evidence to the committee the other day and then doing a press conference talking about health, housing, education and other needs, when that is not the function of the Land Rights Act. That is not the history of the Land Rights Act. He is someone with supposed talent and education. He is someone at that level who has got it badly wrong and is justifying that as the basis of his report, when the truth is that state and territory governments should have been providing this service. We have been giving them money for years but we have never held them accountable. We have never said, `How have you spent the money?' We have never benchmarked them. We have never looked at whether it is going to those most in need. So John Reeves QC has got it badly wrong.That is why I say to my friends opposite that we need to encourage inquiries of this sort, to gather the information and then to make it publicly and widely available. This is where I disagree with my friend opposite—only in this respect. People should not have to require it under freedom of information. We should be publicising it for all to see. My view is that this is an area outside politics. There are people of goodwill on all sides of the political fence in relation to this. The way to overcome the prejudice and ignorance in the community is to have this information freely available and publicly available. As I go round to the communities I find that there is goodwill towards our indigenous brothers and sisters but there is this scepticism and worry: is the money being properly spent? ATSIC at the moment is a nice whipping tool for the rednecks and the others out there: `Let's blame ATSIC'.There is not enough money going to ATSIC to provide these services. But who has asked for accountability from the Territory government for what they have been doing in relation to literacy levels? Bilingual education is a big issue that my friend from the Northern Territory talks about. And I know that my friend, Mr Lieberman, the member for Indi, and I have been through this review on Reeves. I have seen a change of attitude in government members of the committee as we go out to the coalface. But there is a lot of misunderstanding out there. A lot of people are blaming the land councils, ATSIC and others for non-provision of these services. This bill will help us with that.Maybe the Territory government or the Queensland government will come out of this smelling like roses, in terms of the provision of their services. If it is the case that I am perpetuating a myth—that they are not properly spending their money or whatever—this professional body, the Grants Commission, will be able to deliver a report to us and then we will know. Maybe they have been providing these services in a timely and effective way. Maybe they have been spending all their money. But we are not going to be in a situation where we do not have the information. That is why the opposition supports this legislation wholeheartedly.If and when we are returned to government, and if I am in this portfolio or another portfolio, I will be encouraging the continuing use of this provision in the act, to continually monitor the provision by state and territory governments of services to our indigenous brothers and sisters. We have to get it right. It is not appropriate that we continue to go down a path where we just give money to the states and territories. We have a constitutional obligation under the 1967 referendum to work in partnership with the states and territories for the betterment of indigenous Australians. This bill helps us down that path. I commend it to the House.20:20:006891Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELINHV5GreyLP10—The Commonwealth Grants Commission Amendment Bill 1999 had its genesis during the 1998 election campaign when Senator Herron, the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, said the government would work with the indigenous community and ATSIC to develop and adopt arrangements to improve the allocation of funding for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander persons. As the member for Banks, the shadow minister, has acknowledged, there is this tension in the community about how effectively that money is being spent and whether we are making the sorts of improvements the community generally—Aboriginal and European—and the government and the opposition would like to see Aboriginal communities make. This is one small step in endeavouring, through the Grants Commission, to develop a method that could be used to target resources more effectively to the areas of greatest need.The bill provides the minister with the power to ask the commission to inquire into matters relating to the financing of works and services for indigenous persons. At present, the Commonwealth Grants Commission Act 1973 restricts the commission to inquiring into matters relating to the relative needs of the states and territories for general revenue funding and to advising on the needs of the small island territories. The budget provided funds for the commission to conduct an inquiry to develop measures of relative need for groups of indigenous people.The Grants Commission is a highly respected body that has much experience in assessing the relative needs of different communities. It is well established in the Australian system of government to be able to undertake this task. Of course we would understand that the Commonwealth Grants Commission is an independent statutory authority that prepares its recommendations to government objectively after considering all relevant facts and perspectives on matters before it.Consistent with its method of operation, any inquiry into the distribution of funds for indigenous programs would involve extensive consultation with government agencies currently involved in distributing those funds and with the indigenous community. A commission inquiry will give the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community greater assurance that the distribution of funds for indigenous programs is based on need. A commission inquiry would relate to the distribution of funds, not the quantity of funds available for distribution. The member for Banks touched on the current parliamentary inquiry into land rights in the Northern Territory and mentioned John Reeves QC.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—An ex-Labor member.HV5Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELIN—I understand so, Mr Parliamentary Secretary. That is quite right. But can I just say that in public evidence last week I think Mr Reeves endeavoured in a very learned way to try to explain to the members, to the Commonwealth and to the community generally that there has been tension between a very narrow focus on just land rights and ignoring the issues of social justice, health, education and all of those issues of disadvantage. That is where we are currently, 23 years or so after the introduction and passing of the original Commonwealth land rights act for the Northern Territory.So we have moved on significantly, and John Reeves was endeavouring to explain to the committee and to the community that perhaps the land rights legislation has achieved almost as much as could reasonably be expected—that is, something like 50 per cent of the Territory is in the control of Aboriginal people, owned by Aboriginal people—yet we see the significant disadvantage and significant issues of poor health, poor literacy and poor unemployment rates for Aboriginal people. So Reeves was really just trying to open up the debate to a point where we needed to think of land rights in conjunction with those overarching issues of disadvantage.As for the general funding program for Aboriginal people, we spend in specific Commonwealth assistance to Aboriginal Australians now something around $2.2 billion annually. So we have in the new initiatives a radical—some say—and innovative $52 million program to tackle the fundamental economic problem facing Aboriginal people, and that is unemployment. I will not give the figures; they are well documented. Everybody understands they are very much higher than the national average.On the extension of Aboriginal health expenditure, we have $6.8 million for improving access to primary health care, $6 million for better access to medicines and $3.6 million for additional residential aged care. We have an expansion of the education expenditure—remember, this is the additional expenditure—for indigenous students to a total of $16.3 million to improve literacy, numeracy and school retention rates. And we, of course, have an extension of the ATSIC-Army Community Assistance Program worth $41.2 million over four years. The expansion of this very successful venture has gone down very well, particularly in the remote Aboriginal communities of Australia.Some observers may have suggested in the past that the sheer scale of disadvantage faced by indigenous Australians is such that we cannot afford to observe normal prudential and economic arrangements in allocating funding. However, I believe that the opposite is plainly true—that is, the sheer scale of the disadvantage in question means that the Commonwealth and Aboriginal agencies need to be even more effective and prudent but certainly maximising the value of all taxpayer dollars. Because the need is so great, we just cannot afford not to use those dollars well. So, by improving the basis of government analysis, we can allocate funds more efficiently and derive greater benefits for Aboriginal people and for Australia as a nation.The Commonwealth Grants Commission, as I have said earlier, is acknowledged as a world's best agency in its field. I really want to emphasise this point, because the Bills Digest—and members who have read it will have noticed this—dwells to some degree on the issue of division, tension, between the government and certain Aboriginal groups. I do not accept that the basis of this tension from either side of the fence is as bad as some would have us believe, because I believe there is a vested interest, a political interest, in maintaining the heat.Nevertheless, I do not think that sort of activity, that sort of approach, gets us anywhere over the longer term. Therefore, in the sense of lowering the temperature on the Aboriginal issues of Australia, it is important to remember that the Commonwealth Grants Commission will retain its valued freedom as a statutory authority to make recommendations and will continue to operate in this manner when it joins with ATSIC and other relevant agencies and authorities to examine the present distribution pattern in the forthcoming inquiry.In conclusion, I support and welcome the comments of the shadow minister, the member for Banks. The need to move forward in this debate and the need to reassure the community of the proper expenditure and the maximum effectiveness of this expenditure for Aboriginal people are key issues for all of us, wherever we sit. I welcome this legislation and wish it a speedy passage.20:29:006893Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—I rise this evening to support this legislation. In doing so, I want to make some comments and perhaps place some caveats on the level of my support in the context of the target that seems to be the objective of the legislation, at least in terms of where the government is coming from and from the speeches I have heard during the course of the debate.As other speakers have indicated, this bill will amend the Commonwealth Grants Commission Act 1973 to enable the Minister for Finance and Administration to request the Commonwealth Grants Commission to inquire into and report on (a) works and services provided to indigenous people funded directly or indirectly by the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth authority; (b) grants made under section 96 of the Constitution to a state for works or services provided to indigenous Australians; and (c) grants made by the Commonwealth to a territory to pay for works or services for indigenous Australians.As other speakers have said, this is indeed timely. But I am a little bit concerned by the tenor of some of the contributions. Clearly there is a view—at least held by some—that the purpose of this legislation is to make Aboriginal organisations and Aboriginal people more accountable for the expenditure of Commonwealth funds. I have had a lot of experience, over many years, through working with Aboriginal organisations, through being a member of this parliament and having administrative and executive responsibilities for Commonwealth funds being expended to and through Aboriginal organisations. I do not think there is any doubt now that, in terms of accountability, most—if not all—Aboriginal organisations which are funded from the Commonwealth purse, either directly or indirectly, are the most accountable organisations in this land. The audit functions of ATSIC are very strong; far stronger than those prevailing for other Commonwealth bodies for the expenditure of Commonwealth funds in other areas—for example, in community services.In a sense, part of this debate and part of this bill is addressing something which I do not think exists. There is no doubt that there are organisations which may need some work, but I take you to the words of the member for Groom, who made a contribution earlier this evening. He talked about the need for people to be trained and to understand their roles as directors of organisations and the concepts of good corporate governance. I have to say there is a measure of hypocrisy in that assertion. The hypocrisy comes of course because, on the one hand the government would argue that Aboriginal organisations and Aboriginal communities should be cognisant of the needs of good corporate governance and acknowledge and be aware of their legal responsibilities under the various acts of parliament in relation to money.Yet Mr Entsch, one of the government's own members, is not asked to have the same measure of accountability. For him it is appropriate, it appears, not to worry about the laws of good corporate governance, not to be concerned about the functions of a director or a company secretary. He can act with disregard to the law, but not so Aboriginal organisations. I say to those opposite that whilst you are thinking about the merits of this legislation, you should ask yourselves this question: should the rules you want to apply to Aboriginal people and Aboriginal organisations around Australia apply to everyone?0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: the standing orders are quite clear as far as casting improper imputations or actions on members of parliament. If indeed the member for the Northern Territory does have criticisms of any member, then he could do so by substantive motion.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hawker)—I have listened to the member for the Northern Territory and I think he is straying fairly close to that point. I would suggest to him that if he wishes to bring up a substantive motion, that would be the way to do it.IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDON—I am happy to, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I make the point that you were here during question time today when this very question was asked of the government. And I am saying to you that there are double standards which prevail in this House in the attitude of government members and their leadership to issues of corporate governance and directorships. The same level of scrutiny and public accountability that they want Aboriginal people to be aware of should be applied to their own members of parliament—it is as simple as that.And let Aboriginal people and Aboriginal organisations and every other Australian now have the comfort of the new legal principle of inadvertence—so that, if they happen to make a mistake, if they do not fill in a form properly, or they do not lodge the right form, they can say they overlooked something, or they anticipated they did not have to do it, and thereby be forgiven for whatever error of judgment they might have made—whatever law might apply to their culpability. Because that is exactly the standard the government is now applying to its own members.I just wanted to make that point, because when I sat in my office this afternoon watching this debate I thought the member for Groom was sailing very close to the wind in terms of hypocrisy about the measure of public accountability and probity that people expect of agencies which are expending government funds and the level of probity that the government expects of its own members.There are a range of other issues which I think bear close examination. I note from the minister's second reading speech that the government's intention is:. . . to ensure that funding for programs aimed at improving the situation of Australia's Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island communities is distributed on a needs basis.Mr Deputy Speaker, I want you to contemplate what that means. I am aware of the role of the Grants Commission in making assessments of government expenditure. I ask you to contemplate, when making judgments about needs based funding, whether or not any account is taken of the way in which funds are expended by state and territory agencies once they are received from the Commonwealth government in the form of general purpose payments. I say that because I understand that the objective of this legislation is to particularly address specific purpose payments as well as other payments made directly or indirectly for the purposes of funding Aboriginal programs.In saying that, I note that in the Northern Territory, of which I am very much aware, we ought to be contemplating these sorts of issues. I wonder whether or not they will be contemplated by this review. Around 78 to 80 per cent of the Northern Territory government's budget revenue emanates from the Commonwealth in the form of specific and general purpose payments. To be precise, of that percentage, 76.9 per cent is in the form of general revenue payments and 23.04 per cent is in the form of specific purpose payments.I understand from the tenor of this legislation that this will give the Grants Commission the capacity to examine and review that 23.04 per cent of specific purpose payments funds. That is that part of the total amount of federal government outlays which forms 80 per cent of Northern Territory government budget revenue. It is the proportion of those budget government revenues that emanates from specific purpose grants.I wonder whether it will take account of the fact that the Northern Territory takes out in administrative fees 46.1 per cent—that is 46.1 cents in every dollar—of the money made available to the Northern Territory government for the purposes of education. Will this inquiry have the capacity to review those items? The Northern Territory government also takes out for administrative purposes 52 cents in the dollar of every dollar that is spent by the Commonwealth in the Northern Territory on health.You do not have to be Einstein to work it out. This financial year, the government is making available to the Northern Territory $19.8 million for IESIP, the Indigenous Education Strategic Initiatives Program. Of that $19.8 million, 46 per cent will be taken out in administrative costs by the Northern Territory government on the way through to its Aboriginal recipients. If we are talking about accountability in this place, let us understand what the mark should really be.This government and successive Commonwealth governments have made available general purpose revenue grants to states and territories for the purpose of ensuring that there is appropriate horizontal fiscal equalisation. We all know the importance of horizontal fiscal equalisation. I take you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to two paragraphs in volume 1 of the Grants Commission's own report on general revenue grant initiatives for 1999. I will quote from part of paragraph 1, which refers to the principle of fiscal equalisation:The concept is seen as part of the fabric of nationhood—that better endowed States or regions contribute to the capacity of those whose resource bases are not as abundant or whose needs are greater, for reasons beyond their own control.Paragraph 17 states:Horizontal fiscal equalisation thus serves an important equity objective. It also says something about the value that Australians place on nationhood; it has been described as `the glue that holds the federation together'.I note that there may be some concerns about the way that has been expressed. It is from the Grants Commission's own report. If it is the glue that holds the nation together, we as the guardians of the nation's purse strings would want to know how the funds which supply the glue are actually expended. We need to ensure that they are properly accounted for by those state and territory governments.But they are not, because general revenue assistance is, by its nature, untied. Once it gets out of the hands of Treasury and gets passed on to the state and territory governments, we have no idea where it will end up. It may end up in areas such as Aboriginal education or health, but more often than not it does not. There is plenty of work to indicate that Aboriginal Australians are missing out on their share of general purpose revenue.Mr Deputy Speaker, I take you to two reports. I will not go into any detail about them. I am sure that you will refer to them at your leisure. You will seek them in the library with a great deal of zest and fervour when learning more about the way in which government funds are allocated and spent in this country. The first report is entitled Expenditures on health services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. It is by J. Deeble, C. Mathers, L. Smith, J. Goss, R. Webb and V. Smith and is dated May 1998. It is a very good expression of the way in which moneys are being misused by state and territory governments. Resources are made available as a result of funds from the Commonwealth government in the form of general revenue grants to the states and territories. It examines how they should be spent to ensure that the element of disadvantage which Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people suffer in this country is properly addressed.The issue is not properly addressed not because ATSIC, the Aboriginal health services or the Aboriginal legal services do not spend their dollars wisely but because state and territory governments do not accept their proper responsibility in this country. It is worth pointing out that, just on this issue of general revenue assistance, the Northern Territory government receives five times the national average. It properly receives five times the national average because of the elements of disadvantage referred to by earlier speakers and the way in which the Grants Commission makes its recommendations. If the Northern Territory gets five times the per capita average in Commonwealth general revenue payments, the Northern Territory government has a responsibility to account for those resources. However, it does not distribute those resources according to the same principles of horizontal fiscal equalisation because it sees them as untied grants to be used as it wants, the same as every other state or territory government.The situation will worsen if the government's tax package comes into being. Whilst there will be a three-year transitional period, after that transitional period there will be an increase in this revenue base of untied grants, effectively using the same formula but with no accountability. There is no way for this parliament to oversight the way in which these general revenue payments are being spent by state and territory governments in the context of addressing the dire need of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Austral ians in terms of health, housing, education and employment.It is all very well for the member for Grey to get up here and talk magnanimously about $52 million being made available in this latest budget for employment services. For the member for Grey's information, and for the information of other members of the government, all but two of those programs are rebadged programs initiated by the Labor government. I know this because I was responsible for their administration in the 1993-96 period. The expenditure of the then Labor government was twice the $52 million figure that this government now says is a generous contribution to alleviate unemployment for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. I welcome the contribution, but let us dispense with the fairy tales about how great a gesture it is, because it should be a lot more in the general context of this issue.As a parliament, we have a responsibility. We have already referred to specific purpose payments. I mentioned the question of moneys which are currently made available in the Northern Territory. The amount for this financial year is $322.1 million. Of course, what will happen—and I hope that I am right in my analysis of this bill—is that it will give the Grants Commission the capacity to review the way in which these funds are utilised by state and territory governments; in this case, the Northern Territory. I hope I am right because, if I am wrong, this legislation will need to be amended again to ensure that it can be done. I might also say that the difficulty we will have subsequent to the enactment of the government's new tax system will be that, over time, these specific purpose payments will diminish as we get more general purpose payments paid out in the form of the GST revenue being raised by the state and territories based, roughly I assume, on the Grants Commission formula. That will mean that the ability to make state and territory governments accountable for the use of these funds will be further diminished.Let us not get too carried away about how successful we will be in our fight to make sure that Commonwealth government resources, taxpayers' funds, are properly utilised by state and territory governments if we are not prepared to hold the state and territory governments to account for the general purpose revenue payments that they receive currently from the Commonwealth government. It is clear to me that they are not. Effectively, they say to the Commonwealth government, `These funds are ours to dispense with as we will,' despite the fact that, in the context of the formula which the Grants Commission uses, the Aboriginal indigenous disadvantage is an element that is not secure in the way in which these funds are made available.I was going to make some reference to Mr Reeves. All I can say is that the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act was never designed for the purposes for which Mr Reeves now wants it to be designed, and it still has a long way to go to serve its full functions, as it is presently described. I do not think it is appropriate to use the land rights act as a tool to address this disadvantage. The way to address this disadvantage is not only to top up funds which are already made available for these purposes but to ensure that not only Aboriginal people and organisations are accountable but state and territory governments are made to do their job and that they are properly accountable for every dollar they get from the Commonwealth government through the processes of the Grants Commission in assessment of general revenue grants.20:49:006897Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—I base many of my comments on the Commonwealth Grants Commission Amendment Bill 1999 on my experience with the Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs, which is looking into the matter of indigenous health. I will not pre-empt the findings or the decision making of that committee, but I would like to draw on some of the experiences and some of the situations that the committee has faced during the 3½ years that I have been privileged to be a member.I would like to talk very generally about the bill and the introduction to it. This financial year, 1999-2000, a record $2.2 billion has been provided by the Commonwealth for specific programs for indigenous people. By any measure this is a very significant allocation, just over half going to the Aboriginal Affairs portfolio and the remainder going to health, employment, education and family and community services. It is astounding that there has not been more improvement, given the sums that have been poured into progress for indigenous people over the past two decades or so.Despite all of these billions of dollars and all of the hard work and good intentions, the result nationally has been overall a disappointment. The facts speak for themselves. Indigenous people have a life expectancy 15 to 20 years less than other Australians. Their babies are still two to four times more likely to die at birth, and their mortality rates for those aged 25 to 54 are six to eight times higher than for other Australians.The member for the Northern Territory has been very fulsome in his criticism. However, I think the epitaph for his government is that given by the prominent Aboriginal leader, Noel Pearson, who spoke only a few weeks ago about the ongoing crisis facing his people in Cairns. He described welfare largely brought in by the previous government as a `poison' which had turned many of his people into `drunken parasites'.Mr Pearson also challenged indigenous leaders to cease disempowering their own people by continually depicting them as victims. Most of all, he accepted that along with rights come responsibilities—to themselves, their wives, husbands, children, elders and the general community. These insightful and very thoughtful comments were not just true, they were courageous. It is an undeniable fact that, had any non-Aboriginal said them, the accusation would have been made immediately that such a person was a racist. That, very sadly, is how debate on this fundamental issue has been so corrupted.The stark statistics reveal a community that is depressed and dysfunctional. Indigenous school retention rates are half those of other students. Indigenous households are larger, with a greater proportion of single-parent and multi-family households with more overcrowding. Income levels of indigenous people, particularly those in non-urban areas, are significantly less; and only one-third—compared to 70 per cent generally of other Australians—own or are buying their own homes.But while the community is in crisis it continues to grow. The 1991 census revealed a population of 345,381 indigenous people, with the 1996 census revealing a population of 386,049—an increase of 11.8 per cent. While improved census-taking procedures and an increased self-identification made their contribution to this significant jump, nevertheless the estimated rate of increase is 2.3 per cent per annum—double that of the total population. Indigenous women tend to have more children than others, with more than 13 per cent having five or more children compared with just over five per cent of all Australian women.Almost uniformly, the statistics paint a picture of unrelieved gloom and little hope. Here and there, there are some rays of promise. Can I say, after having visited remote Aboriginal communities, some really are leading the way and they give one a great deal of inspiration and hope. One of the statistics that is encouraging is that indigenous children are staying at school longer, with the proportion leaving school at 17 and over having almost doubled from 11.5 per cent in 1986 to 20.8 per cent in 1996. The proportion of indigenous people attending technical, further education, university or other tertiary institutions also more than doubled in that decade from two per cent to 4.1 per cent. While these figures are still abysmally low, they are headed in the right direction and do give encouragement.However, the simple stark and undeniable fact remains that the billions of dollars spent by federal, state and territory governments over the past two decades or more have, by and large, not produced anywhere near the desired result. It was that realisation that led to this bill. As the minister said when introducing it, the bill is central to the government's intention to ensure that funding for programs aimed at improving the situation of indigenous people is distributed on a needs basis. Frankly, one only need travel—as I have in the last 3½ years—to remote commu nities or even look around the major cities to know that there is something very badly, very seriously wrong with the current funds distribution process.Allow me for a moment, if I may, to pick on two examples. I will not name the councils concerned, but these certainly struck a chord with me, bearing in mind that these councils receive a disability payment from the Commonwealth in their Financial Assistance Grants, or FAGs. In one council, young children from an indigenous community were continually ill because of the water. It was discovered by our committee that a small amount of funding from the local council would have provided a filter that would have cleaned this water. The cost was in the order of four figures, or possibly less—a very small sum for several hundred young children suffering quite severe illnesses through contaminated and poor water.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—Has it been fixed?FK6Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLY—I will get to that shortly. This was a matter where I felt the local council really had behaved in a very, very poor manner. In another, we saw a local indigenous community that had a settlement some 10 or 12 kilometres out of town. It had a local school; it was a very nice little community with nice homes that were well cared for. The council, however, had decided to build its dump in the hills that drained down onto the community. Frankly, I cannot think of anything more appalling, and this had only been done in the last few years. It was an absolutely disgraceful situation. How any shire council could in all conscience build its town dump in the hills such that it drained down onto its local community members, indigenous or otherwise, really fails my understanding. So not only are there matters of distribution of funds that need addressing, I think there are matters of conscience and responsibility as well.I would like to move on to the bill further. The bill will allow the Commonwealth Grants Commission, a body respected by all sides of politics, to become involved. The commission, an independent statutory body, will be able to take submissions from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and thus be able to get to the vital grassroots and learn of real direct and immediate problems, such as those we have seen during our 3½ years of travel. The commission will then report to the government on how best to respond to these needs and better direct funding. I am confident that this will bring not just a better financial accountability and a better delivery of funding but, equally important, a genuine sense of ownership of programs amongst indigenous people. They will be given the key responsibility that Noel Pearson spoke of recently.I said earlier that there were some rays of promise. One initiative which has even won some praise from the opposition—although not entirely from the member for the Northern Territory—is the $115 million comprehensive employment policy for indigenous people. It was launched on 25 May by the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, Mr Peter Reith. The policy and its program are practical yet innovative, and the minister is to be congratulated for his practical, commonsense approach.As with everything else, sadly the statistics on employment for indigenous people are depressing. Their labour force participation rate is 63.8 per cent for males and 42.65 for females, compared with 71.4 per cent and 52.85 per cent respectively for the general population. Their unemployment rate, according to the 1996 census, is 22.7 per cent, more than double the then general rate of 9.2 per cent. If it were not for the Commonwealth's Community Development Employment Program, which provides work in many places where labour market opportunities are limited or non-existent, the unemployment rate would be four times higher.It was against this challenging background that Minister Reith and the government devised the program announced on 25 May. It has three principal elements: an indigenous employment policy, an indigenous small business fund and a more focused Job Network. As outlined by the minister, the centrepiece of the policy is a new $52 million indigenous employment program, which has a very strong emphasis on private sector employment. In all, there are seven elements of the new program. They are wage assistance for employers of disadvantaged indigenous job seekers; a placement incentive for community development employment projects; a package involving major private sector companies wishing to recruit indigenous Australians; projects providing structured training and employment opportunities for indigenous people in the private sector and with indigenous community organisations; a voluntary service to the Indigenous Communities Foundation which will aim to meet the needs of indigenous communities for skilled business advice, mentoring and other specialist assistance; a national indigenous cadet program which will provide opportunities for indigenous undergraduates with private and public sector employers; and a public awareness program aimed at indigenous communities, employers and the broader Australian community to support the policy.The small business fund, jointly funded by ATSIC, will provide funds to help establish new indigenous businesses and develop existing businesses by providing access to management, technical and other support services. It will receive funding of $6 million over three years from the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business and $5 million over three years from ATSIC. Job Network will remain the principal means through which indigenous people will find work. It is estimated that $63 million would be the share of services that indigenous people would receive through Job Network. The Indigenous Employment Program in particular will support the Job Network in achieving a better share of outcomes for indigenous job seekers.This is what real assistance is all about. It is based on recognising a need, on respecting and cooperating with the people it is aimed at helping and on a clear policy and philosophy that seeks to break the welfare mentality so criticised by Noel Pearson. The coalition has previously demonstrated its hands-on, no nonsense approach to fixing problems.The ATSIC-Army Community Assistance Program has provided a number of very needy remote communities with high quality health related infrastructure and the training needed to maintain it. I was most impressed with the work that the Army had done in communities such as the Maralinga community in South Australia. Obviously their work and their infrastructure have made a big difference to the lifestyle and the comfort of those communities, and there is a good deal more to be done.Last year, the Prime Minister announced a project specifically aimed at reducing the high incidence of eye disease in remote Aboriginal communities where the rate of blindness is 10 times that of the general population. There are many other shining examples and I hope that, from the work that our committee does and from the sound policy underlining this bill, there will be many more shining examples in the future. The importance of this bill cannot be underestimated for it marks a new beginning for indigenous people.21:04:006900Hoare, Kelly, MPMs HOARE83YCharltonALP00—I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the Commonwealth Grants Commission Amendment Bill 1999 . As members here would be aware, I hold a great passion for issues and government policy which affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and I will oppose with vigour any decisions made by this government which could be detrimental to indigenous people. The bill before the parliament amends the Commonwealth Grants Commission Act 1973 to enable the Minister for Finance and Administration to request the Commonwealth Grants Commission to inquire into and report on works and services provided to indigenous people funded directly or indirectly by the Commonwealth or Commonwealth authority, grants made under section 96 of the Constitution to a state for works or services provided to indigenous people and grants made by the Commonwealth to a territory to pay for works and services for indigenous people.In his second reading speech, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration stated that this bill is aimed at improving the situation of Australia's Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities by ensuring that funding for programs is distributed on a needs basis. I have no doubt that the speakers who have gone before me and the speakers who will come after me all agree with that great philosophy. If the government's intent is genuinely based on the establishment of a decent and acceptable standard of living for indigenous people, I would applaud it and support it.As part of my current involvement with the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, I have had the opportunity to travel with my colleagues—the honourable member for the Northern Territory, the shadow minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs, the other members of the committee and the honourable member for Indi, who is the chair of that committee—to remote communities in the Northern Territory to speak with the people who live there.During those visits, however, I found it appalling and obscene that suggestions were made by some conservative quarters—and this was also alluded to by the member for Grey during his contribution to this debate—that Aboriginal people should spend their royalty income on areas such as health, housing and education. Health, housing and education services provided to Aboriginal communities must be provided by the state or territory government just as health, housing and education services are provided by those governments to non-indigenous communities.If the Commonwealth Grants Commission finds in the future that, for example, the Northern Territory Country Liberal government has failed in its provision of these services to Aboriginal communities, then I would support the government's actions to rectify any anomalies. However, if this bill is an integral part of the government's current agenda in indigenous affairs, then I believe that we in the Labor Party and the Australian indigenous communities have every right to be sceptical.The role which this bill is outlining for the Commonwealth Grants Commission centres on one of the roles which has been traditionally the responsibility of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. One of ATSIC's core obligations has been to provide policy advice to the government and to monitor program delivery to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. ATSIC is currently not in a position to pick up areas of neglect left by mainstream providers at either the state or the Commonwealth level. Within its current resources, ATSIC is facing difficulties trying to meet core obligations.The Howard government's record on the treatment of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission and issues relating to indigenous affairs has been nothing short of abysmal. Let me just outline some features of that record. On 10 April 1996 at a Parliament House press conference, the Prime Minister announced that the government would introduce legislation to amend the ATSIC Act to provide for the appointment of the ATSIC chair and reduce the number of regional councils. He also announced the appointment of a Special Auditor to determine whether prospective grantees were fit and proper persons to receive public money and proposed to amend the ATSIC Act to enable an administrator to be appointed if the minister was satisfied there had been fraud, gross mismanagement or failure to respond to a general directive of the minister. I think the member for the Northern Territory spoke quite eloquently on similarities to that situation.In the federal government's August 1996 budget, federal expenditure in the area of indigenous affairs was cut by $470 million over four years. ATSIC expenditure fell from $968.5 million in 1995-96 to $894 million in 1996-97. This was not a result of a transfer of any significant function to another portfolio area. Indeed, overall indigenous specific expenditure fell dramatically in the 1996-97 financial year. Expenditure in some other areas fell dramatically and some programs—for example, the Community and Youth Support Program—were terminated altogether.In September 1996 Minister Herron announced that the special audit of ATSIC had been suspended after being ruled invalid in the Federal Court. However, he rejected calls for the government to pay the $830,000 bill, saying that ATSIC had gained considerable benefits from the audit. The Special Auditor was still required to report and did so in October 1996. There were 1,122 ATSIC funded organisations reviewed and 95 per cent were cleared for funding.In April 1998 a bill to reorganise the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission was introduced into the parliament. Under the bill, HREOC will be renamed the Human Rights and Responsibilities Commission and will consist of a president and three deputies. One of the deputies will deal with both race discrimination and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander social justice, whereas previously there were two commissioners for those two areas. In May 1998 ATSIC chairman Gatjil Djerrkura responded to the government's budget by saying:Of the four priorities constantly emphasised by this Government—health, housing, education, and employment, only health has received a significant increase in funding . . .No more funds have been provided for housing, despite an estimated $4 billion deficit in housing and infrastructure in Indigenous communities across Australia and despite the impact of poor living conditions on the health of our communities.In the face of a looming crisis in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander unemployment, growth of ATSIC's Community Development Employment Projects (CDEP) scheme will be tightly restrained.And overall expenditure on Indigenous-specific programs by the Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs appears to have been cut next financial year.As a matter of fact, DEETYA expenditure on indigenous specific programs fell from $416.3 million in 1997-98 to an estimated $384 million.In July 1998 ATSIC chairman Gatjil Djerrkura tried to seek an early meeting with the Prime Minister about the implementation of the Native Title Amendment Act. He said:I am concerned that the Prime Minister did not appreciate the value of gaining our input before proceeding to sign off on his agreement with Senator Brian Harradine, despite the fact that this element of the legislation contained limited gains for us.. . . . . . . . .Mr Howard heads a Government which is in retreat on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs.In July 1998 Minister Herron issued a press release expressing his deep concern over media reports that a two-day conference in Broome organised by the Kimberley Land Council was costing over $150,000 of taxpayers' money. Minister Herron sought a special audit from ATSIC's Office of Evaluation and Audit into ATSIC conferences. In an address given to the UN Working Group on Indigenous Populations, Gatjil Djerrkura said:Recently the tabloid press mis-reported the cost of a conference organised by the Kimberley Land Council in West Australia. The Government did not wait to check the facts, which showed the cost was within industry guidelines.It seized the opportunity to publicly justify a Special Audit of all conferences, seminars and meetings resourced by ATSIC over the last two years.No such accountability requirements are imposed on the activities of mainstream agencies.The Special Audit is a dangerous and costly act of discrimination against our people.. . . . . . . . .No matter the findings, it will perpetuate the myth that every black dollar somehow ends up in the red.The ATSIC budget fell from $973 million in 1997-98 to an estimated $960 million in 1998-99. Overall indigenous specific expenditure increased slightly but, after adjusting for the CPI, it actually represented a slight fall.In August 1998 Senator Herron alleged that ATSIC-funded organisations attempted to keep their books closed to examination by the Registrar of Aboriginal Corporations. Also in that month in a joint statement the Prime Minister and the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory announced an in-principle decision that the Northern Territory become a state on 1 January 2001. The announcement was opposed by many indigenous groups, and Aborigines were concerned that they were being left `sitting in a gum tree' while decisions were being made on their behalf. In September 1998, again without consulting ATSIC, the coalition government announced a proposal to mainstream responsibility for indigenous heritage protection. The policy would transfer responsibility for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act to Environment Australia.In September 1998 Deputy Prime Minister Tim Fischer described the Northern and Central Land Councils as `blood sucking bureaucracies'. In January 1999 cabinet agreed to abolish Abstudy and move indigenous students on to the means tested youth allowance. The minister was reported as saying that `ATSIC seems to have lost its way' and he would advocate that cabinet approve removing control of housing from ATSIC. In March of this year the Attorney-General, Daryl Williams, dismissed the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination report which found that the Australian government is committing racial discrimination and is in breach of Articles 2 and 5 of the International Treaty on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.In summary, the main concerns expressed by ATSIC and other indigenous organisations are the devolution of Commonwealth involvement in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs to state and territories, in particular the native title legislation and the heritage legislation; the government's rejection of ATSIC as the government's principal adviser on indigenous issues, for example through the expansion of the Office of Indigenous Policy in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and through a lack of consultation on major issues; a fear that ATSIC will be gutted, for example quarantining parts of the ATSIC budget, lack of consultation, removal of heritage administration and threats of removing housing and CDEP to mainstream departments; and a diminution of social justice and cultural issues and an overemphasis on accountability and economic issues.The government has not responded to the previous government-initiated social justice report and instead has stressed `practical, commonsense' policies. There have also been examples of what might be termed `symbolic silence'. These include the failure to speak out against or counter statements by Pauline Hanson and One Nation, the refusal to apologise to the stolen generation, the refusal to accept the concept of self-determination and the refusal to use the term, the refusal to accept that reconciliation might take the form of a treaty because this would imply separate nations, and the refusal to recognise anything further than prior occupation in the preamble to the Constitution.As I stated in the beginning of this speech, I sincerely hope the government is genuine about ensuring the advancement of Aboriginal people. I am sure I will be joined in this hope by the honourable member for Indi when he follows me in this debate. He has shown his sincerity and his social conscience on these issues as chair of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs committee. I would hope that in any contribution to this debate Minister Herron will stop saying no to Aboriginal people, will stop saying no to a treaty, will stop saying no to Abstudy, no to housing, no to an apology, no to a memorial, no to indigenous administration of cultural heritage. I would hope that Minister Herron would say yes to any future steps proposed to advance toward true reconciliation.21:19:006903Lieberman, Lou, MPMr LIEBERMANXU5IndiLP10—I commend the minister, Senator John Herron, for bringing this legislation to the parliament, and I look forward to it being enacted quickly. I welcome the speech from the shadow minister, the member for Banks, supporting the legislation. Why do I support the legislation? I do not know the answers totally to the problems of addressing disadvantage for indigenous people, but like many Australians I am passionate in wanting to see those things addressed and wanting to see their disadvantage overcome as a matter of urgency.This bill will ensure that, on the advice of the best independent statutory body we have in this country, a world respected body, the Commonwealth Grants Commission, funding from the Australian taxpayer to improve the future of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians is distributed on a needs basis. In fact, all taxpayer funding for non-indigenous people should also be distributed on that basis. If it is not, this parliament should be doing something about it. What I am looking for is an equal approach to these things. That is why this legislation gives us a chance to bring out, through the independent body in consultation with indigenous people and service providers throughout Australia, a proper scientific assessment of the best way to address the needs of indigenous people.Our aim is to improve the situation of our indigenous people, a third of whom die earlier than any other Australian group of people, a third of whom are sicker than any other group of Australians, and whose unemployment rates are in the vicinity of 60 per cent to 70 per cent—unacceptably high in every respect. The need for an independent assessment is one that I see as absolutely urgent and paramount. I want this government to be recognised for taking leadership, and bringing the legislation to the parliament so that this need can be met.It will not provide all the answers. Let us not fool ourselves; it will not. But it will provide a proper basis for this government, future governments and indigenous people to form a proper understanding and partnership, and to build trust and confidence between each other on issues of prioritisation and allocation of taxpayers' funds. Might I say that the taxpayer will benefit substantially, because the taxpayer does not mind paying taxes to Australian governments if they are going to be used wisely and are going to bring about outcomes that we can all be proud of. It is terribly important that this process be in place so that we can be rewarded by the benefits of its advice and assessment from time to time and so that taxpayers' confidence can also be strengthened.Certainly there have been a lot of fevered statements from many people in Australia, some of whom do not know what they are talking about, about the allocation of funding and the like. That has caused taxpayers to suffer a lack of confidence in continuing to fund some programs. I am somewhat restrained in what I say because I am Chairman of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs and I am currently involved in chairing a major inquiry into Northern Territory land rights and I obviously have to keep an open mind, but I think you can understand what I am thinking.I conclude by saying that these measures by the government, supported by the opposition, are very welcome, but there will be a lot more for us to do because at the moment in Australia there is a hell of a lot of suspicion between indigenous and non-indigenous people and communities. But there is also a lot of goodwill and a lot of potential for forging worthwhile partnerships between Aboriginal people and non-Aboriginal people, between governments and between community organisations to deliver an outcome for all Australians and to overcome the disadvantage that we want to see addressed. The policies we have in place in some parts of Australia are too paternalistic. They have forced the indigenous people to rely too much on welfare, and that has sapped their confidence and energy. And why wouldn't it if you have generation after generation of families being told that they must rely solely on welfare? That is a terrible thing to sentence anyone to.Many programs have been inadequately targeted or not targeted at all, many of them have lacked in coordination in many ways and many of them lack the element of mutual responsibility—that is, there are two sides to all of these policies: there has to be a giving and a receiving. People receiving have to give. They have to also make a commitment to make sure that it all works for the benefit of all Australians. There has to be a true partnership. I am very optimistic. My final view is that this bill will help to bring about the outcomes that we need and create the right environment.I am very happy to see the opposition supporting this legislation. This is a turning of the page. We should put behind us some of the bitter words of politics we have heard uttered tonight and we should concentrate on the positives, the things we can do together, such as supporting this legislation, getting it in place urgently so that we can address the disadvantage that should have been removed, quite frankly, many years ago in Australia but which has continued to get worse because of the lack of policy. The policies are now in this legislation.21:25:006904Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—in reply—At the outset I would like to thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate. The Commonwealth Grants Commission Amendment Bill 1999 delivers on one of the government's 1998 key election commitments when during that campaign Senator Herron, the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, said that the government would work with the indigenous community to develop and adopt arrangements to improve the allocation of funding for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander persons. Specifically he said that the Commonwealth Grants Commission will be asked to develop a method that could be used to target resources more effectively to the areas of greatest need. This is a vital step forward in meeting the commitment given by the minister. I thank all honourable members on both sides for their commitment to this particular bill.The bill provides the Minister for Finance and Administration with the power to ask the commission to inquire into matters relating to the financing of works and services for indigenous persons. At the present time, the Commonwealth Grants Commission Act 1973 restricts the commission to inquiring into matters relating to the relative needs of the states and territories for general revenue funding and advising on the needs of the small island territories.The Commonwealth Grants Commission is world renowned, greatly respected throughout the community, and it is not a matter of controversy that this commission has done its job in an outstanding way. In fact, the ringing endorsement by the honourable member for Banks of this legislation is positive proof that the government is all about improving the situation of indigenous people, and it is widely recognised that this bill is all about making sure that we have better outcomes. The budget has provided funds for the Commonwealth Grants Commission to conduct an inquiry to develop measures of relative need for groups of indigenous people. The commission is an independent statutory authority and it prepares its recommendations to government objectively after considering all relevant facts and perspectives on the matter before it. The commission inquiry will give Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community people greater assurance that the distribution of funds for indigenous programs is based on need and a commission inquiry would relate to the distribution of funds. What we are really talking about is not the quantity of funds but rather how those funds will indeed be distributed.Reference has been made to the inquiry into indigenous health being conducted by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs. I was the chairman of that committee at the time we sought and obtained the reference. I think all of us would like to see improved health outcomes for indigenous Australians. Really we cannot be proud of the fact that indigenous peoples have a life expectancy of some 15 to 20 years less than for other Australians. Indigenous babies are still two to four times more likely to die at birth. Mortality rates amongst indigenous adults aged 25 to 54 are six to eight times higher than for other Australians and are persisting at this level. Indigenous people have much higher levels of unemployment. The school retention rates are half those of other children. Fewer indigenous families own or are purchasing their own home—30 per cent compared with about 70 per cent of the general population—and the list goes on.Having said that, this is the situation which, after 200 years of European settlement, confronts indigenous Australians. The Commonwealth government, through this minister, is responsible for ensuring that indigenous specific programs are being funded at record levels. In fact, some $2.2 billion will be expended in the year 1999-2000. The Aboriginal Affairs portfolio accounts for a little over half of these funds, with the rest going to the Health, Employment, Education and Family and Community Services portfolios.It really is important, however, that we see sustained improvements in the socioeconomic position of our indigenous people as a result of expenditure of this magnitude. The honourable member for Banks and other members alluded to the fact that the Australian community does not object when money is being spent on indigenous affairs. However, there is a demand in the community that that money be spent wisely and that we receive better outcomes. At the moment, we have these appalling statistics with respect to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians at a time when spending is at record levels. That is why this government is absolutely determined to make sure that the Aboriginals and the general Australian community receive better outcomes for the dollars being spent in the area of indigenous affairs.The honourable member for Melbourne referred to the accrual budget and that landmark reform which sees Australia being one of the first countries in the world to bring about budget reform which has openness and transparency. The honourable member for Melbourne wrongly suggested that we have removed the forward estimates; indeed, the budget papers provide greater transparency than ever before. So the member for Melbourne is quite wrong on that particular count. The member for Melbourne claimed that under our new tax system we would be neutering the role of the Commonwealth Grants Commission. The role of the Commonwealth Grants Commission in Commonwealth-state financial relations will not change. It will still provide advice to government on the distribution of funds amongst the states and territories. The arrangements specify that fiscal equalisation as applied by the Commonwealth Grants Commission will continue to be used in distributing funds amongst the states and territories.The honourable member for Groom referred in his able contribution to prior contact between indigenous communities and the Commonwealth Grants Commission. I want to confirm that the Commonwealth Grants Commission has a long history of direct consultation with Aboriginal communities and, given the eminence of the membership of the Commonwealth Grants Commission, I am confident that the passage of this legislation will see indigenous outcomes very substantially improved.The honourable member for Banks referred to the tabling of reports of the Commonwealth Grants Commission on indigenous affairs. The simple fact of the matter is that reports by the Commonwealth Grants Commission with financial implications must be tabled in parliament under the Commonwealth Grants Commission Act 1973. The Commonwealth Grants Commission believes in full and free disclosure and would recommend to the Minister for Finance and Administration that the report should be tabled. I am not aware of any report by the Commonwealth Grants Commission which has not been tabled, and so the concerns expressed by my colleague the honourable member for Banks are concerns that he ought not to worry about.The honourable member for the Northern Territory, like the honourable member for Charlton, mounted a spirited defence of ATSIC. I do not want to criticise ATSIC in any way. The purpose of this legislation is not to gut ATSIC, as has been suggested by some; it is all about finding a better funding mechanism so that the Australian community and the indigenous community within Australia are able to achieve better outcomes in response to the record spending which the government is allocating to indigenous areas.The honourable member for the Northern Territory also sought to criticise expenditure in the Northern Territory on indigenous affairs, and he asked whether this legislation would in some way monitor the performance of the Northern Territory government. I want to refer the honourable member for the Northern Territory to the Scales committee—that is, the steering committee for the review of Commonwealth-state service provision. That committee already reports annually on the comparative performance of state government services. If the honourable member for the Northern Territory is in some way unhappy with the performance of the government of the Northern Territory, then he ought to make an approach to the Scales committee with his concerns, because the government is very interested in making sure not only that funding mechanisms are appropriate but also that when the moneys are allocated to state and territory governments and agencies those funds are spent wisely so that indigenous Australians benefit greatly.The honourable member for Charlton introduced the only discordant note into this debate. I think it is eminently regrettable that she saw fit to play politics with this legislation when the honourable member for Banks actually claimed that this legislation had its genesis during the time of the former Labor government. It may be that the honourable member for Charlton ought to go home and talk to her father, her predecessor. He would obviously counsel her against her lack of wisdom in criticising very sound initiatives of the government.Also, there was criticism from the honourable member for Charlton suggesting that we were in some way seeking to inhibit the ability of ATSIC and seeking to remove ATSIC. ATSIC is a principal force of advice to the government on indigenous affairs and, indeed, will remain so under this particular legislation.This is a bill which is strongly supported by both sides of the House. We have had speaker after speaker commend the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, my good friend and parliamentary colleague from Queensland Senator John Herron. We aim to spend money on Aboriginal affairs, but we also wish to make sure that the funding mechanisms are what are best for our indigenous Australians. I commend the bill to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.6906Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Slipper) read a third time.Committees6906690669066906Madam DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. J.A. Crosio)10000PON/A10—Mr Speaker has received a message from the Senate acquainting the House that Senators Abetz, Bolkus, Boswell, Payne, Schacht and Stott Despoja have been appointed members of the Joint Select Committee on the Republic Referendum. (Quorum formed)Bills6907s213Consideration resumed from 31 May.690721:41:006907Entsch, Warren, MPMr ENTSCH7K6LeichhardtLP10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Bill 1999 will enact a regime which balances the need for the government to meet legitimate community concerns about the publication of illegal and offensive material online that is commensurate with the regulation of conventional media, while ensuring that the regulation does not place onerous or unjustifiable burdens on industry and inhibit the development of the online economy. Following the report of the Senate Select Committee on Information Technologies on the bill and further consultation with industry, the government made a number of amendments to the bill in the Senate to ensure that the intent of the bill is clear and its operation effective.The main elements of the proposed framework are the following. A complaints mechanism will be established, under which any person can complain to the Australian Broadcasting Authority about offensive material online. Material that will trigger action by the ABA will be defined on the basis of current National Classification Board Guidelines for film as material refused classification and rated X, and material rated R that is not protected by adult verification procedures. The ABA will be given the powers to issue notices to Internet content hosts, ICHs, aimed at preventing access to prohibited material which is subject to a complaint if it is hosted in Australia. Where material is hosted overseas, the ABA will be able to direct Internet service providers to comply with provisions in an industry code of practice registered by the ABA or with an ABA standard or, where there is no code or standard, to take reasonable steps, which are to be technically and commercially feasible, to prevent access.The framework will not apply to private or restricted distribution communications such as intranets or communications not in a stored form, nor to private emails, although industry codes of practice will be expected to cover emails that direct the recipient to highly offensive or illegal materials, and current provisions of the Crimes Act 1914 in relation to the offensive or harassing use of a carriage service will continue to apply. IPSs will be exempted from access prevention notices in relation to prohibited overseas hosted material where an offensive alternative arrangement is in place to prevent access by particular end users. Indemnities will be provided for service providers to protect them from litigation by customers affected by ABA notices.There will be a graduated scale of sanctions against service providers breaching ABA notices or the legislation will apply. A community advisory body will be established to monitor material, operate a `hotline' to receive complaints about illegal material and pass this information to the ABA and police authorities, and to advise the public about options such as filtering software that are available to address concerns about online content. The Commonwealth will be responsible for regulating the activities of ISPs and ICHs and the Attorney-General will encourage the development of uniform state and territory offence provisions complementing the Commonwealth legislation, including section 85ZE of the Crimes Act, that create offences for the publication and transmission of prohibited material by users and content creators. The government will establish a review of the legislation in three years.The use of online services is growing rapidly in Australia. There are now over 650 online service providers providing access to the Internet and other online services. The ABS estimates that more than 3.6 million Australians have accessed the Internet at some time. It is clear that the information accessed through this medium is increasingly influential in the community. Concerns have been expressed, both within the community and at government level, about the nature of the material that may be accessed by means of online services, specifically in relation to perceived ease of access to material that is either illegal, pornographic or unsuitable for children.The bill amends the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 to provide for the regulation of ISPs and ICHs. Schedule 2 to the bill makes a consequential amendment to the Crimes Act. It will introduce a regulatory framework for ISPs and ICHs and forms part of a two-tiered approach to online content regulation in which it is anticipated that the states and territories will enact complementary legislation creating offences for the publication and transmission of objectionable material by end users. This regulatory framework will be complemented by non-legislative initiatives directed towards educating and advising the public about the management of Internet content.For the Commonwealth's part in the national regulatory framework, the bill will ensure that ISPs and ICHs are not held liable for content of which they are not aware. Prohibited content that will trigger action by the ABA is defined in the bill on the basis of current National Classification Board guidelines for film, as material refused classification and rated X, and material rated R that is not protected by adult verification procedures.The bill provides for a classification procedure for Internet content that is separate to that applying to conventional media in the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995. This is on the basis that the classification act may not encompass all forms of Internet content. The Classification Board will, however, be required to classify Internet content subject to complaint in a way that corresponds to the way in which a film would be classified under the classification act, that is, in relation to the classification criteria that apply in relation to RC, X and R rated classifications.Internet content is defined as information that is stored and that is accessible to the public. Restricted access systems such as intranets and private communications such as ordinary email are excluded. Ephemeral content, such as chat rooms and real-time services such as streaming video and audio, are also excluded, except to the extent that they are stored or archived, given that it would not be possible to classify `live' material. However, this content will continue to be subject to section 85ZE of the Crimes Act that provides for an offence for the knowing or reckless use of a carriage service in a manner that would cause offence to a reasonable adult in all the circumstances. The bill amends the Crimes Act to put its application in this regard beyond doubt.The cornerstone of the regulatory framework is the complaints mechanism in part 4 of the bill. This will allow the ABA to take timely action to investigate complaints from the public and notify ISPs to prevent access to prohibited content. The bill provides that complaints can be made by Australian residents about prohibited content carried or hosted by ISPs and ICHs and breaches of industry codes, industry standards and online provider rules, directly to the ABA. A process for direct complaints to the ABA recognises that material subject to a complaint will not generally be originated by the ISP or ICH and that it would be unreasonable to expect them to adjudicate complaints about material for which they are not responsible or make judgments about whether particular material is prohibited. It would provide certainty for the industry, in that their responsibilities in relation to complaints will be limited to complying with ABA notices to prevent access to content.Complaints will not be able to be made about something that occurs before 1 January 2000. This is intended to afford ISPs and ICHs the opportunity to put arrangements in place to enable them to avoid contravening the regulatory regime proposed in the bill and to enable the ABA to ensure that it is in a position to deal with complaints. If in the course of an investigation the ABA is satisfied that Internet content hosted in Australia is prohibited content, the ABA will be required to give the relevant ICH a written notice directing the host not to host the prohibited content. This notice is called a final take-down notice and is intended to have ongoing effect.The ABA's decision will be based on a classification of the Classification Board. If the ABA is satisfied that, if the Internet content were to be classified by the Classification Board, there is a substantial likelihood that the Internet content would be classified RC or X, the ABA will be required to give the relevant Internet content host an interim take-down notice directing the host not to host the Internet content until the ABA notifies the host of the Classification Board's classification of the Internet content and requests the Classification Board to clarify the Internet content.If an industry code or ABA standard deals with procedures which Internet service providers will follow in dealing with overseas hosted Internet content notified by the ABA, the ABA must also notify the content to the Internet service providers. As a transitional default provision, the bill provides that, if there is no code or standard dealing with procedures in relation to a notified overseas host content, the ABA must give each Internet service provider known to the ABA a written notice directing the provider to take all reasonable steps to prevent end users from accessing the content. In determining whether particular steps are reasonable for this purpose, the ABA will be required to have regard to whether particular steps are technically and commercially feasible and to the regulatory policy of the bill. Particularly, regulation should be in a manner that enables public interest considerations to be addressed in a way that does not impose unnecessary financial or administrative burdens on ISPs and ICHs.The government does not propose to mandate any particular technological solutions to blocking overseas sourced material. ISPs will be exempted from access prevention notices in relation to prohibited overseas hosted materials where an effective alternative arrangement is in place to prevent access by particular end users. Such arrangements might include services providing access for a cache of material intended as family friendly and secure networks operated on behalf of schools. These arrangements will need to be specified in the approved industry code or ABA standard or otherwise approved by the ABA. Within this overarching complaints mechanism, to deal directly with prohibited content the bill takes a co-regulatory approach in which three interdependent levels of regulation apply. The government considers that this approach will best utilise industry expertise and the development of workable and practical codes of practice with which compliance is more likely, while ensuring that there is a legal framework to deal with any irresponsible industry behaviour. Therefore, the first level of regulation is self-regulatory, in which the industry will have the opportunity to develop its own procedures and codes of practice that are responsive to community concerns and that assist members of the community to manage their use and their children's use of the Internet.At a second level, the ABA will be able to intervene by directing compliance with industry codes or, if necessary, determining standards in relation to matters that would be dealt with where codes of practice are not developed by the industry or are deficient or fail. At the third level, generic service provider rules will apply to the whole industry and will underpin compliance and enforcement of the regulatory framework, including the complaints mechanism.In relation to industry codes of practice, ISPs and ICHs will each be expected to develop a single code dealing with matters specified in clause 60. The code specifically excludes matters that are covered by codes of practice developed under other relevant legislation, such as the Telecommunications Act. However, there is no impediment to these other matters being dealt with in a single document, as long as the document makes clear which module deals with the requirements of specified legislation and the regulatory body which has registered that module.The bill intends that the next level of regulation—ABA standards—will come into play where an industry code is not in place, is deficient, has partially or wholly failed, or where the ABA has requested an industry body to develop a code and it has failed to do so. Standards must relate to the same criteria as specified in the bill for codes of practice. The intention is that an industry section has had an appropriate opportunity to develop its own practices in this regard through the development of a code before regulatory intervention by the ABA. Standards will be disallowable instruments, and the minister will be able to give the ABA directions as to the exercise of its standard making powers.While the bill will commence upon royal assent, as a transitional measure the bill recognises that development of industry codes of practice—or ABA standards if a code is not developed by the industry—requires lead time. While some industry groups are well advanced in code development, these codes will need substantial modification to meet the requirements of the bill. This is particularly the case in relation to the requirement that a code be developed for procedures to be followed for notified overseas hosted content. It is therefore proposed to treat codes of procedures for overseas hosted content separately.The bill requires the ABA to make reasonable efforts to ensure that either an industry code is registered by 1 January 2000 or, if a code is not registered, an ABA standard is in place by 31 March 2000. The later date for possible determination of an ABA standard is intended to reflect the co-regulatory intent of the bill in which industry is given the opportunity to develop its own procedures before any regulatory intervention by the ABA.At the final level of regulation in the framework, the bill sets out the online service provider rules applying to all ISPs and ICHs. These will require compliance with ABA notices and directions. The ABA will be able to make additional service provider rules, but only in relation to a matter specified by regulation.The bill includes a range of enforcement mechanisms and sanctions that are intended to allow flexibility in dealing with breaches, depending on the seriousness of the circumstances. Codes of practice developed by the industry can be expected to include compliance mechanisms, such as the withdrawal of industry association rights or privileges, and compliance incentives, such as the right to display compliance symbols administered by the relevant oversighting industry body. Such mechanisms will need to be approved by the ABA through the code registration process. At the second level, in relation to breaches of codes, standards and rules, the ABA will be able to give formal warnings to indicate its concerns before taking other action. This might be appropriate where a breach, for example, was inadvertent or there were other extenuating circumstances.At the next level the ABA will be able to take intermediate action—for example, directing an ISP or ICH to comply with the code of practice. Failure to comply with this or failure to comply with a take-down notice arising from an ABA investigation could lead to more serious sanctions. Contravention of online service provider rules which require ISPs and ICHs to comply with ABA notices and directions will be a criminal offence, and a continuing offence for each day the contravention continues with penalties of $5,500 for an individual and $27,500 for a corporation. In cases of serious, flagrant or recurring breaches of online service provider rules, the ABA will be able to apply to the Federal Court for an order that an ISP cease providing a service or an ICH cease hosting content. This is intended as an extreme, last resort measure which, it could be expected, would be rarely if ever required.Proposed Internet specific state and territory legislation will apply with ISPs and ICHs only to the extent that they act as content creators. Clause 91 will give effect to this principle. The minister will also have the power to exempt a state or territory law from the operation of this provision and to declare that a specified state or territory law has no effect to the extent to which the law has an effect on an ISP or an ICH. This is intended to allow the finetuning of the limitation of ISP and ICH liability under state and territory laws. However, the bill also ensures that, other than in respect to this limitation in relation to ICHs and ISPs, state and territory laws such as laws of general application, like crimes and censorship legislation operate concurrently with the bill. The amendment of the Commonwealth Crimes Act in schedule 2 of the bill also makes it clear that this is not intended to limit or exclude the concurrent operation of any law of any state or territory.The government acknowledges that the unique characteristics and rapidly changing nature of the Internet presents specific difficulties in regulation of Internet content. It recognises that there are technical difficulties with blocking all illegal and offensive material that is hosted overseas but considers that, where it is technically feasible and cost effective to block material, this should be done. It is not acceptable to make no attempt at all on the basis that it may be difficult. Nor is it acceptable that community standards applicable to conventional media do not apply to the Internet. What is illegal or controlled offline should be illegal or controlled online.Recognising these difficulties, the government approach does not rely on regulation alone. The government, along with the community advisory body and its hotline service will be encouraging parents and educators to become better aware of means and tools to manage use of online services by minors. It will also encourage the development of content labelling by Australian content creators and the development of labelling standards to encourage service providers to offer a choice for consumers to subscribe to services that allow access to a cache of permitted material only or services that are filtered by the service provider on the best efforts available. The government will also actively pursue collaborative arrangements internationally in relation to online content codes of practice and online labelling of content. The ABA and the community advisory body will also be encouraged to develop information sharing and other collaborative arrangements with their equivalent bodies overseas.As part of this multifaceted approach, the bill will ensure that there are regulatory means to assist with the control of Internet content that is illegal or harmful to children. It does not attempt to place primary onus on ISPs or ICHs who are not responsible for content. It gives them certainty in relation to action to be taken when made aware of prohibited content and encourages the industry to develop its own procedures, responsive to the community.The government is confident that the bill and its overall approach to assist individuals to manage their own and their children's use of the Internet strikes the right balance between ensuring industry development is not stifled by overzealous laws or inconsistent or unpredictable regimes which could result in Australia's economic marginalisation while also responding to the needs and interests of the community. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.22:05:006911Evans, Martyn, MPMr MARTYN EVANSN36BonythonALP00—I am not leading for the opposition in this matter; my colleague the member for Perth and shadow minister for communications will do that at a later stage in the debate. He will, of course, more formally set out the opposition's response to the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Bill 1999 . However, it is my intention at the conclusion of my remarks to move on his behalf the second reading amendment which has been circulated to the House.I think it is important initially to look at what lies behind this bill. The community would be entitled to be very cynical indeed and very suspicious of the government's motives and timing in this legislation.7K6ENTSCHMr Entsch—Why don't you oppose it?N36Evans, Martyn, MPMr MARTYN EVANS—The honourable member will have to restrain himself and await the outcome of this debate to see what will occur in relation to the opposition's action on this. Ultimately, we opposed the bill in the Senate where the government refused to accept our very reasoned and reasonable amendments in this matter. I am sure the honourable member for Perth, in his capacity as the shadow minister for communications, will set out much more clearly than I can the opposition's response to the government's political motives in this bill. However, when one looks at the timing and the urgency with which the government has pursued this matter, one would, as I say, be entitled to be quite cynical about the way in which it has done so.This is an issue which the government discovered very suddenly—just at that crucial moment when it sought additional votes in the Senate for other legislation, for example, in relation to the sale of Telstra. One would be entitled to assume that there was some link between these items and that it was not entirely coincidental that the government was keen to rush through legislation to impose a censorship regime on the Internet at the very moment it wanted the vote of a certain Tasmanian senator.Far be it from me to be that cynical. The reality is that there is a reasonable proposition behind this legislation. It is not unreasonable to say—the opposition does not say it is unreasonable—that we should place some roadblocks in the way of children accessing unacceptable content on the Internet. It is a perfectly reasonable objective. To complain about the way that the government has handled itself in relation to this bill is not to suggest that we want to see children accessing unacceptable material on the Internet. That is not the case. It would be wrong to characterise perfectly reasonable opposition to some of this bill's terms and provisions, the cynical way in which the government has promoted it and the timing of this legislation as anything other than just that.The opposition is certainly aware of the need to review content on the Internet. It is aware of the need to ensure that illegal and unacceptable content by community standards is not too readily placed in the sight of children in this community. We all understand the need for that. The government has no monopoly on concern for young people. Indeed, it is quite improper of it to suggest that that is the case or to characterise opposition to this legislation as in any way condoning child pornography or pornography generally or, indeed, promoting such adverse community standards.However, it is quite wrong of the government to suggest that in some way this legislation will seek to address those kinds of concerns. The government comes in here and admits at the conclusion of the parliamentary secretary's speech that this is only an effort on its part and that it is only trying to do something. In fact, one could paraphrase what he said as, `The government is keen to be seen to be trying.'XH4McGAURANMr McGauran—No. You are putting words in our mouths.N36Evans, Martyn, MPMr MARTYN EVANS—I said that one could paraphrase his remarks. I did not say that they were his actual words.XH4McGAURANMr McGauran—And they're not accurate.N36Evans, Martyn, MPMr MARTYN EVANS—They are very accurate. In the concluding remarks of the parliamentary secretary's introductory speech, he quite clearly says, `The government says that just because it is almost impossible to achieve our objectives does not mean we should not try.' In other words, he was saying, `We want to be seen to be doing something about this not only in the community but also in the Senate'. This was particularly so a few weeks ago, when it really mattered. For that purpose, the government rushed this legislation in. It was hastily drafted. It was forced through a Senate committee process with unseemly haste. It was equally forced through the Senate with unseemly haste because the government knows that on 1 July, in all probability, the numbers in relation to this matter will change somewhat. Indeed, the government itself will probably be a lot less interested in this legislation after 1 July than it was before 30 June.The reality is that the Internet is a very new technology. One should look at new technology to see what concerns there are about it, what areas of criminal activity might exist on it and what things governments might necessarily have to do to regulate that content. It is not something we want to do. Naturally, information is out there. Members of the public are entitled to participate in what is perhaps the world's greatest library in history and to do so freely and as they choose.But sometimes regulation is necessary. It is not inappropriate that the government should have reviewed the position to see what is occurring on the Internet. As I say, it is very new technology, but it is technology that is expanding at an unprecedented rate. It is worth reviewing the extent to which technology has penetrated the community in some of the earlier important technologies, such as radio and television.It took 38 years for radio to reach 50 million users. It took 13 years for television to reach 50 million users, 10 years for cable television and only five years for the Internet. In that time, the population has grown, but not by that much. You can see by comparison that radio took 38 years to reach 50 million users while the Internet took five years to reach 50 million users. Obviously, there is an unprecedented growth in that technology and an unprecedented explosion in both the content available and the number of users.Indeed, Internet traffic is doubling roughly every 100 days, which means that the growth rate is something like 700 per cent in annual terms. We had well over 100 million users of the Internet in 1997, which had grown from three million in 1993. Indeed, I personally remember the days before the World Wide Web browser came into effect, when one was forced to use the Internet just as an email communication tool. That was not so many years ago. Some eight or nine years ago, the whole graphical user interface of the Internet did not exist. It has exploded in the last decade in a way which the government, I suspect, is only now starting to come to grips with.The reality is that Internet commerce—that other very vital and growing part of the Internet—is projected by the OECD to reach something like a trillion dollars in revenue by the early part of the next century. That is very massive growth indeed, and Australia is very much part of it. The three countries with the very highest number of Internet users per 1,000 people are Finway, Norway and Iceland. One might suspect that it has something to do with the climate or the fact that they want something to do on long, dark winter nights. They have in the order of 240 users per 1,000 people.Next in line at No. 4 is the United States, with 203 users per 1,000 persons. Australia comes in next. It is No. 5 in the world, with 178 users per 1,000 people. That was roughly one-fifth of the community in 1999. When looking at the exponential growth rate of the Internet, that number will obviously expand very quickly. One can see that early in the next century a majority of families will have some connection with the Internet. Certainly they do at school now. Many people now do in the office or at work. Increasingly, our homes are wired for the Internet.Obviously, in that context, we need to look very closely at the kinds of issues taking place on the Internet that might need regulation. Pornography is only one of them. Online gambling is a very serious issue. Recent reports in the United States have indicated that that community is seeking to take steps to regulate online gambling. Australia is at the forefront of online gambling. With revenue reaching a trillion dollars in e-commerce early in the next century, obviously fraud over the Internet is going to be a very serious issue.The government has rushed into this parliament legislation relating to pornography and the classification of material on the Internet. However, where is the equally important legislation—in fact, it is far more important—on electronic commerce? The government can see fit to rush through legislation on the issue of classification on the Internet and what pictures people can see on the Internet. However, where is the legislation in relation to commerce and consumer protection from fraud? Where is this government's consideration of gambling on the Internet? They are very substantial issues which the government has not yet found time to grapple with in any serious way.The government is acting contrary to some means that would protect consumers on the Internet. Its reluctance to allow the public to use strong encryption, for example, prevents the accessibility of digital signatures, the verification of identity, the protection of privacy and the protection of commercial data and financial transactions on the Internet. This government does not encourage the use of encryption. Indeed, I think many of its legislative decisions have been against it. The government has looked to see what it can regulate on the Internet, and it has been driven entirely by its need to placate the interests of some senators before 30 June. It has not taken a rational view about what the important issues on the Internet are, what needs to be regulated, what it should do first and how it should address community priorities in that respect.This technology is very much global technology. As the parliamentary secretary admitted, very much of the content on the Internet, including the objectionable content, is indeed not in Australia. As we look at the tens of millions of host sites on the Internet—and early in the next century there will obviously be hundreds of millions of sites—I will defy the Australian Broadcasting Authority to sit down and comb through those sites. Unless individuals are going to sit there and do nothing but search for objectionable material on the Internet—in other words, look for the very things they think ought not to be there—no-one is even going to have any practical proposition of addressing that content. The number of sites on the Internet, the ability with which they can be moved from country to country, the ability with which the address of sites can be changed, the ability to change the Internet host merely with the click of the `Enter' button on your keyboard are such that it is absurd to realistically imagine that you are going to be able to police this content.Much of the highly objectionable content is, of course, already very much illegal and strongly sanctioned in our communities. There are very strong laws against the exploitation of children for sexual purposes. Those laws should be rigorously enforced and the strongest possible criminal sanctions imposed against those who would seek to use children in such a fashion. For example, the community will demand that the government protect their standards in that respect but, of course, if that material is on the Internet, it can be hidden in many ways. It can be hidden in news groups, for example.There are something like 25,000 to 30,000 news groups which are continually broadcast around the world. They last on the Internet for 24 to 48 hours, depending on the host, although some sites archive them for a much longer period. The reality is that they move from computer to computer. They are very transitory in nature, and thousands of such messages are exchanged every day. Indeed, on a given Internet archive for news groups, you might find half a million to a million messages archived after only a few weeks of continuous operation. No-one is going to be able to filter that kind of content. It is utterly impractical.If you find an objectionable site and someone reports it to the ABA, by the time the ABA actually looks at it and finds that site, the host could well have been changed. When someone finds that that host site is taken down, it is a trivial matter to move that to a free Internet server in the United States, where First Amendment rights protect the content of that site; yet it is just as easily accessed from Australia. No-one would even know where that content is residing in the world. Because the United States offers so much Internet content and so many resources in this regard, because the United States has that First Amendment freedom, naturally that will become the prevailing global standard, no matter how much we might try to pretend otherwise.Where does this leave the government's bill? Obviously in chaos. The government is seeking to make a point and to do nothing more than that. This is not a realistic or a real attempt to actually address the evil which the government refers to. The reality is that, if we wanted to do that, we would have to explore a number of other options. The fact that the government pretends to the community and to the parents of Australia that it has actually done something about this content is the real crime in this bill. Parents who are not properly informed about this issue may well now think that there will be legislation in place to make the Internet safe for 10-year-olds. That is not going to be the case because almost all of this content is inaccessible to the government's regulation and, indeed, inaccessible to almost anyone's regulation.Therefore, we have to look at what makes the Internet different. In the past, we have regulated print content, we have regulated newspapers, we have regulated the cinema, we have regulated magazines and we have regulated print publications such as Playboy and the like with various degrees of success. They are centralised publications; they are controlled centrally. There are very strong barriers to entry into the industry. The parlia ment can regulate the content of the print media and cinemas because those things have very limited points of distribution. They are controlled by large corporations, and it is very easy to regulate the limited number of outlets.By contrast, the Internet turns this whole distribution paradigm on its head. The Internet allows everyone to be a publisher; the Internet allows everyone to produce their own films; the Internet allows everyone to put photographic content and text content up on the Internet. The freedom of the press used to belong to those who owned the presses. The reality is that we are now all publishers, and that is what the government has failed to recognise in this legislation. The Internet is a totally different paradigm of distributed computing power, of distributed intelligence, of distributed technology. It empowers individuals in a way that no prior publishing technology has. That is the difference which this bill completely fails to comprehend; it is a difference which I suspect this government completely fails to comprehend. It is what makes this bill largely unworkable, and it is why the opposition will be addressing a number of amendments to it.The real tragedy of this is that the government seeks to pretend to the parents of Australia and to the Australian community that it has actually done something about content on the Internet. What it should have done, of course, is to look at ways of empowering parents, families and schools to use this technology in a sensible and responsible way, educating parents as to the nature of the content that might well be found on the Internet and providing them with software tools—which are indeed now readily available for installation on home, school and office computers—to block access to sites from the impetus of the computer itself. In other words, it should follow the technology of the Internet. The Internet is distributed technology. Therefore, any attempt to block content must be done on a distributed basis. You cannot tackle this in a centralised fashion as we have done with all these previous technologies like the cinema and print.If you were to attack this from the bottom up, if you were to attack this from the per spective of empowering families, empowering parents and allowing them to regulate content from their computer out rather than the Internet service provider down, you might indeed have some chance of achieving your objective. You would also achieve a community which would be much more educated about the value of the Internet, about the dangers of the Internet, and you would allow parents to make decisions for themselves about what is appropriate in their family situation.XH4McGAURANMr McGauran—We are doing that as well.N36Evans, Martyn, MPMr MARTYN EVANS—But you are failing in that regard because you are principally focusing on a centralised control regime which I would have thought a government led by market forces would have seen the folly of. The minister is treating this industry as if it were a traditional print or cinema industry. The reality is, Minister, that we have moved on from there, and it is time that you moved—XH4McGAURANMr McGauran—You have no solution.N36Evans, Martyn, MPMr MARTYN EVANS—The minister has just spent the last five minutes listening to my solution to this. The reality is that his solution does not work at all. He admits that it is merely for effect. It is just a chimera; it is out there to tell people that the government is attempting to do something. The government wants to be seen to be trying. Well, it is very trying, and it is failing.The problem is that the government is denying empowerment to parents. In its enthusiasm to pass some centralised regulatory control which ultimately will not be effective, the government is missing the opportunity to empower parents and work with the community to address this problem at the household level where some degree of control might well be effective and where the reasonable objectives that the opposition shares with the government and the community in this area could possibly be brought into effect. That is the only way, historically and into the future, we will be able to make this technology more reasonable and accessible to children—and, indeed, safe for them to use as the world's greatest library, as it should be.With that, I would like formally to move the second reading amendment which has been circulated in the name of the opposition, and I would place on record our intent to contribute even further in this debate. I move:That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "the House:(1) expresses its concern that: (a) the legislation is being dealt with in indecent haste and with inadequate consideration; (b) the Government's claim that the legislation will `solve the problem' of unacceptable content is not supported by the reality that the vast bulk of internet content is generated outside Australia; (c) the proposals, including the idea of mandatory internet service provider filters, are unworkable and easily by-passed; (d) the application of the narrowcasting classification regime to the regulation of internet content has not been thoroughly analysed and may well require revisiting in the future, in view of rapidly changing and converging technology; and (e) the legislation does not include a sunset clause, or provision for review, given the speed of technological change in this area; and(2) recommends that: (a) efforts should be made by the Government to pursue international agreements on the regulation of internet content; and (b) substantially more emphasis should be placed on end-user empowerment through information and education campaigns for parents, schools and guardians about the use of the internet and of end-user filter devices".10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Is the amendment seconded?RH4KERRMr Kerr—I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.22:24:006916Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—I listened with interest to what the member for Bonython had to say, and what struck me most about his contribution was how little he had to say about the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Bill 1999 now before the House. He gave us the potted history of the technology's development over the last 10 years and told us how we should be relying on other acts—and I assume he meant the Crimes Act remedies. Having said that one act will not work, Labor believes that another act might. It just underlines the computer industry saying of `garbage in, garbage out'.I suspect that the member for Bonython might do well to have a read of what actually is in the government's proposal. He shared with us a number of glib and comforting comments as he walked that very fine line of looking unhappy with what the government is doing but not daring to oppose it, holding up some straw ideal and some counterfeit logic as a substitute for action on this subject. He would do well to find that in this package the government has embraced a number of the useful complementary steps he alluded to in his contribution—and perhaps by the time we do hear what the opposition has to say its members may realise that fact by actually looking at the content of the bill. That would be a very good start, I suspect.I am probably one of the less censorial type characters in this place. When suggestions about `censoring content' and things like that come before me, I take a very sceptical view. It is not easy to offend me, frankly, and I suppose in public life that is something that is quite comforting.Opposition members interjecting—1K6Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON—It is good that my colleagues over there agree. But I also believe in the capacity of competent adults to choose between right and wrong and to make choices about what sort of entertainment/information service they might be interested in. Having said that, though, on the Internet are large scale examples of what can only be described as `cyber-septic'. It is not those competent adults who cannot make the choices that I think many of us in this place grant to our citizens—it is not those people who are our main concern—it is people who are not in a position to make those sorts of judgments and the impact that some of this cyber-septic has on them.I will give an example. My little boy is 18 months old, and I hope one day he will be as interested in technology as I was in my former life in IT before coming to this place. He likes animals. He may one day think, `Gee, I've heard about giraffes, I've never been to Africa, but I wonder what one looks like.' He might go to AltaVista or any other search engine one could think of and type in `animal pictures'. As his father, I would be happy for him to have a look at some of the work there, such as wild animal pictures, our world's endangered species, or other `critters', as they are described. We have the Pico Ranch Trophy Animal Place, where they can show us photos of animals. We even have animal pictures from the Four-Wheel Drive Hire Service, an Australian picture gallery. But, even when going through an innocuous inquiry like that, you start finding sites such as `Sex with animal pictures'. I will not go through the way they market the product, the content, to be picked up by an inquiring mind. I will not go through how they present this part of the `wonderful world information library' that the member for Bonython talked about. That is an innocuous inquiry. That is inadvertent exposure to something most reasonable people would find absolutely offensive. But he might then go to the next step—Mr Martyn Evans interjecting—1K6Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON—And it is great that you have plenty to say about this because you said nothing in your contribution, Member for Bonython. So, nice line, you tried very hard to make it sound as though you were concerned. But my son might go on with his search. He might get to school years and type in any search engine you might like `school fun'. I will not go through the examples of what is in there but—considering the baloney that the member for Bonython went on with about this enormously useful tool, this great library being delivered to 20 per cent of households across our country—with an innocuous inquiry like that I would hate to tell you of the sites it dreams up.We will go on a bit further. Maybe Britney Spears is a big celebrity by this time. My son might think, `Well, I wonder what Britney Spears is about; I'll see if I can find a story about her career in teen magazines.' You would have to go through page after page to find anything under that search engine refer ence that is anything other than smut and pornography.Those opposite seem to want to come in here, give a potted history of the technology and ignore the reality out there of what sort of content is available in response to innocuous inquiries. You could go and look for an Offspring poster under `teen stars'. Again, it is a litany of filth and cyber-septic that people are up against. You could go through any of these otherwise innocuous search engines in the way I have outlined and you would understand what I have put to you.Debate interrupted.Adjournment691710000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 10.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn.691722:30:006917Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—When I first heard last week that the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources had issued a press release on behalf of himself and the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business to announce their decision to jointly consider how to guarantee workers' entitlements, I have to admit I was more than a little cynical. But I did harbour just a glimmer of hope that the minister's release would give an indication that the government was on the threshold of some level of concrete action over this matter—not just initiating another round of talks, not just beating-up what little it has done over the previous year into something that it could possibly call progress.Having read the minister's release and taken on board its contents, even that hope has been completely dashed. The minister for industry's press release is an admission of failure. It is an admission that this government has wasted over 12 valuable months when it could have been making real gains towards protecting the entitlements of Australia's workers. The minister for industry said in his statement that discussions `at a ministerial level directly with business organisations are needed' with regard to the question of protecting workers' entitlements.But, wait a minute, does this not sound strangely familiar? The minister for workplace relations said in a press release on 6 April last year, when he announced that the government would look into workers' entitlements:The government will consult the business community on the issue.Then, in answer to one of my questions on notice, received from the minister in February this year, he listed both the Business Council of Australia and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry—the two peak bodies for large and small businesses in Australia—as two of the organisations his office had consulted with. He said he also discussed the issue with the Insurance Council of Australia, the Law Council of Australia and the ACTU. Yet here we are, another year later, and the minister for industry is saying exactly the same thing—same press release, just reworded.So what has the minister for workplace relations been doing for 12 months? What kinds of discussions did the minister for workplace relations have with the Business Council of Australia and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry? What use were they? Apparently they were of no use whatsoever, if the minister for industry is going to have to hold his hand and start all over again.The Prime Minister has led us to believe that his government was making headway in solving this problem, but it looks like we have spent the last 12 months treading water and we are back at square one. The Prime Minister also gets up in question time today and talks about what the minister for workplace relations has done through the Labour Ministers Council to address the protection of workers' entitlements. The Prime Minister either is living in the dark or has an inflated opinion of the minister for workplace relations because the LMC's discussions have been, to be frank, almost a complete waste of time. At its last meeting in May, total discussion of this subject amounted to a meagre five lines in the minutes.As for the Treasurer, neither of the two suggested changes to the Corporations Law recently put forward by him at the Ministerial Council for Corporations that will do anything to protect the entitlements of workers in the event of employer insolvency. They may go some way to dissuading employers from restructuring their company and moving their assets to avoid paying workers their entitlements, but they will do nothing to get workers back their entitlements when company insolvency strikes.As for the Prime Minister's repeated use of the Cobar mine settlement and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission's role in that dispute as an example of how the system does not need fixing, that argument needs debunking once and for all. I am sorry, Mr Speaker, that you called me to order today when the Prime Minister was elaborating on that answer to the question. The only reason that the Australian Securities Commission was able to chase Ashanti and make sure that it met the financial obligations of its junior company, Cobar Mines Pty Ltd, is that Ashanti sent Cobar mines a `letter of comfort' saying that it would cover its debts. That is what the union was able to get a hold of. Without such a letter, the Cobar miners would have had no recourse to assistance and no recourse to getting their money back and ASIC would have looked on helplessly.Take a look at what has happened to the workers from the Woodlawn mine near Goulburn. The Prime Minister instructed the Securities Commission to look into the loss of their entitlements as well, and so far they have received absolutely nothing. The commission has been powerless. Over 700 miners and their families are expected to converge on Canberra tomorrow. They will demand answers from this government as to what it intends to do to guarantee workers' entitlements.So far what the government has done does not amount to a pile of beans. The miners and their families will not be put off by weak homilies, as were given by the Prime Minister in question time today. They will not be fobbed off by the minister for industry and the minister for workplace relations when they say they are going to look into it. The government said it was going to look into this problem 12 months ago and yet ordinary workers like the Oakdale miners are still being robbed of their legal entitlements. These people demand real answers. They need real assistance.Alan Jones, of all people, asked the Prime Minister last week how many more companies would have to go under, leaving their employees in the lurch, before someone tells them that they cannot do this. The Prime Minister answered, `I can't answer that.' Prime Minister, you have to answer that. It is your job. (Time expired)691922:35:006919Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANEWN6GroomLP10—At 1.20 p.m. on Friday, 17 June an unguided missile struck the bottom of the Toowoomba Range. A B-double in excess of 50 tonnes careered out of control down the range, and it was only through God's grace that no-one was killed. It is in fact through God's grace that we do not have a new crossing over the Toowoomba Range. To explain that a little better, it is because we do not have the fatality rate on the Toowoomba Range Crossing in comparison to other roads in Queensland that we have not yet attracted the level of funding we require to build a new crossing.We have a situation where the biggest inland city in Australia bar Canberra—and who would bar Canberra?—was isolated from the coast and from the capital city of its state for nine hours on Friday afternoon because we have an antiquated, out-of-date, dangerous, slow and easily clogged arterial road into that city. The road into Toowoomba not only is of those descriptions but also serves all of western Queensland, northern New South Wales and the Northern Territory. We have a vehicle rate which would secure with any sort of associated fatality rate a new road in anyone's mind. We have a road which secures the economic growth of a region, yet without the fatality rate fails to attract the level of support from the state government which will require the Department of Transport and Regional Services in Canberra to urge the minister here to give it adequate funding.The sum of money required to see Toowoomba given a road which will stop semitrailers at the rate of thousands a day being pumped into the city causing road congestion, air pollution, noise pollution and a denigration of the city's beauty and social atmosphere is $220 million. Until we as a government, with the support hopefully of the state government and the local authorities in Queensland, decide that it is time to change the basis of the formula which will allow us to be given a road we so aptly deserve, Toowoomba will continue to sit on top of one of the most tortuous access roads in Australia. Until we see a situation where the economic needs of a region are put in front of simple statistics, Toowoomba will continue to have one of the worst access roads I have seen in Australia.The Toowoomba Range Crossing was put in with horses; in fact, it is probably horses which are best suited to use it. It is a road which once a year I transverse in a truck as part of National Heavy Transport Safety Week, and it is a road which, if traversed safely, one goes down at about 10 kilometres an hour. If you have a truck with sufficient horsepower, you may exceed that speed coming up but, as oft is the case, trucks crawl up and down that range at around that speed.What will happen with that road over the next five years is that, like a dying man's arteries, it will slowly clog. As it clogs, minor incidents will continue to occur until we have a situation where a fatality or multiple fatality occurs. How we avoided that situation on Friday is beyond me. As I said, a 50-tonne truck completely out of control careered down the range, crossed the median strip, tore out the barrier and came into the path of oncoming vehicles. Fortunately, the only vehicle it struck was another semitrailer taking evasive action, and together they careered off the side of the road. An unfortunate driver of a small delivery van was struck by a flying cow, which may strike some humour were it not for the seriousness of the situation.The reality is the only fatalities that day were in fact the cows. A B-double loaded with cattle was sprawled across the roads and animals were in great distress. Were that a human carnage, we would have seen the new road virtually immediately. Mr Speaker, I put it to you that this government with the support of the state and all authorities should act before those dead cows become dead people.692022:40:006920Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—I rise to make some observations about media diversity and the future of public broadcasting in Australia—in particular, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. At a time when the Productivity Commission, on a reference initiated by the federal Treasurer, is inquiring into the need for the cross-media and foreign ownership rules in Australia in the face of what is known as `convergence of broadcast, telecommunications and Internet technology', I am gravely concerned about the future of the ABC.The ABC is under enormous financial pressure at the moment following the Howard government's $55 million cut to the ABC's annual appropriation from 1997. The ABC is about to embark on new triennial funding negotiations with the government, and there is a real fear that the government will again cut funding to the ABC. As well, the ABC is being forced to deliver up to the government maximum proceeds from property sales within its national portfolio to help fund the ABC's conversion to digital broadcasting. As we know, the entire broadcast industry is now preparing for digital broadcasting from 2001.So far, on my understanding, the ABC has been funded for only $20 million for the first phase of digital conversion. To raise money, it has to sell off operationally valuable sites like its television production facility at Gore Hill in Sydney. The ABC board has decided to cram its television operations into its existing Ultimo Centre in Sydney and spend some $130 million to build a 12-storey building on land it owns next door. In my view, the ABC should not be forced to sell its main television production facility in Sydney to help pay for digital broadcasting or borrow so heavily to provide replacement facilities. This technology upgrade is the clear responsibility of the Commonwealth government, just as the ABC's conversion to colour was a Commonwealth responsibility in the 1970s.The funding pressure afflicting the ABC is now obvious to all through the largely British television programs the ABC buys cheaply instead of making Australian programs. I like Yes, Prime Minister, but I have seen it too many times and many of the actors are long since dead. More funding pressure on the ABC will see further reduction in quality Australian made programming. The ABC should not be forced to sell its prime assets to create funds which the government should legitimately provide it.The government has been crying systemic bias against it by the ABC, but I note that all governments—including Labor governments—claim ABC bias. Neville Wran claimed bias by the ABC in the 1970s when he refused to answer questions from an ABC reporter covering the royal commission into allegations that he intervened in the magistracy. Bob Hawke claimed ABC bias in the early 1990s over the ABC's Gulf War coverage. With these types of allegations, the ABC cannot win.In response to this perpetual allegation of bias, I point out that the ABC is already accountable to multiple layers of bodies and law: defamation and contempt laws, provisions under the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983, the ABC Board's Editorial Guidelines, the Independent Complaints Review Panel and, ultimately, the Australian Broadcasting Authority pursuant to the powers under the Australian Broadcasting Services Act 1997. These laws, powers and responsibilities constitute one of the most comprehensive regimes of accountability of any government agency. If the government is so adamant about these allegations, then there are a number of remedies available to it and it should seek redress within one or more of the smorgasbord of legal and regulatory panels governing the conduct of the ABC.The ABC is a great national institution. I support it. The Australian people are fortunate to have such dedicated, professional broadcasters. The coverage the ABC has provided of the conflict in Yugoslavia and the crisis in East Timor has been exceptional—unmatched, in my opinion, by the commercial networks.Let us not mix words. If the ABC is further marginalised by this government and media ownership rules are changed through the Productivity Commission inquiry, great damage will be done to media diversity. The tycoon Kerry Packer will take the Fairfax Press and Rupert Murdoch will take the Seven Network. Is that what we want?The Australian people deserve a diverse and competitive media in all its emerging forms. That is plainly in the public interest. But, most particularly, this government should get the funding hooks off the ABC, stop the sale of Gore Hill and fully fund the ABC into digital broadcasting. At a time when our cable and network television screens are being flooded with imported television products, we should be thinking about reinvesting in the ABC, particularly to rebuild Australian content. This would be a legitimate initiative for government, particularly as local content on the ABC has been run down through funding cuts. I understand that the BBC runs 90 per cent British content and is a major exporter of quality programming. The ABC needs to be supported to play a more important role in what is becoming a globalised media industry to keep Australian identity alive.692122:45:006921May, Margaret, MPMs MAY83BMcPhersonLP10—I rise tonight to pay tribute to a man who epitomises the Australian spirit. Last week it was my honour to welcome to the Gold Coast one of Australia's finest ultra-marathon runners, Pat Farmer. Pat is fuelling the spirits of all Australians, and in particular our Australian youth, as he pounds the pavement in the lead-up to the Centenary of Federation in the year 2001. This man of incredible determination is a huge credit to the nation. I cannot speak more highly of him in setting his sights on such a tremendous task.Pat set off on Sunday, 31 May 1999 on a record breaking 216 day run around Australia aimed at educating and inspiring Australians. He will run non-stop for 216 days—in other words, for seven months. Each day he will run an average of 70 kilometres and in total he will put 14,500 kilometres of bitumen behind him when he arrives at the final destination in his world record running at tempt around Australia. Pat aims to cover about 1,000 kilometres more than Ron Grant, who set the record in 1983.It was an honour to meet such a proud Australian last week. He is proud of this country's heritage and proud of its people. Pat calls himself an average Australian who is reaching out to other average Australians to encourage them to share the spirit of this great nation and to show them that you can achieve remarkable feats simply by putting one foot in front of the other. Just an ordinary bloke is how he describes himself. I call him an inspirational Australian. The principal of Elanora State School, Mr Michael Kelly, expressed similar sentiments when he and I welcomed Pat on behalf of the Gold Coast City. Pure joy was on the faces of the hundreds of school students from Elanora State School who proudly waved Australian flags as Pat ran into the school's grounds to take a breather and spread his message.It has taken three years of planning and vision to set out on his mission to unite and educate all Australians, particularly the youth in our country. His message was inspirational and inspiring to all the young students. He explained that the Centenary Run is `for all Australians to become aware of our history and how we were formed democratically without a drop of blood shed'.Pat's history as a long-distance runner and the numerous achievements he has made in such a role will put him in good stead to make his New Year appointment on time. The wiry 37-year-old has been running for 15 years and past ultra-distance runs have included crossing the Simpson Desert in 1986 and finishing second in the Trans-American Ultra-Marathon in 1995.I encourage all members of parliament and community leaders across the nation to support Pat in his historic feat. I urge all Australians to support Pat in his endeavours and to learn from his actions. For those who do not catch him along the way, Pat will arrive in Centennial Park in Sydney on 1 January 2000, the place where the Commonwealth of Australia was born on that date in 1901. 692222:49:006922Sidebottom, Peter, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM849BraddonALP00—Mr Speaker, as you know, I come from a beautiful place in the world—the magnificent electorate of Braddon. It is free of the hustle and bustle of the big city life and has clean, fresh air and a lifestyle the envy of many. It is a healthy place to live—that is, unless you get sick or you are one of those who are on the long queues waiting for surgery. Unfortunately I have to say that aspects of Tasmania's health system at the moment are anything but healthy. Our system desperately needs an injection of funds to arrest what could ultimately be a fatal decline of public health services.It must be said, and I want to make it perfectly clear, that it is not the fault of the current Tasmanian Labor government or Minister Judy Jackson, who has tackled the issues with courage and vigour. The government was left with a $64 million black hole in the state's health budget by the former Liberal government. Yet, in the dying days of his premiership, Tony Rundle and his former Liberal colleagues said that the health budget was in good shape. Even during the last election campaign before being thrown out of office late last year they maintained the deception.That reminds me of another prominent Liberal who has also been responsible for some of the anxiety over Tasmania's health problems and more lately the chaos over the GST. The man I speak of went along with a popular view that a GST was not able to be implemented after 1993. It was John Howard and he stated he would never ever raise the possibility. We all know how believable that was. That is why his about-face on the GST probably did not come as any great surprise to Tasmanians, because we in Tasmania have been burnt before by this Prime Minister.I remember on the eve of the last state election—surprise, surprise—when the Prime Minister offered Tasmania $14.8 million as a sweetener to sign the Medicare agreement. He made the offer—a formal offer in writing, I might add—to, I repeat, the former Liberal Premier Tony Rundle, one must assume in some acknowledgment of the serious health funding shortfall confronting Tasmania. Could the poor state of the health budget have been a secret Tony Rundle was only prepared to share with the Prime Minister? It makes you wonder.After the election and the Tasmanian Liberal government was voted out, the new Labor leader Jim Bacon and the people of Tasmania rightly expected this commitment to be honoured. But was it? No. John Howard reneged on his promise. That in itself was acknowledged at the last federal election when Labor made a clean sweep of the five House of Representatives seats in Tasmania, and little wonder. As I have said, the health dilemma in Tasmania today is a legacy of the former Liberal government aided and abetted, I must say, by the Howard federal government. The health system in Tasmania was until recently at risk of slipping further into crisis because Commonwealth funding of public hospitals is drying up. It is cold comfort that the problem is not unique to Tasmania; it is happening around Australia.The Howard government has got it wrong. It should not be pouring millions of dollars into propping up an inefficient private health sector at the expense of a public sector. We are all too well aware of that in Tasmania. That is why we will continue to fight for public hospitals and the Medicare system. It is reprehensible that the Howard government was prepared to write a blank cheque for private health insurers while depriving the public sector of much needed funds. The $1.7 billion private health insurance rebate does not address the fundamental problems in the private health insurance system, nor does it assist in arresting the real dilemma in our health care system.The biggest problem in our health system is the crisis in our public hospitals. This is where the $1.7 billion it is costing in private health insurance rebates should have been spent. Imagine the difference $1.7 billion would make to the public system. For example, would almost 8,000 Tasmanians still be on waiting lists today for elective surgery if there was sufficient money in the system? Would more than 600 disabled Tasmanians be going without proper health services if there was not such a huge shortfall in the budget? `Some people will have to wait years for surgery,' says the Tasmanian Chairman of the Australian Association of Surgeons, Michael Wertheimer, as recently reported in the Mercury. Now we learn public hospitals may be penalised even further as a result of the government's latest rescue plan for private health insurance. (Time expired)692322:54:006923Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr RONALDSONXT4BallaratLP10—I rise tonight to raise a matter that is of the utmost importance. I do so with the support of and in conjunction with the City of Ballarat, local state parliamentary colleagues, the Ballarat Trades Hall and the unions covering my constituent company Laminex Industries—mainly the AMWU, the CEPU and the CFMEU. In particular, I would like to acknowledge the role played by Max Diamond, the local CFMEU delegate.Honourable members may not be aware that since October last year CSR and Amatek Ltd, the latter being the owner of Laminex Industries, have been in intensive negotiations with a view to establishing a fifty-fifty joint venture operation involving MDF and particle board manufacture. While it was believed that these negotiations would have been finalised some months ago, that has not occurred and, as honourable members will appreciate, this is causing considerable stress for both the employees and their families.I recently met with Mr John Nolan, the head of Amatek Ltd, in Sydney, along with the Mayor of the City of Ballarat, Judy Verlin, and the CEO, John McLean. The purpose of that meeting was to ascertain the current state of the joint venture negotiations and press, in the strongest possible terms, our view that the Laminex plant at Ballarat should remain. That is the nub of the issue I want to talk about tonight—the possibility that a significant part of the plant will close. The effect of that would be devastating for the region. It would mean an on-site loss of at least 100 jobs and the flow-on effects would possibly be many times greater. As the only processor of forestry by-products, this particle board mill is vital to our region. In purchasing and processing these by-products, the mill supports the profitability of many in the timber industry, from cartage contractors through to sawmillers.There were earlier statements that the Ballarat mill's competitive position vis-a-vis other mills owned by CSR in particular was not competitive. That is simply not right. I understand that the production cost per cubic metre at the CSR plants and Laminex Ballarat is now virtually identical. What my community now asks of the proposed joint venturers is a complete rethink of the mill's future. We want the talk of closure to stop and the talk about the retention and strengthening of the plant to start.This is the case as we see it for the mill: the cost of production at the Ballarat mill is competitive with other Australian mills; machine process times are world competitive; machine down times are world competitive; team continuous improvement skills are world competitive; product quality is renowned as the best in Australia; and further cost savings are planned which will save $1 million this year, $5 million next year and an additional $7 million in future years. Through ongoing research and development, the particle board mill has also developed the technology to convert forest by-products—including sawdust, shavings, trims, slabs, chip, fines, pulp logs, et cetera—into premium building product.One of the major areas of technology developed at the mill has been the ability to process urban wood, including building demolitions, old furniture and packing crates—waste which was previously sent to suburban tips, a costly increase to our environmental problems. In fact, the Ballarat mill is the only plant in Australia which consumes urban wood and is working with Melbourne agents to increase its collection. Some overseas mills have so successfully utilised urban wood that they are now 100 per cent reliant on it for production.As would be expected, the flow-on to the supporting industries in Ballarat is enormous and ranges from food to transport and engineering. As with the employees at the mill, the support outside the company is first rate. The importance of the mill has been recog nised by both the government and private sector over many years. The statement has been made that the Ballarat mill team have demonstrated skills and attitudes over many years which any manufacturer would gladly adopt in their own business, whilst the rapid and ongoing growth of the surrounding forestry industries enhances this particle board mill's future even further. Given these points, why on earth would a competitive mill like this be closed down? As we enter the year 2000 it is about time there was some commonsense involved.I would like to acknowledge the role played by Mr John Nolan and to thank him. But we have a clear message for Mr Nolan: if you support the company's retention, support its growth and work with the mill to investigate production options, you will be handsomely rewarded. Destroy the plant and you will lose a work force that has bitten the bullet, that is proactive, that maintains excellent industrial relations and that supports many other industries. Employees at Laminex ask for one thing and one thing only: the opportunity to be given a chance.As the company has said in a communication to employees, `Ballarat's demonstrated performance improvements over the past couple of years is an important achievement that is acknowledged throughout the business.' I hope Mr Nolan will appreciate that. (Time expired)Question resolved in the affirmative.22:59:006924House adjourned at 10.59 p.m.Notices6924The following notices were given:Ms Jann McFarlane to move:That this House:(1) recognises the importance of the efforts of the Jubilee 2000 Debt Coalition in working to obtain a debt free start in the new millennium for a billion people in impoverished countries;(2) supports the Jubilee 2000 Debt Coalition's efforts to present a 370 000 signature petition to the G7 leaders meeting in Cologne on 19 June 1999; and(3) supports the Jubilee 2000 Debt Coalition's efforts to encourage the G7 leaders to take effective steps to prevent high levels of debt building up again in impoverished countries.Dr Nelson to move:That the House:(1) recognises the very high and entrenched levels of unemployment that exist within indigenous communities throughout Australia;(2) recognises that fewer indigenous Australians actively participate in the labour market and have lower skill levels compared to the rest of the general population;(3) welcomes the federal Government's specific commitment of $115 million towards tackling unemployment within indigenous communities in Australia; and(4) calls on governments at all levels to work in cooperation with indigenous communities and employers in addressing these critical problems.Mr Beazley to move:That this House, noting with concern that:(1) the Oakdale colliery in New South Wales has been shut down reportedly because of the company's insolvency, with the result that 125 employees have lost their jobs;(2) these employees have lost not only their jobs but also many of the termination and other payments to which they were entitled;(3) the Oakdale incident is only one of a number of similar developments over the past three years which have affected more than 3000 employees with termination entitlements totalling more then $35 million; and(4) the review of possible ways to deal with the effect of company insolvency on employee entitlements initiated by the Government more than one year ago is still not completed—calls on the Government to arrange that the House proceed with the utmost urgency with passage of the Employee Protection (Wage Guarantee) Bill 1999, which is the only effective mechanism on offer at this time to resolve a severe and immediate threat to the livelihood and security of many working Australians and their families.Mr Pyne to move:That the House:(1) reaffirms the fundamental principles of human rights that must be practised by the entire international community;(2) condemns the false arrest and imprisonment of thirteen Iranian Jews on spurious espionage charges; and(3) calls upon Iranian authorities to immediately release the falsely imprisoned Iranian Jews. Mr Anderson to present a bill for an act to provide for grants for use of diesel fuels and alternative fuels in road transport, and for related purposes.Mr Anderson to present a bill for an act to amend the Customs Act 1901 and the Excise Act 1901, and for related purposes.1999-06-21Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Nehl) took the chair at 8.00 p.m.Bills6926r8076926Debate resumed from 10 June, on motion by Mr Costello:That the bill be now read a second time.20:00:006926Hoare, Kelly, MPMs HOARE83YCharltonALP00—I am pleased to take one of the final opportunities to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1999-2000 . The 1999 budget, brought down on 11 May, was Treasurer Costello's fourth budget. This is a budget which is extreme in its conservatism. It is brimming with the conservative ideology of those who sit on the government benches. This is a budget which, like its predecessors, reflects this government's pursuit of the free market agenda. This is a budget which is reliant on the highly improbable future full sale of Telstra to preserve its bottom line.The first issue I will address tonight is that of the sale of Telstra—part of this government's ideological obsession with the sale of government assets and its relentless pursuit of economic rationalism. I take this opportunity to express my concern about the way in which and the extent to which governments around the world, including this coalition government, have embraced the notion of economic rationalism and have instituted the process of privatising government assets.I believe that economic rationalism is better described as economic fundamentalism, because there is often very little about it that is rational. Economics is supposed to be a social science, but to the fundamentalists it has become purely a study based on market processes. Whilst I do not totally oppose economic efficiency, I firmly believe that its pursuit must be tempered by recognition that it will not necessarily provide the best social outcomes or the outcomes which are in the best national interest.For example, in the region in which my electorate is located, market forces and private managerial decisions have caused coalmines to be abandoned before the coal reserves have been exhausted. In many cases the coal that remains is lost forever. That may be the best decision for the bottom line of the mining companies, but failing to secure a finite national resource is criminal from Australia's point of view.In conjunction with lost revenue for Australia, the families of the miners who lose their jobs as a result of these managerial decisions do not even have the security of the knowledge that they will receive their just entitlements. This government has just appropriated $350 million for a stevedoring fund to pay out those unfortunate workers who bore the brunt of the failed Reith-Corrigan campaign to bust the MUA. Now that workers in the coalmining industry find themselves without jobs and robbed of their benefits following the closure of their mine, this government seems unwilling to establish a similar fund for these workers. If it does not, the workers of this country may have the perception that the stevedoring levy fund was established to try to distance Reith from the stench of that waterfront dispute.Failing to secure finite national resources is a crime. Failing to secure workers' just entitlements is a crime. If Telstra is fully sold by this government, it will fail to secure quality, efficient and accessible communications resources for all Australians, and that will also be a national crime.This coalition government only in the past week has secured Senator Harradine's support for a further 16 per cent sale of Telstra by rolling out the pork barrel in the senator's home state of Tasmania. The bribes offered to Senator Harradine by the Prime Minister include $40 million earmarked to develop Tasmania as what the government has dubbed `an intelligent island', although I fail to see how this announcement by the Prime Minister can be explained effectively to Tasmanians by Senator Harradine or indeed by any of my five Labor colleagues from Tasmania, given that it seems to call into question the current perception of Tasmania and its people held by this government.While the government is talking about developing and promoting a clever state, we must really question what has happened to the development of the clever country. The Prime Minister tried to claim that this is an education budget. However, it includes no extra funding at all for further or tertiary education for young Australians. What this budget does do in the area of education is to provide an extra $210 a year to every child in a private school, but it provides less than $10 a year to the 70 per cent of children in government schools.While Dr Kemp and his government pursue the concept of so-called choice in the free market environment of competition, the wealthiest schools providing education to children from affluent families increase their government revenue base while Australian children in public schools enjoy a greatly diminished education equity. This point was emphasised very eloquently and forcefully by Sharan Burrow, the Federal President of the Australian Education Union. While condemning the disparity between the budget funds for private and public schools, she said:The 30 per cent of children in private schools get three quarters of the budget increase while the 70 per cent of our children who depend on public schools get a mere one quarter. Private schools get the cake and the public schools get the crumbs.Australia will never become a truly clever country while conservative governments continue to downsize the public education system from kindergarten through high schools, TAFEs and universities.Over the past four budgets, the Howard government has shown its pure contempt and hostility towards the public education system. This budget does not even go close to filling the $2.7 billion education hole that John Howard dug in 1996. It is quite unacceptable to us in the Labor Party, to families who have children in the public school system and to those who work in that system that in 1996, the first year of this government, there was 54c in recurrent expenditure going to public schools for every dollar that went to a private school. This amount has been reduced to 42c in 1999, which equals a loss of $800 million to public education. And all of this after we have just celebrated the 150th anniversary of the first public education act in Australia.The scorecard of this government in relation to public education includes, starting in 1996, a $350 million cut to public education and the deregulation of private schools. In 1997 we saw the equity programs abandoned. In 1998, despite increased numbers in public schools, the enrolment benchmark adjustment took effect and stole $11.9 million from public schools to pay for increased enrolments in private schools. And in 1999, as I have mentioned before, we see around $800 extra per child for private schools by the year 2003 and around only $100 extra per child for public school students, plus the enrolment benchmark adjustment takes a further $21 million from public schools and sends it off to the private education system.Another area I would like to address tonight in speaking to this appropriation bill is that of health. This government has shamelessly embarked upon a process of enticing Australian families to opt out of the public health system and to opt for private health insurance. Two of the major implications of this disgraceful policy direction are: first, universal access to quality health care is being undermined; and, second, it places increased medical expenses on many families who are least able to afford them.Over the past two years, Australians have been faced with a government which spends millions of dollars to prop up private health insurers at a time when waiting lists in public hospitals are months long. Last year, 1998, the cost of the government's failing private health insurance rebate was $1.5 billion. The government's own union of doctors, the AMA, forecast that this would increase to $2.25 billion per annum. At that time the government needed only to spend half a billion dollars and public hospital waiting lists would have been eliminated.This budget continues to ignore the public hospital system. The Prime Minister and the minister for health continue to try to save their previous bad decisions in the search for a further resurrection of private health insurance. The current rescue package has been named the `Lifetime Health Cover', something which I understood all Australians should receive under Medicare. The `Lifetime Health Cover' is just another admission by the minister that his private health insurance rebate scheme is a debacle and a sham.Any government with a social conscience should have the health appropriations focusing on public hospitals and public health. Private health insurance companies are large enough and wealthy enough not to need government support or government funding. Those families who choose to take out private health insurance can usually afford to do so without the necessity for Australian taxpayers to foot their bills. As for the AMA, the only union tolerated by this government, history has shown that its members are resourced well enough to be able to look after themselves and those of their ilk.First we had the $1.5 billion windfall for the privately insured and now we have a scare campaign to blackmail Australian families into taking out private health insurance under the threat that unless they do so by 1 July 2000 they will be paying up to 70 per cent higher premiums for the rest of their lives. These threats have been aimed at those least affluent families who would never consider, or be able to afford, private health insurance in their lifetimes.The position of the 1950s, which the Prime Minister embraces in most areas of social policy, continues to undermine the national government's responsibilities of accessibility, affordability and equity for all Australians. The Labor opposition espouses social reform policies which foster equity and fairness for all in the community. Those who recall the tremendous social reforms initiated during the Whitlam era will look on this budget with dismay and horror, for this budget represents a return to the pre-Whitlam days, to the dour, dank conservative rule of the 1950s.At the 1972 election, Gough Whitlam became the first Labor Prime Minister for 23 years. Initially he and his deputy, Lance Barnard, and then his government, embarked upon an extensive, ambitious, almost revolutionary program of reform. Let me remind members of some of those reforms for which Whitlam will always be remembered. His government took over financial responsibility for tertiary education and abolished fees. His government introduced welfare payments for single-parent families and homeless people. His government set up language programs for ethnic minorities, improved employment opportunities for women, and his government established Medibank.Gough Whitlam changed the focus of government. Under Whitlam, government became more people focused, more involved in providing people with opportunity, choice and justice. The reforms he introduced have been taken for granted by Australians for decades and they have remained intact under successive Liberal and Labor governments. We now see this government systematically dismantling those reforms in its efforts to be economically rational. Let there be no mistake, economic rationalism is not people friendly.I recently had the pleasure of joining with many others to pay tribute to Gough Whitlam at a dinner held in his honour in Sydney. The opportunity to reflect on the reforms Whitlam initiated was more than just an indulgent reminiscence; it was an opportunity to reaffirm what it is that we in the Labor Party believe in and continue to fight for. I look forward to participating in the budget preparation by a future Labor government which is both socially and morally responsible.20:15:006929Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—An appropriation debate should be a debate about the public priorities of the nation: our priorities for the economy in which we work, our priorities for the society in which we live, as well as our priorities for the international community of which we are an integral part. It should not, therefore, be simply a narrow exercise in fiscal policy, important as fiscal policy might be. It is a broader exercise in how we deploy the public resources of the nation and, as such, it is a reflection of a government's vision—and, yes, I have dared use the `v' word; it has been some years since using the `v' word has been fashionable in this place—but a vision for the nation, the type of nation we wish to be.If there is a basic difference between the government's view of the budget and that of the alternative government, it is this: this government defines budget success in terms of what a government does not do; the alternative government defines budget success in terms of what government actually can do. This government defines budget success as decreasing the size of government, decreasing the role of government, a celebration of the doctrine of government in retreat. The alternative government defines budget success in terms of how we can harness the energies of government to build the nation, to build its physical infrastructure, to build its human infrastructure, to contribute to what the literature describes as national capacity building.When it comes to a vision for the nation, this government proudly proclaims that it does not have one. If you think this is an extravagant, partisan claim, then I would draw members' attention to what can only be described as the stunned mullet expression on the face of the Treasurer of the Commonwealth, Mr Costello, when asked on ABC television on budget night what vision underpinned the government's budget strategy. He simply looked bemused at the nature of the question. He had no response to that overarching question, `What is your fiscal strategy serving in terms of an ultimate blueprint for the nation?'By contrast, we on this side of politics do not apologise for the `vision thing' because we believe that, when framing the budget for the nation, it is not only valid but necessary to ask fundamental questions as to why and how we are raising and expending some $150 billion in Commonwealth revenues. We believe it is both valid and necessary to ask what impact the taxation architecture of a nation will have on individual and corporate incentive, and therefore the impact that that will in turn have on national economic efficiency and performance. We believe it is valid and necessary to ask what the taxation architecture of the nation will deliver by way of revenues and whether those revenues will be sufficient to ensure that we protect the weak and provide equal opportunity to the strong. We believe it is valid and necessary to ask whether we are providing educational opportunity based on ability and not just background, whether we are caring for the sick, whether we are giving shelter to the homeless, whether we are offering aid to the destitute, be those destitute at home or abroad.All these are valid and necessary questions because they go to the heart of the question of who we are as a people, not just as individuals; what values we hold as a people, not just as some collectivity of self-interest. They also ask the question of who we wish to become as a nation. Budgets are huge resources for governments to build nations with. Nations are not just built by individuals. They are built by individuals as well as the collective resources of individuals reflected in the energies and resources of government. To believe somehow that the allocation of the resources of government is some minor bagatelle, some irrelevancy, and that the ultimate burden simply depends on individual incentive, and individual initiative in the economy at large is a radical misreading of economic reality.I would like to address briefly just three elements of this overall equation. First, in terms of this government's vision for the future of the nation, what is its taxation vision? Second, and briefly, what is its education vision? And, third, how does this government seek to reflect its vision for the nation's engagement with the region and the world?Firstly, on tax: in designing the tax architecture of the nation, it is reasonable to ask what national objectives are to be served by the architecture of taxation which the Treasurer has articulated in the various tax bills currently before the parliament. It is reasonable to ask whether this tax proposal will increase economic growth. It is reasonable to ask whether, perforce of that, it will also increase total factor productivity in the overall efficiency of the economy. It is reasonable to ask whether this tax initiative will increase employment. It is reasonable to ask whether it will maintain price stability. It is reasonable to ask what impact this overall tax proposal will have on overall government revenues. It is reasonable to ask what impact it will have on the overall efficiency of the taxation collection system, just as it is reasonable to ask what impact it will have on the federation itself, fiscally and functionally. Finally, it is reasonable and critical to ask what impact this new tax architecture—this new taxation vision for the nation—will have on basic Australian fairness.All these questions go to the heart of the sort of Australia that this government wishes to create. In the absence of a formally articulated vision, the tax policy or the tax proposal that we have before the nation at present is something like a vision by default. It is the vision that you have when you are not having an articulated vision.Let us look at its constituent elements. What impact will this tax proposal that is core to the appropriations which are before us at the moment have on future growth in the Australian economy? If you look at the collection of evidence before the nation, both before the Senate inquiry and in the public discussion beyond that inquiry, you will find that the impact on economic growth which will occur as a result of this package being implemented will at best be negligible and, on the basis of a substantial slice of the professional literature on this subject, it will be negative. The maximum positive projection contained in any of the literature on what additional increment will be added to national economic growth as a consequence of this package being implemented, which would not otherwise occur as a result of other factors out there in the economy, is 0.2 per cent per annum in the long term. The long term is defined at the five- to seven-year point. That is a long time to wait for a small and marginal dividend indeed.The second element I said we should touch on when looking at this vision for the nation as reflected by the tax proposal before us is: well, if it is not going to grow the economy hugely, what will it do for the efficiency of the economy? What will it do in terms of what the economists describe as the total factor productivity in the economy? This is a critical equation. It is basically a question about whether, by bringing in new price signals through the income taxation system in the country, combined with the impact of the consumption tax, people are going to allocate and use the economic resources at their disposal more efficiently than they have in the past.If you turn to the professional literature, again we find that there is not a single shred of evidence, either in the publicly argued case by the government or in the evidence presented before the Senate inquiry on the GST or elsewhere in the public debate on this issue, which suggests that factor productivity in this economy will increase as a consequence of this package being introduced.The third thing that I said we would touch on is: what will its impact be on employment? Here the impact will not be negligible; it will be decidedly negative. Consider again the evidence before the Senate inquiry—and the member for Fairfax just shakes his head in disbelief at this, but if he reflects on the constituency from which he comes, one which I am most acutely familiar with because I was born there, it is a constituency where in fact tourism is one of the primary employment generators. If there is a sector of the economy which will be torpedoed amidships by this tax proposal, it will be tourism. The projections before the Senate inquiry are that the national loss to tourism employment across the nation in both Queensland and the other states will be something in the range of 50,000 to 100,000 jobs over a several year period. If that is the definition of a positive dividend from a proposal of this order of magnitude, then the government's definition of `positive' frankly escapes anything contained in the Oxford Concise Dictionary.We look at price stability, a further test of what vision is somehow encapsulated in this tax proposal before us. The heroic boffins of Treasury project that the price impact of this overall proposal will be maximally 1.9 per cent. No other credible economist—correction: no other economist—in the country accepts that proposition. The range of projections which are contained in the professional literature on this subject suggest that the price impact of this package once it flows through will be in the order of four to six per cent. If that is a useful contribution to price stability in the economy—and price stability, as the Governor of the Reserve Bank repeatedly reminds us, is critical to the future macroeconomic management of the Australian economy—then I do not think, again, that the government and the rest of the professional community are speaking the same language.A fifth test of this government's taxation vision is what its impact will be on revenues. The underlying presupposition which the government has somehow managed to sell, to part of the community at least, is that the existing taxation system is broken in terms of its ability to deliver adequate future supplies of revenue to Commonwealth coffers to fund the future social requirements of the nation.Once again, if you look through the tax package and the formal documentation attached to it, do we find any shred of evidence anywhere where the government says, `Stick to the existing raft of tax measures and you'll find that revenues fall in a heap in three years, five years, seven years or nine years'? No. The evidence is not there at all. Why is it not there? It is not there because it is not true. The existing revenue system of the Commonwealth as demonstrated by the ballooning in government revenues in the last three years is perfectly adequate to deliver our future revenue requirements. In fact, if we look at the revenue impact of this new proposal before us, this new tax system for the nation will represent a further increment in government revenues. What you will find is that the Commonwealth coffers will in the future be even more flush because this consumption tax proposal is an absolute beaut when it comes to guaranteeing the delivery of revenues to the Commonwealth. The people who will be dancing in the streets—quite apart from the accounting industry of the nation which will, of course, provide services necessary to assist businesses comply with the most complex tax package which has been introduced since taxation measures were first introduced in the Babylonian Empire—are the Australian Taxation Office because it is a huge additional increment to the future revenue delivery to the Commonwealth. This additional revenue delivery is not necessary given the fact that the existing system not only is not broken on that count, but has not been proven or established to be broken in the debate to date.I spoke also of the impact on the federation. ANTS mark 1—the first version of this taxation vision for the nation—in fact proposed that a system of arrangements between the Commonwealth and the states which could only result in the exacerbation of what is described as vertical fiscal imbalance, that is the greater reliance by the states on the Commonwealth for revenues as a proportion of the total revenues of the states and relative to the total outlay responsibilities of the states.That was the old package. Now we have a new package as a consequence of the deal done with the Democrats. A deal which has been described by that great advocate of Labor Party causes, the Premier of Victoria, Mr Kennett, when he said that the current tax package as it affects the states is unacceptable and should be taken back to the drawing board. The bottom line is, if you look at the fiscal and functional architecture of the Australian federation, this does not do a single thing if the vision is to return to the states a capacity to raise revenues which are approximate in strength and size to the revenue responsibilities of the same states. In fact, it heads in precisely the reverse direction. If we aggregate the arguments, we find in fact that the package before us achieves very little by way of positive vision.On fairness itself, we come to the kernel of the argument. If this tax package fails the test of economic growth, if it fails the test of adding to economic efficiency, if it fails to add to the employment of the nation, if it fails to ensure price stability, if it does nothing to add to the functionality of the federation and if it does nothing about and in fact heads in the reverse direction on questions of fairness, we might well ask, `Why are we doing it?' And that is where we come to the core of the argument. The often unstated reason we are doing this is that what we have here, in its essence, is the Robin Hood tax in reverse. This is a tax which redistributes the taxation burden of the nation away from the rich and towards the poor. It is a massive wealth redistribution tax. That is the core of the argument; that is the core of the logic which underpins this entire package; that is the core of the government's vision. It is a vision based, in the end, on what I can only describe as the worst forms of accentuated individual greed because it fails all the broader tests of economic efficiency and of overall economic benefit to the economy at large as well as any passing test of social justice.When a vision for a nation says that `greater taxation rewards should be delivered to the rich'—and that is the summation and conclusion of that vision—and that vision is somehow a risk worth taking when measured against the other risks, I think it is a vision which the nation does not need. What the government is saying about its vision for the nation is that, by embarking upon this enterprise to deliver greater taxation benefits to the richest in our community, it is at the same time worth risking future certainty in terms of the growth of the economy; it is worth putting at risk inflationary stability in the economy; it is worth putting at risk the unemployment situation within the country; it is worth placing in jeopardy that which remains of basic fairness in our society. It is worth putting all those things at risk, in the government's vision, simply in order to deliver this taxation windfall to those in our society and within our economy who least need it. Here I speak of those at the wealthiest end of the Australian taxation spectrum. If this is this government's vision as reflected in the guts of this taxation proposal—in the essence of its architecture—it is a poor and shrivelled vision indeed. It is one which is as economically irresponsible as it is socially unjust—and all in the cause of individual greed.I said I would touch briefly on education and the region. When we look at education and what this government does through the budget for education, we see a higher education sector which has had $800 million ripped out of it. On one further measure, it is a sector which has had $2 billion ripped out of it, if you add to that the $1.2 billion which has been delivered to the sector through the increase in HECS charges. When we look at literacy and numeracy— that matter which the federal minister for education trumpets loudly each time he performs in the House of Representatives—and if you unpack the reality of all that, you have a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing, because the numbers underpinning it in fact suggest that very little by way of additional resources has been delivered to that sector at all. To do something serious and substantial about literacy and numeracy in the school system—and I speak from my experience of having worked for many years in a state government in this country—requires significant resources. The additional funds allocated separately and individually by the state Labor government in Queensland since 1995 on literacy and numeracy programs exceed by a country mile that which the federal education minister proclaims and boasts of as representing his concrete contribution to literacy and numeracy programs across the nation.You cannot educate a nation on the cheap. You cannot equip the next generation of Australians with the skills that they need for the economy to perform efficiently and for them to obtain the benefits necessary for them and their families on the cheap. You cannot equip our work force with the skills for the next industrial revolution—the revolution in technology—on the cheap. These are essential investments in the nation's future, in the future efficiency of our economy as well as the equity of our society.In conclusion, I draw attention in this appropriations debate to the question of the pattern and texture of our international and regional engagements. I simply say this: if we are serious about projecting this nation's interests in the region, how can we emasculate and kill an organisation such as Radio Australia? How can we emasculate and kill an organisation such as Australian Television International? Are these not worthy of the public resources of the nation? They are, and they are a thousand times so. The vision for the nation requires investment across these fronts, not the retreat from them. (Time expired)20:35:006933Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—My friend and colleague the member for Griffith has just talked about vision. He has talked about vision in terms of the lack thereof contained in the government's budget delivered some weeks ago. Tonight, I want to focus my remarks in respect of the budget and the appropriations on what that question of vision, or the lack thereof, means for Australia's defence. Defence policy in Australia is very much a bipartisan issue and rightly so. The defence of this nation is above politics, or at least it should be. That is why on different occasions, since I have been the spokesperson for the Labor Party on defence issues, I have found it necessary to agree with the minister on issues associated with defence or, indeed, on a couple of occasions actually to lead the minister in respect of issues associated with the defence of this nation and our strategic circumstances.It is also important that, with that bipartisan approach to defence issues, the opportunity should not be lost for some introspection: looking beyond what the present government believes is appropriate, as we enter the next century, for the defence of our nation and what it means for the strategic environment in which we find ourselves. It is that lack of vision which, to some extent, worries me, as Labor spokesman on defence, about this continuing bipartisan support that we give to this very important element of government for all Australians.Defence is the sort of area where—and, Mr Deputy Speaker Hollis, you would know this certainly from our adjoining electorates in the Illawarra—if you go and talk to any of our constituents and talk to them about defence issues they really do not have a great deal of understanding. They are, rightly, more concerned with issues such as those mentioned by my colleague the member for Griffith. They are concerned about the effect the GST will have on their lives in the future, family payments, the cost of living and employment.But, equally, of course, they should be concerned about the defence of their nation. They should be concerned about the fact that we still live in a free democracy, and about the fact that they can tune in their television sets most evenings and see images from different parts of the world where people, regrettably, do not enjoy the sorts of benefits that we here in Australia take so much for granted. But to get to those circumstances requires a coherent policy for the defence of this nation; to continue those circumstances requires a vision for the future for our defence.Why do I say this? I say this because, the government having moved to a new accounting process during the course of this last budget period, it is very easy to get wrapped up in just the bald numbers—in dollars and cents terms—that were directed towards defence. At the end of the day, if you add it all up, I think you will probably see that there is about $19 billion that has been directed towards defence in this budget. People could sit back and say, `My God, $19 billion for the defence of this nation—that must mean that there are some terrific programs under way.'But, Mr Deputy Speaker, as I know you are aware, with the accrual accounting process, when you pare it back to the actual amount that is going into defence expenditure, there really has just been a maintenance in the barest possible way of expenditure on defence in real terms. Again, people might say, `What is wrong with that? This government said that it would retain expenditure in defence in real terms in this coming budget.'The difficulty in real terms is that there has not been major growth in defence expenditure to meet the needs of Australia into the next century. With the back of inflation having been broken by the former government led by Paul Keating and maintained by this present government—and inflation is continuing to be extremely low—that increased amount of money is not going to be that great when you start talking about the expenditure necessary to retain real expenditure terms. But, sadly, in a number of ways, that does not reflect a vision for the future. Let me go on to explain what I mean by that in a number of important issues in defence.It is a fact of life that Australia's strategic circumstances and environment are changing dramatically. No-one in the defence white paper—the paper set the strategic overview for Australia's defence planning and was introduced by the former Minister for Defence, Ian McLachlan—talked about the Asian economic crisis. No-one in defence made any plans on the effect that might have on what Australia would need to expend in its defence or what it would mean for our neighbours who equally were proposing some fairly massive expenditure on defence items. I am talking specifically here of the capability that we as a nation must develop—and by that I mean the platform that we have—whether it be naval, on land or in the air. We are a middle-ranking but important power in this region, which means that for us to continue that dominance to some extent—we should have enough firepower so that people say, `We are not going to mess with Australia'—we need to ensure that we have that firepower and that it is at least equal to that of our neighbours.With the Asian economic downturn a number of our neighbours had to put off purchasing some pretty sophisticated equipment and some pretty sophisticated platform, particularly for their air forces. This would have meant that the capability we possessed through our FA18 fighter aircraft and the F111 bomber was likely to be eclipsed, which highlights a very real problem for Australia. I know the minister is aware of this and that he has called for another strategic review. I think that is appropriate in view of the comments I have made about defence not factoring in the Asian economic downturn or even seeing it coming, as evidenced in the last white paper produced by this government. It is significant because, in meeting our strategic needs from a defence perspective, we are going to be faced with a massive problem, that of block obsolescence.Block obsolescence is a process whereby we have come to the end of the economic life cycle of the platform that we use to defend this nation. It is regrettable but it is a fact of life that both the FA18 fighter aircraft and the F111 bomber will come to the end of their economic life at the same time; therefore, we have to make some strategic decisions about what aircraft we are going to need in our own Air Force to meet the circumstances of the future in the defence of Australia. There is no doubt—and this is again demonstrated by the bipartisan nature of the defence policy—that we as a nation will have to effectively defend the air-sea gap against any hostile incursions. Like everyone, we hope that something like that will never happen; nevertheless, we have to have a plan for our own security as a nation, a plan for our regional security and a plan for our region as part of a major defence relationship. Unfortunately, as I said, in the budget that has been handed down for defence we do not see a lot of that vision or that plan.That block obsolescence is not just going to go to issues associated with our aircraft. Regrettably, similar sorts of problems are going to confront some of our naval vessels, and we will have to look at replacement there. At the present moment there is debate about a new attack helicopter for the Army, and we will have to give consideration to one of three tenderers that are going to put forward their views as to which one we need. One of the helicopters is the Apache helicopter, which has been used in Kosovo. Really it did not get used; they lost a couple, I think, in training exercises.But the question is: do we need something like that, which is really a tank buster, or do we need something else? Are we going to see amphibious tanks or something like that coming across the Torres Strait to Australia at some stage in the future? If we are, then maybe we need a helicopter of that type. These are the sorts of strategic decisions we are going to have to make in the not too distant future, based on a very clever and a very succinct assessment of our security arrangements.The fact of the matter is that Jindalee coming on line shortly will give us something of a technological edge, too. That is going to be extremely good for the defence of Australia. We talk about the role that satellites now play in the defence of nations as well, and I think it is fairly common knowledge that that is going to be and will continue to be significant for Australia.When we start talking about the fact that we are now looking through the knowledge edge—which is, I guess, defence talk meaning that technology has advanced pretty rapidly—when we start to give consideration to the type of capability that is available to people who might want to be hostile, we have to make some fairly careful decisions about how we are going to defend this nation. As Admiral Barrie, the Chief of the Defence Force, said in a speech some few months ago, we have to redefine how we defend this nation. In the future the type of defence we have to prepare for might well be a hostile force coming with aircraft or with ships of some description, but it might also be people landing at Sydney airport carrying weapons of biological warfare—perhaps not at Sydney airport; maybe flying in undetected over this incredibly large coast that we have—and in some way causing terrorism activity to take place in this nation.When you start to get into some of the smart bombs and the I-bombs and the technology that is out there now for disabling computers through developments taking place under this knowledge edge, it can become fairly scary. At some stage we might not see anybody killed other than the massive computer at the Australian Stock Exchange. We might see somebody walk into the Reserve Bank of Australia and blow all their computers away simply by putting something down in the middle of the floor, concealed as a briefcase, which actually sends out electromagnetic pulses that wipe out the entire memory of the computers in the Reserve Bank of Australia. Can you imagine what that would do to Australia in terms of everyday commerce?These are the realities of the future. Whilst it is important that our Army, Navy and Air Force heads and people at Russell Offices sit down and start thinking about our strategic environment in terms of what people would regard as traditional warfare, there are other issues which have to be addressed, and I think it is appropriate that the Australian Defence Force turn their attention to them.But we do not see a lot of that recognised in this budget, save for $10 million put aside for the creation of something which has been called the Office of Revolution in Military Affairs—a touch Stalinist for this government, I would have thought. Nevertheless this revolution in military affairs is a name which the United States use to describe what I have referred to as the knowledge edge and all this smart technology that is going on at the minute. But I have to say that I think that only $10 million for something like that is not really appropriate: I think we should be investing a lot more in that aspect of our defence relationship.So our strategic circumstances, the sort of capability that we will need, the platform that will be required in the future to ensure that we can defend this nation, need to be improved. At some stage down the track people might start thinking about missiles or unmanned aircraft. We are buying some reconnaissance aircraft shortly as well, to go with the helicopters for the Army; we are talking about upgrading the frigates; we are talking about the Collins class submarines coming on line progressively over the next 12 months, and most of the issues associated with the difficulties encountered there have been worked through.On that, I might just say in passing that, instead of people going out and bagging the Collins class submarine project, which is leading edge technology, and which is having an industry base in Australia develop, we should be saying, `Isn't it terrific that we are doing something that will give us the best conventionally powered submarine in the world,' and `Isn't it good that it is actually going to be an effective part of the deterrence and the strategic defence of Australia?' Wouldn't it be good if, just for a change, somebody started saying, `Australian Defence Industries is terrific?' Wouldn't it be good if somebody overseas suddenly said, `If they are making them in Australia, maybe we might like to have some of those as well; maybe we could buy some of those from Australia?' Wouldn't it be terrific if the Australian Submarine Corporation could continue to make those down in Port Adelaide?I think it is ridiculous that, in the defence community overseas, we are something of a laughing stock because, instead of our praising our ability to manufacture something like the Collins class submarine, we are being knocked by our own, and the defence community overseas is saying, `You blokes must be mad. You think you want to sell that down the track? No way will anybody buy that now because of what people have been saying about it.' Yet, as I say, technically the glitches have been remedied, the Navy is satisfied with the progress on it, and I think that when they do go fully and operationally into service, Australia will have a fabulous platform for its future.Australian industry also is something which I believe needs to be continually refined and addressed when it comes to defence issues. I talked about block obsolescence and the economic life of many of our platforms coming to an end at the same time, and the sad fact is that so too is defence industry, with three specific maritime platforms all going to end at the same time. We will finish manufacturing the mine hunters at Newcastle, the frigates at Williamstown in Melbourne and the Collins class submarines in Port Adelaide, all at the same time. There are going to be three shipyards completing—all over, red rover in terms of what they are manufacturing—all at the same time.In defence planning, they are the sorts of issues, from an industry point of view and a regional employment point of view, that have to be considered. At Williamstown alone there are 1,000 people employed at that naval dockyard. What happens when the frigate project is all over? The New Zealanders said that they would not take the third. They are going to buy some second-hand junk aircraft from the United States instead. So another one could have been built there and people could have continued to be employed—but what are we going to do about that? Where is the vision statement from Minister Moore about this?I will say one thing about Minister Bronwyn Bishop when she was Minister for Defence Industry, Science and Personnel. She did bring down a document on defence industry, which set some guidelines for the future. We disagreed around the edges on some of the things contained within it; nevertheless, it was a blueprint, and it could give some guidance for the future. I would like to see that built on, but I am afraid we do not hear the former industry minister—now the present defence minister—John Moore, saying much about that. I will certainly give him bipartisan support on it. In developing Labor's policy on defence into the future, I am going to point very heavily to some issues associated with that.Finally, I think it is important—although, these days, not necessarily in my area—to make some comments very briefly on personnel issues. The minister, in a statement in the House some few weeks ago, talked about the way in which all the changes in the Defence Force were leading to savings which were being redirected to the pointy end of defence. I have to say that we are a little sceptical about the savings that are proposed to be engineered from the Defence Reform Program. Why? Because it was predicated on a defence force of 42,500, the lowest in about 30 years. What is the real circumstance? Unbeknown to many people, this government has decided that it is going to keep the Defence Force at 50,000; therefore those savings cannot possibly be realised. As a consequence, we see the sorts of headlines that were in the Canberra Times today, `An Army in retreat, if not quite disarray', where it goes through chapter and verse of how unhappy many people are in Australia's defence forces, why morale is so low.These are issues of vision for Australia's defence. These are issues of vision for Australia. I think the government, rather than simply saying that we are maintaining expenditure on defence in real terms, needs to address these issues. We are happy to enter into that debate with the government because defence policies are largely bipartisan, but we want to see that vision. (Time expired)20:55:006938Livermore, Kirsten, MPMs LIVERMORE83ACapricorniaALP00—I wish to participate in the debate this evening on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1999-2000 . With this budget the government helped me to keep a promise I made to the people of Capricornia, going into the last election. I warned the voters of Capricornia last year that this government did not have a plan for us in Central Queensland, or indeed for Australia; I said that it had a plan for a new tax.Every word the Treasurer said on budget night, and just as importantly every word he did not say, reassured me that I had been totally honest with the people in my electorate. There is no plan; there is the GST and there is the sell-off of Telstra. Well, the people in Capricornia have heard that one already and they did not like it the first time.This is a lazy and complacent budget from a government that is more interested in earning pats on the back from the big end of town than doing the hard yards to meet its obligations to the Australian community for now and into the future for wherever people happen to live in this country. It is a budget that shows that this government is completely out of touch with the needs and concerns of the Australian people, and in particular with the needs of those of us who live in regional areas.When I read through the budget papers and when I listened to the Treasurer and the Prime Minister sell the budget in the parliament and in the media, it was painfully obvious to me that there are whole sections of the community and whole sections of our country that just do not appear on this government's radar screen.In this budget the government continues to fail the people in the community on average and low incomes. When the Prime Minister can talk about the difficult choices facing people in choosing between visiting an extra country on their next overseas holiday or taking out expensive private health insurance, it is pretty clear that he is out of touch with ordinary people.The arrogance of this government is truly breathtaking. All over my electorate people's jaws were hitting the floor when they heard that little gem from the Prime Minister. He is out of touch with ordinary people, and more than that, he does not understand their lives.His government does not care about the real choices people living in my electorate have to make. They are not choices between overseas holidays or private health cover, but between a new pair of school shoes or a family outing for a meal at the leagues club, a service for mum's car or a school camp for the kids. People ring my office in Rocky with a whole range of problems, but a toss up between overseas holiday destinations is not one of them.It is clear from this budget that the government's radar is still faulty when it comes to recognising regional Australia. I say that because there is nothing in this budget to indicate that the government sees the potential of our regions or the need for a coordinated strategy to maximise each region's strengths to ensure a strong and sustainable future.It appears that in this government's mind set, regional means rural and the two constantly get lumped together. I am fairly sensitive to the distinction between the two, because the electorate of Capricornia represents a fair proportion of rural and remote communities included in the broad region of Central Queensland, as well as the region's key centre, the city of Rockhampton.While there are definitely a number of measures directed at the rural sections of Capricornia, there is no sense that it is part of a comprehensive strategy for our Central Queensland region, a strategy that identifies what industries and activities are going to form the foundation of our future growth, and more importantly, ensures that every part of our region has the capacity, both in terms of physical infrastructure and skilled people, to participate in that development and benefit from it. Instead, there are examples all the way through the government's policies of opportunities that are going to be lost because of the government's lack of strategic vision and obsession with its new tax at the expense of good policy.There are two opportunities in particular that I see going begging as far as the future development of Central Queensland is concerned, opportunities to make our mark as a region in two emerging industries that will complement our traditional strengths in primary industries and mining. The two areas I am thinking of are tourism and education. Instead of pulling out all stops to support these industries, the government is taking them one step forward and then two steps back, recognising their importance on the one hand but then making it impossible for them to flourish.As far as tourism is concerned, the step forward is the commitment in the budget to extend the runway at the Rockhampton airport. This is a commendable decision and one that holds great promise for the tourism industry around Rocky and Central Queensland. However, at the same time the tourism industry is threatened with the wipe-out of the GST. That is more like one step forward and 10 steps backwards for the tourism operators around Central Queensland.The impact of the GST on tourism was not even looked at by the Treasury when they did their modelling of the government's package, but everyone else who has analysed the effects has forecast disaster. It does not matter whether you look at international tourists or domestic tourists, whether they are travelling by car, plane or train—every combination faces a job destroying downturn as a result of the GST.The idea of extending Rocky airport's runway is to open up opportunities for attracting international tourists to Central Queensland. On current trends, that should succeed. The most recent Queensland visitor survey available from the Capricorn Tourism and Development Organisation found that international visitors account for 11 per cent of tourists to our region annually—a total of 89,700 visitors from around the world. That is a significant proportion and not a number easily overlooked, or so you would think. But, despite the growing significance of tourism as an export industry and employer in Australia, Treasury did not think tourism was important enough to look into when modelling the GST. Instead, it was left to those who understand and value the contribution of tourism to our economy to do the work on that front.The Inbound Tourism Organisation of Australia said in its submission to the Senate inquiry:Monash University Economics Professor Peter Dixon has forecast a 10 percent decline in international visitors to Australia as a result of the GST. This equates to the loss of $1.6 billion in export earnings. Queensland stands to suffer the greatest loss of income and employment.The competition for attracting international tourists is fierce and, according to the analysis presented to the Senate inquiry, very price sensitive. That is bad news for Central Queensland when you look at the breakdown of international visitor figures. For example, 61 per cent of international visitors came from Europe and the United Kingdom, so it is a pretty fair bet that most of those were backpackers trying to see the country as cheaply as possible. How are they going to feel about paying a GST on every bus ride, hostel room and souvenir?Unfortunately, the story does not get any better for domestic tourism. I just spent the last weekend travelling around the western parts of Capricornia, through the gemfields and out to Barcaldine. Everywhere you looked there were caravans on the roads and tourists enjoying the sunshine and the atmosphere of friendly country towns. Almost all of the tourists were from within Australia and were taking extended driving holidays on carefully managed budgets. All of the locals I talked to told me that numbers are growing every year and they are all hopeful that tourism will grow to add a new dynamic to the region's economy. I would like to think that their hope is well founded, but why is the government risking that bright outlook by hobbling it with the GST?Of course, it is not just the west that is looking at domestic tourism as part of its future prosperity. Most of the visitors to the Capricorn Coast are from within Australia and are looking for a moderately priced holiday. According to the Tourism Council of Australia:The analysis shows that prices for Australians travelling at home will rise by 5.2 % if the trip includes an air component and 4.8 % if travel by car.This is backed up by the Tourism Task Force in its submission to the Senate inquiry:The Tourism Task Force estimates the overall impact on domestic travel is at least a fall of 4.4 %, due to the net impact of increased prices of domestic travel and decreasing prices of travel to overseas destinations.There is nothing to feel very hopeful about in that outlook. Maybe people will be able to think about an extra stopover overseas as well as their private health insurance in such a scenario, but they will certainly be thinking twice about flying, driving, camping, caravanning or any other holiday activity in Central Queensland because the cost will undoubtedly go up under the government's GST. So, on the one hand, we get the runway, but the other hand deals us a tax on a developing industry that will see jobs, revenue and opportunities lost to Central Queensland.The development of Central Queensland as a centre for education and research is another opportunity that the government has the power to either make or break. The University of Central Queensland's innovative Smart City project has the potential to position the uni and Central Queensland as a leader in distance education, in the use of interactive technology in teaching and as a major exporter of education. Following a large investment by the Beattie government and a commitment by the federal opposition to gift the Commonwealth building to the uni, the government was dragged into an agreement to sell the building to the university.The university, and indeed the whole community of Rockhampton, welcomed the government's belated embrace of the Smart City project, but again we see one step forward and two steps back. Instead of handing over the building, the government is making the university pay for it. The government continues to limit the ambitions of universities and students in Australia due to its failure to restore funding to tertiary education. The government's spending on higher education this year is still $800 million behind Labor's spending in its last year in office.The lack of vision and strategy in this budget is bad enough when you think of the options that would be open to the government and this country if it was not squandering the surplus on pay-offs for the GST. It is made even worse when you recall how the surplus was arrived at—it was paid for by cuts to regional services and education. We saw our government services in Central Queensland shut up shop in the name of producing a surplus. Now that there is a surplus, what do we get? We do not see our services being returned: we get a GST that increasing numbers of people in Capricornia—whether they are the pensioners at the supermarket or the bloke running the servo down the road—are telling me that they definitely do not want.The tax office in Rocky is a classic illustration of how this government operates. Obviously, it is not about what we want or need in Central Queensland but what the government's GST obsession dictates. In 1996, the tax office in Rocky closed its doors as part of the government's budget slashing to community services. Now we find out that Rocky will get an office staffed with GST field officers. So again, one step forward and two steps back. Sure, we welcome the extra jobs that the field office represents, but there is no way we are getting back what we lost in 1996.It is far from a fully equipped tax office, open to take all inquiries that the general public would like to be able to take directly to a tax officer rather than waiting on the phone to Townsville for every request. Instead, we are getting a cubbyhole from which field officers will travel around visiting businesses to implement the GST. So we lost our community's tax office in order to get a surplus that we are now told is going to be spent on a tax office that is not for the community but for the GST. I think the people of Central Queensland are entitled to feel pretty ripped off by that equation.I do not like to let a speaking opportunity in here pass me by without mentioning the government's performance on jobs. Whatever I say about employment now, it will certainly be more than the Treasurer said on budget night. I was waiting quite expectantly for the Treasurer to announce some initiatives for creating jobs and cutting the unemployment rate. I could not really believe it when his time was almost up and he still had not touched on the issue. Then right at the end, almost as an afterthought, he shrugged his shoulders and said, `The unemployment rate should remain around its current level'. Just like that. Not, `We're the government and we should be committed and passionate about ensuring that every Australian has a chance at gaining the education and skills to get a job'. Not, `We're the government and we should be working with communities and businesses to identify opportunities and problems to ensure that development occurs right across Australia'. No; all we got was that the unemployment rate is just going to sit on 7.5 per cent indefinitely without too much concern from the government. And, of course, the rate in Capricornia, being a regional area, is higher than that figure—up at eight per cent. But I guess the Treasurer would just shrug his shoulders at that, too.This government's approach to unemployment is another example of where programs and services were sacrificed in the name of producing a budget surplus, only for the surplus to be wasted on achieving a GST that will only harm the creation of jobs. The government seems quite comfortable with spending $20 billion on the GST over the next three years and not producing an improved unemployment outcome. It is quite hard to believe. Their one concession to the 700,000 unemployed people in Australia, including almost 5,500 unemployed people in Capricornia, is the Work for the Dole Scheme—the Work for the Dole Scheme with a 32 per cent success rate for participants finding employment compared to the rate of 50 per cent to 60 per cent under Labor's Jobstart wage subsidy program.The disappointing thing here is that the government knows what it could be doing for unemployment in this country because it only has to look at the final months of the Labor government when the creation of full-time jobs was double that currently being achieved by this government. The government knows what it needs to do—provide training and wage subsidies—and it would have the resources to do that if it was not spending the surplus on a new tax.This is a government with the wrong priorities—a GST ahead of jobs and education, and the sell-off of Telstra instead of a commitment to providing a high level of accessible and affordable telecommunications infrastructure to all Australians, both city and country. The government offers no vision for this country, and the people of Capricornia know it. All this government does offer is an unfair and job destroying tax, and the people of Capricornia know that as well and they do not want it.21:10:006942Gillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD83LLalorALP00—I rise in this appropriation debate to address one issue of vital importance to my electorate, and that is the complete failure of the government in this budget to allocate vitally needed funds to upgrading the Princes and West Gate freeways which connect Melbourne and Geelong. This is an issue of vital concern to my electorate because it is bisected by this road, which we call locally the Geelong road. Let there be no doubt about the importance of this road. A few simple statistics quickly paint that picture. Make no mistake, these are statistics which are no doubt known to the government, particularly as I have referred to them in this place before.Fact 1: the Geelong road carries up to 132,000 vehicles a day, with traffic increasing by almost five per cent a year. After the construction and connection of the western ring road, traffic volumes have increased and indeed we have already exceeded the 2005 projections for traffic flow. Fact 2: it carries more than six million tonnes of freight a year and services more than 30 per cent of Australia's exports through the ports of Melbourne and Geelong. Fact 3: the freeway services one of Victoria's fastest growing population and economic regions and is the key link to export markets for primary producers throughout the western district and South Australia. Fact 4: it is a gateway to one of Australia's premier tourist attractions, namely the Great Ocean Road and the various tourist venues which lie along it. Fact 5 and most important of all: it is Victoria's most deadly road, with more smashes on its 63-kilometre length than were experienced on the 1,000 kilometres of Victoria's federally financed highway system in the same period. Since 1990, 86 people have died on the road. There have been 6,000 crash victims in total and 1,000 of them have been injured.At the Maltby Bypass in my electorate, which is a severe accident black spot because a design flaw causes traffic moving from Werribee to Geelong to merge into the fastest moving lane of traffic rather than into the slowest moving lane, we have suffered 11 deaths and 300 accidents in the past eight years. The road needs to be included in the national highway system and upgraded to national highway standards, and Labor promised to do just that in the last federal election campaign. Labor did so because it recognised the clear economic and social benefits of upgrading this road. Specifically those benefits include cutting costs to businesses which use the road by at least $50 million per annum, therefore stimulating investment, employment, tourism and regional growth; enhancing Australia's export performance, given the volume of exports which use the road; creating 4,500 jobs both in the construction phase and as a result of the efficiencies gained from improving the road; reducing traffic jams; linking Melbourne and Geelong in a more productive and time-certain way to allow goods to be shipped out of the port of Melbourne and the port of Geelong more efficiently; ultimately moving from Avalon airport in more time-efficient manner and, of course, most importantly of all, saving lives and reducing serious accidents.But despite the clear case for upgrading the road to national highway standard, this vital issue seems to be trapped in the swirling and apparently poisonous currents of Liberal Party politics. Out of this noxious brew, my constituents and all of those who use the Geelong road are now being asked to accept an extraordinary proposition. They are being asked to accept half a road at a second-rate standard.First of all, why are we being promised half a road? In the last election campaign, Labor promised that an incoming Victorian Labor government and a Beazley Labor government would jointly fund an upgrade of the Geelong road and that, after the upgrade, the road would become part of the national highway system and thereafter be part of the federal government's responsibility. The Premier of Victoria, Jeff Kennett, always keen when he sees an electoral winner, decided to jump on Labor's bandwagon and promised that his government would put $118.5 million into upgrading the road and would seek the matching $118.5 million from the Howard government in this budget.Indeed, so full of fight was Premier Kennett that on 19 March 1999 he attended a business breakfast in my electorate in Werribee and promised that, if the federal government failed to allocate money to the Geelong road in this budget, he would start a campaign against them and would not give up until the money was allocated. We all know what the state of relations is between Premier Kennett and the Prime Minister and his Treasurer. The Prime Minister has frequently been driven to exasperation by Premier Kennett's tendency to have an opinion on everything but a solution to nothing. Of course no-one in Australian politics would easily forget the scandal that surrounded the colourful terminology used in the Kennett-Peacock telephone call.QK6SERCOMBEMr Sercombe—What was it?83LGillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD—It is not terminology one could easily repeat in this place, although I am being invited to.QK6SERCOMBEMr Sercombe—Give it a go.83LGillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD—I would not use words like that. The animosity between Premier Kennett and the Treasurer is also well known and becoming increasingly so as the preselection spats in the seats of Brighton and other places fill the pages of Victoria's newspapers. While Premier Kennett was talking tough about beating up on the federal government and getting the necessary matching funds to upgrade the Geelong road, the minister for transport was busy pointing the finger at Jeff and saying that it was all his fault. Indeed, in the run-up to the budget in a letter to me dated 27 April, the minister for transport said:Geelong Road and its upgrading is the responsibility of the Victorian government. As you are aware, over the past six years the Commonwealth has provided to Victoria over $500 million in untied funds, previously forming part of the Commonwealth's road funding program. At any time during this period the Victorian government could have directed these funds to upgrade Geelong Road.What are the electors of Lalor to make of this division in the Liberal Party, with the Premier of Victoria threatening fire and brimstone if federal funds are not made available for the Geelong road and the federal minister apparently saying, `It is all Victoria's responsibility'? We will never know what role the poor set of personal relationships between Premier Kennett, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer played on the decision making that led up to this budget. We will never know what that poor set of personal and political relationships cost us. But we do know one thing for sure: in this budget not one cent of the $1.6 billion allocated to road funding was allocated to the Geelong road. The fact that there would be no money—despite some press speculation that perhaps the government, in a cynical electioneering sleight of hand, was actually holding back the announcement about the Geelong road until the Victorian election was called—was clearly confirmed by the minister for transport when he answered a question I asked him on the day after the budget. My question was quite comprehensive: it went to the fact that the budget did not allocate any money to the Princes Freeway; it referred to his letter to me dated 27 April, which I have just taken you to; it referred to discussions between the Prime Minister and the Premier on the question; and it asked the minister whether it was his view that the road was solely a state responsibility or whether he would contemplate allocating some federal funds. In answer to this the minister for once chose to actually direct his answer to the question and gave quite a plain answer. He said:The government has no plans to make any announcements in relation to matters that are not included in the budget for this year.If the minister is as good as his word—and I repeat, if the minister is as good as his word—then, of course, we will not see any federal funding for the Geelong road. One would have thought that, given his complete rebuff by the federal government and his fighting words at the Werribee business breakfast and in other places, the Premier of Victoria would immediately have started his promised campaign of action against the federal government to try to force the money out of them. I am sure there are many ministers who would have been worried about that prospect. But not so. On this occasion `tiger' Kennett turns into a sleepy pussy cat. On 13 May, two days after the federal budget, the Premier is publicly reported as having told the federal Treasurer and the Prime Minister that he did not require money to be allocated to upgrade the Princes Freeway in this federal budget. So much for the promised campaign.Clearly Premier Kennett tried to get the funds out of the federal government, failed to do so and decided to try to disguise the failure by pretending he never really wanted the money anyway. This is all very interesting in terms of psychology, personal politics and a bit of face saving. But where does it leave my constituency and the users of the Princes Freeway—who are not interested in Premier Kennett's attempt to save face and who believed that he would stand up for Victoria when he came to Werribee and promised to do so?It leaves us in the ridiculous position where, according to Premier Kennett, work will start on the Princes Freeway upgrade—he will spend the $118.5 million that the Victorian government has made available—but when funds runs out half way, work will stop. As completely crazy as it may seem, the federal coalition government and the state coalition government have allowed the stupid backbiting of their own internal party politics to result in a situation where a major and vital infrastructure project in Australia is about to start, with only half of the necessary funds guaranteed. This is where the budget leaves us.This sorry and stupid saga about half a road does not stop there. Not only are we to have only half a road but we are, apparently, to get that half road at a second-rate standard. The Victorian government has approved a plan to allow two service centres and an interchange to be built on the Geelong road near Avalon. The national safety standards—that is, the standards applicable to highways within the national system—demand that the distance between a pair of service centres and an interchange be not less than two kilometres. This allows for an adequate distance where traffic, particularly heavy vehicles accelerating on to the freeway from a service centre, does not interfere with decelerating traffic intending to leave the freeway at the upcoming interchange. This is a clearly logical concept which avoids creating an accident black spot where traffic is trying to both accelerate and decelerate at the same point.In contrast, the standards for rural highways are of a lesser dimension, as one would expect given the lesser volume of traffic that they hold. In that case, the standard for the distance between service centres and an interchange is only one kilometre. Commonsense would tell you that the Geelong road would not be treated as a rural highway, carrying as it does huge volumes of traffic, including commercial traffic servicing, amongst others, the port of Melbourne, the port of Geelong, Avalon airport, Ford, Toyota, the petrochemical industry, the Laverton North industrial estate and a major agricultural precinct. Indeed, commonsense would tend to dictate that a road that carries that volume of traffic would be treated as part of the national highway system and would have standards that reflected that. Yet the Victorian government, with a clear lack of commonsense—in fact doing something that absolutely defies commonsense—has said that in respect of this particular development near Avalon the rural highway standard is good enough.Indeed, on 5 May in the Victorian Legislative Council, the Minister for Roads and Ports, Mr Geoff Craige, who was very keen to be seen with the federal minister for roads at a photo opportunity on the Geelong road—but who has not been so keen to do anything else in respect of the Geelong road—said, when he was asked about this clear safety issue, in a breathtaking display of intelligence, that, `Even Freddy can see it is not a national highway.'Indeed, Minister, it is not a national highway because currently funds have not been allocated to upgrade the road to national highway standards. It is not a national highway because the Commonwealth government—this coalition government—has refused, yet again, in this budget to allocate the necessary funds to upgrade the road.With due respect to the Victorian minister for roads, my constituents believe it should be a national highway. With due respect to the Premier of Victoria, if he is afraid to campaign on the issue, my constituents are not. With the respect due to the Prime Minister, his Treasurer and to the minister for transport, this budget simply is not good enough. The Geelong road should be upgraded—but not by making it half a road at half a standard. The Geelong road should be upgraded so that it becomes part of the national highway system at national highway system standards.The campaign to achieve this result will continue. Since the budget, the Princes Freeway Action Committee has already erected signs on the Geelong road which say `Caution—No Federal Road Funds Ahead', a little further along, `Caution—No Federal Road Funds here either' and, finally, as you come off the freeway, `Caution—No Federal Road Funds behind you'. It is nice clear language and it makes the point. The point that those large black and yellow signs make to every commuter every time they use the road is that this government, in this budget, failed to allocate the necessary funds to upgrade the road to national highway standards.Perhaps even more graphic than this signage on the road for every commuter to see every time they use it is a display which has been put together by an ordinary Victorian, a Victorian courier, Mr Leo Gleeson, who uses the road every day and who is sick of encountering accidents as a result of the problems with the safety on the road. He has mounted his own unique form of protest by placing a cross near the road for everyone who has died on the road. If that statistic—chilling as it is—increases, he is intending to add a cross for every further death on this road. We also have Robert Mitchelson, who is continuing his campaign for the service centres and the interchange, which I spoke about, to be dealt with at national highway standards rather than at the rural highway standard being proposed by the Victorian government.To these noted campaigns and campaigners, you can add the hundreds—indeed thousands—of Victorian commuters who have signed the petition, who have sent the Prime Minister a note on the issue, or whose cars sport the `Fix the jam' sticker. None of them will go away until this issue is resolved. Perhaps more importantly, we have regular metropolitan coverage of this issue in the Herald Sun, which itself is campaigning for this road to be dealt with appropriately and as part of the national highway system.In conclusion, I would like to use the words of the Herald Sun in an editorial that it published late last year about the attitude of this minister and this government to the Geelong road. The tragedy is that, even though we have had a budget come and go in the period since this editorial was published, every word of it remains true today. The editorial read:John Anderson must mend his ways—and Victoria's deadliest road—if he wants to win back support from the bush for the Howard Government. By refusing funds to rebuild the Melbourne-Geelong freeway, the federal Minister for Transport and Regional Services ignores the fact that this narrow, overcrowded 50km stretch of bitumen has claimed 86 lives in the past eight years.Yet Mr Anderson shows callous indifference towards the families of the dead as well as others injured since 1990 in the 6000 crashes on this section of highway.The minister will not explain why his government refuses to provide the $100 million needed to match a similar contribution the Victorian Government would make to fix our worst killer highway.Instead, the people of Geelong and the commuters of Melbourne's outer west—namely, my constituents—have been told by the minister's official spokesman that the Herald Sun 's Fix our Deadly Highway campaign is a `wonderful beat-up in true tabloid fashion'.Some beat-up, some spokesman, some minister, when 86 people are dead.21:29:006946Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—I am pleased to bring this debate on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1999-2000 to a conclusion. I have noted that there have been many contributions throughout the course of the several days of debate on this legislation. In fact I am told that 101 speakers have participated in this debate, and that indicates the importance that the parliament places on debate on the national economy and on the management of the national economy by the government. I think it is fair to say that all members expect to see many problems in the Australian community addressed through the appropriation of funds by the Commonwealth, and I indicate that perhaps the honourable member for Lalor might fall into that category with her contribution to this debate.Appropriation is a complex process. Roads are a complex process as well. It is simply not a case of saying, `Let's spend money here, there or anywhere.' It is about ensuring that the spending of public moneys is prioritised correctly and that, where spending occurs, it is within the government's means. We, as a government, have continued to ensure that we do not spend outside our means. That has highlighted and underpinned the administration of the public accounts in the time that the coalition has been in government since 1996. It is also about a government putting together a budget, underpinned by the appropriation bills, which is in accordance with the objectives that the government has set out to achieve, and I would like to touch on those objectives.The 1999-2000 budget builds on our achievements and it addresses our key priorities. Those key priorities are to deliver on our election commitments. I can say that all members of the government were delighted to listen to the Treasurer on election night and to know that, as that budget speech was being delivered and those bills were being tabled, all of those promises put to the Australian people before October of last year were contained, on the first opportunity for such promises to be contained, in a set of bills called the appropriation bills—delivering to the Australian community as promised.The second objective is to promote an economic climate conducive to high levels of sustainable economic and employment growth and to provide a social safety net for those in need. A further priority is to build a modern, fair and efficient taxation system, and the Australian community, heaven knows, needs a modern, a fair and an efficient taxation system. It seems that all Australians acknowledge that, except the Australian Labor Party. Even the Democrats acknowledge that.Another priority is to deliver increased services to rural and regional Australia, and that of course is something which is paramount for the Australian community as a whole. It is a priority for the Liberal Party and the National Party and, as a coalition government, the Liberal and National parties have focused very much on the needs of rural and regional Australia. Lastly, by way of priorities, is the priority of ensuring that government resources are used as effectively and as efficiently as possible.Let me go back to the strong economy. The Labor Party has made much of the social impacts of the budget. Many of those 101 contributions to this debate have continued to address the so-called lack of social impact from those appropriations bills. It seems that Labor continues to take the view that there is a capacity of government to address the social needs. The first role of any government in securing the welfare of its people is to provide sound economic foundations. Far from being mutually exclusive, a government's social and economic goals should support each other. Time and again members will say to you, `You can afford social policies only when you have the economic side of government in order,' and that is something this government has addressed over its 3½ years in office. Without those strong economic fundamentals, there can be no guarantee of fulfilling and lasting employment, there can be little hope of security for individuals and families and no stable revenue base to provide the social safety net which all communities demand.These are all reasons why the government acted resolutely to put the budget back into surplus after its election in 1996, why the government moved to put an end to the spiral of deficit and debt left by Labor and not only to bring the budget back into surplus but to keep the budget in surplus.For the third year in a row, the budget will be in surplus, a surplus of more than $5 billion. We have already paid, or repaid, some $24 billion of Labor's debt, and we are now in a position to pay off more debt. In the last four budgets, in net terms, we have not borrowed one single dollar. We are moving steadily towards a debt free Commonwealth, a Commonwealth which was labouring under the burden of some $90 billion of additional debt under the previous Labor government. That was the legacy that Labor left this country in 1996.Sound economic management has protected Australia from the regional economic crisis that many predicted would draw us in. In the face of that regional crisis, our economy continued to grow. In fact, it grew faster than economies in the countries of Europe and faster than economies in the developed world as a whole, even faster than the economy of the USA. And unemployment fell; in the past year 180,000 new jobs were created.The restoration of the fiscal position, along with the government's success in lowering inflation, has provided an environment for the lowest housing interest rates in almost 30 years, and unemployment—which we will acknowledge is still too high—has fallen to its lowest level since the start of the decade. Just as the economic reform of three years ago gave us the strength to ride out the challenges of the last year, the reforms of today will determine how we ride out the challenges of tomorrow. If we want growth, if we want the living standards and jobs in the next decade, we must rise to the challenges of today. The reform of the Australian taxation system is our greatest reform challenge.I will touch on that taxation system, which has been the subject of much debate in the course of dealing with these bills. For Australia's sake we put forward a plan to reform the current outmoded, outdated, complex and unfair taxation system which is holding Australia back. Anyone who is serious about welfare reform must also be serious about taxation reform. Without a fair and sustainable tax system, the long-term viability of the social safety net must always remain in doubt.Without a broadly based goods and services tax, there can be no guarantee of a secure revenue base for the Australian states and territories to provide the schools, the hospitals, the roads—even, for that matter, roads such as the Geelong road. Without a broad based tax, there can be no guarantee of any roads—or the police. We all know that those things are the needs of the Australian community.Without a broadly based goods and services tax, you cannot abolish 10 unfair taxes including the unfair tax `bed tax' in the state of New South Wales. You cannot cut personal income taxes. You cannot catch more than the $3 billion that is estimated to be in the black economy, and you cannot reduce the tax on health, education, child care and charitable institutions. The Australian Democrats have recognised this. They have demonstrated a commitment to the national interest by sitting down with the government and working out a way to deliver reform that is in the national interest. Sadly, that once great party, the Australian Labor Party, has vacated centre stage. They have taken a one-way ticket to policy oblivion, and it is has been left to the Democrats to occupy that centre stage in the national interest.This plan will deliver great economic benefits to Australia. What it will deliver is that 80 per cent of Australian taxpayers will be on the top marginal rate of 30 cents in the dollar, and we will be reducing business costs by about $10½ billion per year. This tax plan will guarantee that no states will be worse off during the transitional period. Further, it guarantees that, after the transitional period, the revenue gains to the states will be such that they will be much better off than if the existing arrangements continue.There are many in this chamber who formerly had a state background and who would know only too well the difficulties that the states faced with the Premiers Conference year after year, wondering what the take would be after the trip to Canberra and knowing always that there was no certainty about whether there would be growth in the revenue of the states, because the Commonwealth had the first say, the Commonwealth had total say, and the states were at the mercy of the Commonwealth when it came to that return of the Australian people's taxes. That will cease. That will cease because there is growth built into the new tax plan, and in the end we are going to have a much better tax system.Let me touch briefly on rural and regional Australia. As I indicated earlier, we are strongly committed to rural and regional Australia and we have delivered a number of important initiatives in this budget. They include a series of measures to improve rural health services in the short and the long term, measures to ensure that students from rural and regional areas have much better access to education, and measures to defeat the distances that make it hard for rural and regional Australia to access government and community services, through the establishment of the regional transaction centres.In the area of education we will spend some $4.8 billion on primary and secondary school children in government and non-government schools. We are committed to the provision of choice in education, again for the benefit of all Australians. And whilst many speakers have addressed this issue, I have noted with some interest that there has been some conjecture about the contribution to non-government schools. The contribution which the government stands firmly behind and is very proud of will bring an additional $553 million over five years to the Catholic systemic schools, and that implements once again an election commitment made last October.This decision came out of an independent assessment of the needs of the system which was conducted by the Non-Government Schools Funding Review Committee. The budget announced a new formula for distributing recurrent funding to non-government schools based on the needs of the parents and taking into account the resources of the community that a school serves.In 2001, non-government schools will be funded according to a measure of the socioeconomic status, known as the SES, of their school communities. The new funding arrangements replace a system that was widely seen as unfair. It was complex and it was inadequate as a measure of need. We are going to have a much better and a fairer education funding system. Government schools have not been neglected. In the five years ahead an additional $1 billion has been provided for government schools.I referred in the priorities of government to effective and efficient government and the need to ensure that all that a government does achieves those objectives. Our public finances are reported and presented on a world class basis. Our Charter of Budget Honesty is now advocated internationally as a model for other countries.This budget represents a major shift in the way the federal government budgets for and manages its resources because for the first time the Commonwealth based its budget on outcomes and outputs and accrual accounting principles. But this entails much more than a technical change in accounting policies. The new framework puts outcomes and outputs—that is, results and deliverables—at the centre of how agencies plan, how they budget, how they manage and how they report. It marks a strategic and more businesslike approach and it incorporates standard financial statements with a strong emphasis on results. After all, surely that is what it is about. It is about outcomes, it is not about process.Traditional cash budgeting makes it difficult to assess the financial position of agencies or to compare performance from one financial year to another. It simply does not promote best practice management by agencies or true accountability. Accrual budgeting is recognised internationally as a more accurate tool. It is based on full costs as they are incurred. It changes both how and what is measured for budgeting, for accounting, and for reporting purposes. All in all, it means government having a better handle on knowing precisely how much it costs agencies to do business.The critical element is changing the performance focus to budgeting, managing and reporting on the outputs and the full costs required to achieve the outcomes that the government wants. The object is clarity: it is clear accountability; consistently applied and clear performance measures; realistic goods and services, planned and delivered; and, ultimately, the financial results that are achieved. The result is more transparent, and more transparent government is in fact something all of us would seek to achieve. The move makes Australia a world leader in government budgeting practices and positions Australia at the forefront of the international community for public sector resource management.The Labor Party has suggested that the move to accrual budgeting is an important change, but not important enough to mark as a major achievement of this budget. In one sense, and one sense only, this is true. Accrual budgeting is a tool to achieve the real end of an efficient and effective public sector, one that achieves the outcomes government wants, at the lowest possible cost. This allows the government to direct its resources to the areas of highest needs. The strong economic foundations which we have built, and continue to build upon, are the best guarantee of employment growth, security for individuals and families, and a stable revenue base to provide that social safety net I referred to earlier that the community demands. I thank all members for their contribution and I commend the bills to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.695010000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. D.H. Adams)—The Main Committee will now consider the bill in detail. In accordance with standing order 226, the committee will first consider the schedule of the bill.21:47:006950Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—I suggest that it might suit the convenience of the Main Committee to consider the items of proposed expenditure in the order and groupings shown in the schedule which has been circulated to honourable members. The consideration of the items in groups of departments has met the convenience of the House and the Main Committee in past years. I also take the opportunity to indicate to the Main Committee that the proposed order for consideration of departments' estimates has been discussed with the opposition and the Independent member and there has been no objection to what is proposed.The schedule read as follows—Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Department of the Environment and HeritageTogetherDepartment of Transport and Regional ServicesAttorney-General's DepartmentDepartment of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small BusinessDepartment of Immigration and Multicultural AffairsDepartment of Communications, Information Technology and the ArtsDepartment of Defence Department of Veterans' AffairsTogetherDepartment of Industry, Science and ResourcesDepartment of Prime Minister and CabinetDepartment of the Treasury Department of Finance and Administration TogetherDepartment of Family and Community ServicesDepartment of Health and Aged CareDepartment of Foreign Affairs and TradeDepartment of Education, Training and Youth Affairs10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Is it the wish of the Main Committee to consider the items of proposed expenditure in the order suggested by the minister? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed.Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and ForestryProposed expenditure $394,718,000.Department of the Environment and HeritageProposed expenditure $593,270,000.21:49:006951O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—I welcome the opportunity in this consideration in detail stage to make some more detailed comments on the appropriations which comprise the government's outlays in the Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry portfolio area. I propose to engage this debate on two levels. One is to comment on the fundamental assumptions which underlie the outlays which have been made in this portfolio area and, indeed, the government's overall budget strategy; and then to make some more specific comments on some of the programs that have been funded in this particular portfolio area.I was very interested in the comments of the Minister for Finance and Administration who preceded me in the general debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1999-2000 . He made some comment on the broad objectives that the government is pursuing in this budget strategy, and I presume those objectives relate in some way to the Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry portfolio. The first objective he stated was that the government was delivering on its election commitments. I am sure that the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry will get up and tell the House just how wonderful the government has been in addressing some of the promises that it made in the context of election campaigns. But I say, `About time.'You spent three years driving the boot into the bush. You spent the last three years stripping away the services to rural and regional Australia. We would expect you, in this budget, at least with the $5.5 billion surplus, to start addressing some of the damage that you caused in the previous three budgets that you brought down. It was a comprehensive betrayal. What the government has attempted to do in this budget after it has stripped the homestead bare over three years is to refurbish the one room bungalow out the back.If you think that is really going to restore your credibility in rural and regional Australia, you have another think coming because I am going to reflect, in the context of this debate, on some of the programs that you are funding and what the rural sector has said about them. The finance minister commented on the importance of developing a sustainable economic climate for growth and employment. We are happy to engage you on that particular debate. We left you with an inflation rate of less than two per cent and a growth rate in excess of four per cent.I do not know why the minister for agriculture here acquiesced to a Liberal lawyer who masquerades as an economic expert, why a member of the National Party would roll over year after year after year to drive the economy backwards so that it can go forwards. It is back to the future so that we can progress. That is what we had in the three years preceding this particular budget. One of the objectives of a finance minister is to build a modern, fair and efficient taxation system. If you think the package that you have delivered with the Democrats is really going to be accepted in the bush by those farm businesses that you are going to now heap on millions of dollars worth of compliance costs, and if you think that is going to restore some credibility out there in the bush, I think you are really barking up another tree.The king of all statements was what the finance minister said this budget was about: increasing the level of services to rural and regional Australia. As I said, you spent three years stripping the rural sector bare of those services, so we would hope that, in one of your budgets in four years, you might address some of the damage that you have done.It is interesting that the finance minister talks about bringing the budget back into surplus and the importance of wiping out deficits and running budget surpluses. We agree with you on that. We do not have a problem with that because we think the rural sector needs, consistently over time, a secure fundamental macro-economic framework in which it can develop and grow. The minister for agriculture is smiling away and he is going to trumpet the achievements of the government which, in effect, were the achievements of Labor in government that he is now attempting to claim as his own. (Extension of time granted)I found these comments about the surplus quite extraordinary. In the postwar era, we had 22 years of Liberal deficits and Liberal debt. In the Fraser years, when the current Prime Minister had control of the treasury bench, we had another seven years of Liberal coalition deficits. So we know a bit about deficits. We know about coalition deficits because we had something like 29 years in our post World War II experience of coalition deficits. We had the onerous task of bringing the Commonwealth budget back into surplus, which we did on four occasions. The former minister for agriculture grins away. Four Labor surpluses, 29 years of coalition deficit—I think there is a bit of an imbalance there.We would expect you to run a surplus. We would expect you to emulate what we gave you—growth, a high-growth economy, a low-inflation economy and, of course, budget surpluses. I have got to say to the minister that we welcome the fact that we have flushed out of the system the 29 years of coalition deficits and that you have now joined us in producing budget surpluses. We are happy to do that. But, of course, I find it quite extraordinary that the finance minister said, and I think I got the quote correct:. . . the reforms of today will determine how we ride out the challenges of tomorrow.That is a very good quote because that is what we did in 13 years when we had to reform the Australian economy and Australia's agricultural sector to put it on a sound financial footing so that it could weather the economic crisis that the finance minister referred to. We had to massively restructure our industrial base. Labor engaged in the most comprehensive program of micro-economic reform that this country has ever seen. We developed a true export culture in our manufacturing and agricultural industries. We reformed the finance system. Labor engaged in skill development, infrastructure development and investment development as contained in the programs of One Nation, Working Nation and Investing in the Nation, and indeed the reforms over those 13 years positioned Australia to ride out the challenges that the finance minister referred to in the debate today.An important feature of this consideration in detail stage is the opportunity that it presents to reflect on the government's budget in the cool light of day and against the backdrop of some of the comments by those affected in the government's announced decisions. The role of the opposition is certainly not a spoiling role. We are not here to disagree with every initiative mounted by the government in the budget context. Indeed, it would be strange if a government of any particular persuasion were to go through the budget process, with the enormous creative resources of an expert department at their disposal, and not come up with worthwhile initiatives.I do not propose here tonight to take issue with all elements of the government's rural budget. There are some initiatives in there that we as an opposition would support. Indeed we might take the view that the government has perhaps not gone far enough in its funding allocation to meet the particular problems facing the rural sector at this point of time. The $30 million over five years to rehabilitate the Great Artesian Basin is one initiative we would support. The $4.2 million national ovine Johne's disease control program is another. The $15.8 million over four years to increase patrols in our sub-Antarctic waters to protect our fisheries is another expenditure that we would support.From the opposition's point of view, we question some of the fundamental assumptions on which this budget and many of the programs targeted at the rural sector are indeed based. We have to appreciate the political context in which this budget was brought down. It was brought down against the backdrop of three years in which the coalition has taken a real belting out in rural and regional Australia. We take the view that this is not the real budget and, as I have said, we have questioned its underlying assumptions and its lack of vision. (Extension of time granted)I would like to make some quotes about the fundamental assumptions that the government has based its rural budget on and indeed about its lack of vision. In relation to the underlying assumptions, in The Land, Peter Austin had an article headlined `How thin is budget ice' and he had this to say about it:The real worry in the budget is the extent to which outcomes rely on factors well beyond the government's control—and I don't simply refer to the sale of the rest of Telstra. . . . The thing underpinning our projected high levels of growth is consumer spending, which could fall in a hole overnight . . . a consumer spending boom is no way to sustain an economy, especially when so much of the wealth is derived from unproductive activity. . . . Like Simon Crean, I wonder why the government is so keen to ditch a tax system that has so far succeeded in keeping Australia on the path of low inflation and strong growth during a period of regional turmoil in favour of something untried and problem fraught. Those are not our concerns that are raised; those are the concerns of rural commentators. I go to a quote by an Alectown farmer, Peter Unger, in The Land of 13 May, where he refers to one of the fundamental assumptions on which the government's revenue projections are based. He had this to say:I expected better of Peter Costello and Tim Fischer. [. . . ] Tim Fischer—supposedly battling for the rural sector—is out again for another `duck' . . . selling Telstra to achieve its budget surplus—it's just creative accounting. I could just as easily thrill my bank manager by selling the front paddock . . . In effect, what we are doing here is selling a future revenue stream from an institution and an economic enterprise that farmers already own. They already own it; they already have a share in it, and you want to sell it to foreigners. That is how they perceive it out there in the bush and they are right on to you guys—the National Party—in rural Australia. If there is one element of the betrayal or one broken promise that will be a millstone around your neck—and we will make sure it is—it is the sale of Telstra. You promised you would not sell it and then you said you would not run it down.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The honourable member for Corio might have been pleased to see me, but nonetheless he will still direct his remarks through the chair, or he will be less pleased.WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNOR—I will do that; I am humbled before your ruling. If I might just comment on the lack of vision in the budget, I think there are some very telling quotes that I can read to this House about what the farm sector had to say about the budget's lack of vision. The United Graziers Association of Queensland stated:. . . the budget was fiscally responsible but innocuous and neutral, lacking in initiatives to spark wealth creation for the nation in the longer term.They were referring there to one of the great wealth creating sectors of this nation—the agricultural sector. The UGA President, Noel Kennedy, had this to say in the discussions that I had with him:A debt free Australia was a noble aim but he would have preferred to see the $5.2B surplus put into infrastructure development.The Queensland Farmers Federation said that the budget contained some useful and welcome measures—we agree with that; we do not have a problem with that—but `lacked a clear and coherent vision for the rural sector'. Here are farming groups saying of the government—after three years with their hands on the tiller, having stripped rural and regional Australia bare and driven the boot into the bush—`All they can come up with is a budget that lacks vision.'I would like to address in my concluding remarks the issue of services and the equity of access for rural people to services. The NFF has been quite critical of the previous budgets of the government in this respect. Ian Donges, the NFF President, in a press release of 11 May, stated:The NFF remains concerned that the Government's spending proposals will not sufficiently redress the inequities between city and country Australians.. . . . . . . . .The NFF is disappointed in the reduction in funding for Co-operative Research Centres, which have the capacity to contribute enormously to providing Australia with the scientific edge.. . . . . . . . .. . .. there is a long way to go before rural and regional Australians will feel they're getting the same level of services as those who live in the cities. It is a very neutral comment which really sums up the attitude of many rural and regional Australians who are disappointed with the government's performance in this budget.There are specifics of the budget that I would like to deal with, but I think I am going to run out of time. We certainly have some serious questions about elements of the budget: the departmental cutbacks, the initiatives in biotechnology, Supermarket to Asia and the educational initiatives. (Time expired)22:05:006955Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON8T4ReidALP00—The sole new funding allocation for forestry in the 1999 budget is a one-off allocation of $5.8 million to complete the eight remaining regional forest agreements. Of this figure, $4 million goes to the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and $1.8 million to the Department of the Environment and Heritage. As Labor initiated the RFA process and remains strongly committed to it, we agree that adequate funding must be provided to allow the necessary economic, social and environmental assessments to be completed by the December guideline.This does not mean, of course, that we agree with the approach being taken by the Minister for Forestry and Conservation. In his home state of Western Australia, we see clear signs that the RFA he signed last month is already unravelling in a massive way. In the last week, we have seen a National Party MP cross the floor in the state parliament on the issue. The state director of the Western Australian National Party, a close friend of those opposite, has warned of dire electoral consequences. It is indicated in today's West Australian that there is a strong push from within the coalition with five Liberal Party backbenchers pressing for a review of which forest blocks are to be protected in the reserve system.As noted in my media release earlier today, the Western Australian RFA can hardly be seen as a secure 20-year agreement for the future when the state's Deputy Premier and leader of the National Party publicly talks about possible changes only a month after it was signed. These developments reinforce my view that the ham-fisted approach taken by Minister Tuckey will ultimately prove to be counterproductive for the very industry groups that he purports to be protecting. The budget also continues funding for two other of Labor's forest initiatives: the Forest Industry Structural Adjustment Program—FISAP; and the Wood and Paper Industry Strategy—WAPIS.I will briefly touch on each of these vital programs. Labor introduced the FISAP program in 1995 to help the native forest industry adjust to the requirements of Labor's national forest policy statement of 1992. It was always clear that this statement would lead to significant reductions of timber harvesting to more sustainable levels and to a significant expansion in the size of the reserve system for old-growth forest.All of the early, misleading rhetoric from the current federal minister—later discounted and dismissed by the Western Australian state government—that there would be no job losses is exactly what that program was aimed at. Labor allocated $107 million of Commonwealth funds over five years to FISAP and secured significant matching funding from the New South Wales state Labor government. Despite the government's rhetoric about looking after timber workers, one of the first things the current coalition government did after the 1996 election was to cut $6 million from FISAP. More recently, in November last year, the minister unilaterally suspended FISAP funding to New South Wales in a clear attempt to stand over the Carr government. The irony of this move is that, of the states, New South Wales alone has contributed significant amounts of state funding to FISAP. According to the Commonwealth's own figures, as of last February, New South Wales has provided $15 million. No other state has provided a single cent to FISAP, yet New South Wales is the only state whose funding has been suspended.Now that the New South Wales election is over, and with the coalition, predictably, suffering a devastating loss, it is clearly time for the Commonwealth to restore FISAP funding. In recent Senate estimates hearings, Commonwealth officials said that negotiations about this were continuing but refused to promise that New South Wales would have its original allocation completely restored. I invite the minister to stop using timber workers as the meat in the sandwich in Commonwealth-state negotiations and restore FISAP funding to New South Wales without further delay.The coalition's approach to Labor's Wood and Paper Industry Strategy has been equally deplorable and lacking. Indeed, one of the first decisions it made was to abolish the expert Wood and Paper Industry Council that was supposed to drive strategy. Such an industry council obviously did not fit comfortably with the anti-interventionist approach of its key economic ministers. It is all right for Minister Tuckey to say that he is a good bloke and a friend of the CFMEU, but he really cannot get past Prime Minister Howard because Prime Minister Howard is so strongly against this kind of industry policy.In place of the council the former industry minister set up—but not until 18 months had passed—a Wood and Paper Industry Forum, which has met twice. This great industry council, which is going to drive industry policy, has met twice in the period of the coalition government. The lack of seriousness with which the coalition approaches the industry strategy is demonstrated by this fact. (Extension of time granted)It is little wonder that the current minister, having essentially dismissed the performance of Minister Moore and his other predecessors in this policy field, has taken to reconvening a series of meetings with industry stakeholders to develop what he calls `an action agenda' for the timber industry? This is something that the opposition will be paying close attention to.So far the minister has been strong on rhetoric and short on action. He has refused to commit the government to re-establish the Wood and Paper Industry Council, telling the union that if he is forced with a gun at his head to adopt this council he will, because he really cannot get it across to Prime Minister Howard that it is a good idea; he is really a nice guy, a friend of the union, but Prime Minister Howard is stopping this type of policy direction.Let us say to the minister: your rhetoric might be more attuned than your predecessor's to the need for an industry policy, but we will be watching for outcomes—whether you will re-establish the Wood and Paper Industry Council and give it sufficient resources to do its job; what your promised action agenda provides for in terms of specific industry development and research measures; and, most of all, how much in funding the Commonwealth will provide with a strategy for the three to five financial years after the budget we are currently discussing.All of these questions must of course be viewed in the context of the manner in which the government, soon after its election, attacked the Wood and Paper Industry Council, attacked FISAP funding and attempted to use it in New South Wales to try and reverse an agreement where all the stakeholders were involved in a very real sense.Debate (on motion by Mr Zahra) adjourned.Main Committee adjourned at 10.13 p.m.Answers to Questions in Writing6957The following answers to questions were circulated:6957(Question No. 252)2526957Edwards, Graham, MPMr Edwards83RCowanALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Justice and Customs, upon notice, on 2 December 1998:(1) How many drug related prosecutions have been initiated under Commonwealth law in Western Australia in each financial year since 1992-93.(2) How many cases in each year referred to in part (1) resulted in convictions.6957Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The Minister for Justice and Customs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) The number of defendants against whom drug related prosecutions were initiated in Western Australia under Commonwealth law in the following financial years are:1992-93—42; 1993-94—51; 1994-95—25; 1995-96—33; 1996-97—34; 1997-98—38.(2) The cases in each year referred to in part (1) which resulted in convictions (to date) are:of the 42 commenced in 1992-93—37 resulted in conviction; of the 51 commenced in 1993-94—43 resulted in conviction; of the 24 commenced in 1994-95—22 resulted in conviction; of the 33 commenced in 1995-96—29 resulted in conviction; of the 34 commenced in 1996-97—32 resulted in conviction; of the 38 commenced in 1997-98—25 resulted in conviction and 7 are still being prosecuted.6957(Question No. 394)3946957Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 9 February 1999:(1) What Imperial and Australian medals are available to RAAF personnel who served (a) as signallers on Labuan Island during the Malayan Emergency, (b) with Nos. 3 and 77 Squadrons at Butterworth during Indonesian Confrontation and (c) with 79 Squadron at Ubon Thailand, after June 1965, during the Vietnam War. (2) What were the specific rules of engagement applicable to each period of RAAF service referred in part (1).(3) Are the medal entitlements of RAAF personnel consistent with the rules of engagement applicable to each period of service referred to in part (1); if so, how is consistency established.(4) Has the Department of Defence completed its further review of service entitlements for RAAF personnel at Ubon; if so, what (a) findings and recommendations did it make and (b) action has the Government taken as a result.6957Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (a) The Australian Active Service Medal 1945-75 with Clasp `Malaya' and the Imperial General Service Medal 1918-62 with Clasp `Malaya', (b) The Australian Active Service Medal 1945-75 with Clasp `Malaysia' and the Imperial General Service Medal 1962 with Clasp `Malay Peninsula', and (c) The Australian Service Medal 1945-75 with Clasp `Thailand'.(2) and (3) No rules of engagement have been located for signallers on Labuan Island. A number of versions of rules of engagement existed for 79 Squadrons at Butterworth during the Indonesian Confrontation. These rules are detailed, complex and reasonably lengthy documents. However, medals are not awarded on the basis of rules of engagements, or by comparison of rules of engagement. They are awarded on the basis of whether service is rendered under warlike (active service against an identified enemy or adversary) or non-warlike conditions are derived from diplomatic, military and medical assessments. The assessments relate to the degree of threat to personnel by hostile forces, the individual and environmental hazards encountered, and other relevant factors such as living conditions and restrictions on recreational activities.(4) No. Although a report was drafted, following a meeting between the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence and members of the RAAF Ubon Association, Defence was tasked with further research on matters discussed during the meeting. This was not finalised before the announcement of the independent review of ADF service in South East Asia over the period 1955-75. This review will provide a written report to the Government on the possible anomalies affecting members of the ADF who served in South east Asia during the period 1955-75. Service at RAAF Ubon is within the terms of reference of this review.6958(Question No. 483)4836958Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin ThomsonUK6WillsALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 10 March 1999:(1) How many Centrelink customer service officers were employed in the Centrelink customer service centres in Moreland, Vic., on (i) 1 January 1999, (ii) 1 January 1998 and (iii) 1 January 1997.(2) How many of the Centrelink customer service officers referred to in part (1) were involved in "point-of-contact" service to clients in Moreland, Vic., on (i) 1 January 1999, (ii) 1 January 1998 and (iii) 1 January 1997.6958Truss, Warren, MPMr TrussGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—The Minister for Family and Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) (i) 91 customer service officers. Note: This excludes the Manager, and office support positions but includes Social Workers.(ii) and (iii) Not applicable. The Moreland Customer Service Centre (CSC) did not open until 27 January 1998.(2) (i) 91 on 4 January 1999. Note: the Moreland CSC was not open on 1 January 1999.(ii) and (iii) Not applicable. The Moreland Customer Service Centre did not open until 27 January 1998.6958(Question No. 523)5236958Ellis, Annette, MPMs Ellis5K6NamadgiALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 23 March 1999:(1) How many Centrelink customer service officers were employed in the Centrelink customer service centres in (a) Tuggeranong, ACT and (b) Woden, ACT on 22 March 1999.(2) How many of the Centrelink customer service officers referred to in part (1) were involved in "point-of-contact" service to clients in (a) Tuggeranong, ACT and (b) Woden, ACT on 22 March 1999.(3) How many Centrelink customer service officers were located in the Centrelink customer service centres in (a) Tuggeranong, ACT, and (b) Woden, ACT on 22 March 1999.(4) How many of the Centrelink customer service officers referred to in part (3) were involved in "point-of-contact" service to clients in (a) Tuggeranong, ACT and (b) Woden, ACT on 22 March 1999.6958Truss, Warren, MPMr TrussGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—The Minister for Family and Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) (a) 37 Customer Service Officers (CSO). Note: This excludes the Manager, Administration officers, and Authorised Review Officers (AROs) in recognition that the response to this question should be better defined to assist the honourable Member—these equivalent staff were included in response to a previous question asked by the honourable Member (Question on Notice 418).(b) 38 CSOs.(2) (a) 37 CSOs. Note: This excludes AROs—these equivalent staff were included in response to a previous question asked by the honourable Member (Question on Notice 418).(b) 35 CSOs. Note: This excludes CSOs providing services to Abstudy hotline—these equivalent staff were included in response to a previous question asked by the honourable Member (Question on Notice 418).(3) (a) 26 CSOs during the morning.25 CSOs during the afternoonNote: This excludes 13 CSOs on leave or training—factors not taken into account in response to QON 418.(b) 24 CSOs during the morning.25 CSOs during the afternoon.Note: This excludes 9 CSOs on leave or training—factors not taken into account in response to QON 418.(4) (a) 24 CSOs during the morning. Note: This excludes 2 CSOs who were providing assistance during the morning for the official opening of the new Tuggeranong Customer Service Centre.25 CSOs during the afternoon.(b) 24 CSOs during the morning.25 CSOs during the afternoon.6958(Question No. 575)5756958Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 11 May 1999:(1) Did the Australian Government vote in support of the ILO's new Declaration on Fundamental Rights and Principles at Work at the 1998 ILO Conference.(2) Will the ILO's reports measuring compliance by countries to the new declaration be completed in the year 2000; if so, what action has the Australian Government taken to ensure compliance and commence preparing Australia's country report on the declaration.6959Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Australian Government voted in favour of the ILO adopting the Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work at the 86th session of the International Labour Conference, Geneva, in June 1998.(2) The purpose of the Declaration is to reaffirm the commitment of ILO members to the fundamental principles of the Organisation regardless of whether or not they have ratified the corresponding Conventions. The Annex to the Declaration provides that those ILO Member States that have not ratified relevant Conventions will be required to submit an annual report on any changes which may have taken place in their law and practice. The purpose of the annual reports is to enable the ILO to assess overall trends in member States and identify gaps in technical assistance and cooperation.Australia has ratified six of the seven Conventions corresponding with the principles of the Declaration and already reports to the ILO on their implementation. As Australia has not ratified Convention No 138, Minimum Age, 1973, the Government will be reporting to the ILO in November 1999 on Australia's implementation of the principles associated with the abolition of child labour. Consultations with the State and Territory governments will commence shortly with a view to developing the report.Australia has not ratified Convention No.138 because Australian law does not comply with a number of its express requirements, and there is insufficient flexibility in the Convention to allow ratification to be considered. As at February 1999, only 72 of 174 ILO member States had ratified Convention No.138. In view of the poor rate of acceptance of this Convention, a new Convention and Recommendation aimed at eliminating the worst forms of child labour will be considered for adoption at the 1999 International Labour Conference. 6959(Question No. 576)5766959Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 11 May 1999:(1) Has the ILO accepted that two of its core labour standards are a prohibition on abusive child labour and a prohibition on forced labour; if so, has the Australian Government considered following the US Government's lead to devote additional funds to the ILO's International Program on the Elimination of Child Labour.(2) What sum has the Australian Government committed to the program in each year since its inception.6959Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) In June 1998 the International Labour Conference (ILC) adopted the Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. The purpose of the Declaration is to reaffirm the commitment of ILO members to the fundamental principles of the Organisation regardless of whether or not they have ratified the corresponding Conventions. These fundamental principles include the elimination of all forms of forced or compulsory labour and the effective abolition of child labour.A donation to the International Program on the Elimination of Child Labour (IPEC) is not proposed at this time. Out of 174 members, Australia is already the 12th highest contributor to the ILO in terms of membership fees.(2) Australia donated $US100,000 to IPEC through AusAID in 1995. This was paid in two $US50,000 instalments to fund a pilot project on bonded child labour in Nepal.6959(Question No. 578)5786959Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 11 May 1999:(1) Does the Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 propose an income test on lump sum compensation payments for pain and suffering.(2) Is it a fact that lump sum compensation payments historically have been regarded as intending to compensate an injured person for the suffering and loss of quality of life they have endured.(3) Does the Bill propose that periodic payments of lump sum compensation under $2000 within a 28 day period will not be income tested; if so, is it common for compensation for pain and suffering to be paid in that manner.(4) Is it a fact that under the provisions of the proposed legislation lump sum compensation payments for pain and suffering will result in reduced social security and veterans' entitlements but that similar provisions will not apply to libel settlements, another form of compensation for pain and suffering; if so, why.6960Truss, Warren, MPMr TrussGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—The Minister for Family and Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) Currently:- periodic payments are counted as income for all social security and veterans' income support recipients; and- lump sums are counted as income in the fortnight of receipt for allowance recipients, but ignored for pension recipients.The Compensation for Non-economic Loss (Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements Legislation Amendment) Bill 1999 changes this current treatment of non-economic loss payments to make periodic payments more attractive than one-off lump sums.Under this approach, lump sums may be income tested over 26 fortnights, but with the following concessions applying:- the first $10,000 of a non-economic loss compensation lump sum will be disregarded;- payments by compensation payers/insurers made directly to third parties for necessary modifications and/or equipment related to the injury (eg home/car modifications, mobility aids, hoists etc) will be disregarded;- where a person purchases an income stream product with their non-economic loss compensation lump sum, the lump sum will be disregarded under the Bill; and- a Secretarial discretion may disregard certain payments from being assessed under the Bill.(2) Lump sum compensation payments can cover a variety of heads of damage, including lost earnings, lost capacity to earn, past and future medical and care costs permanent impairment, pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life etc.(3) Yes. Periodic non-economic loss payments are currently available to people injured in motor vehicle accidents in Victoria, and legislation has been passed in Victoria which would make periodic payments available under their workers' compensation legislation.(4) Yes, subject to the concessions listed above at answer (1). This Bill applies to `personal injury' compensation payments made solely for non-economic loss. Payments made for defamation would not typically be categorised as being in respect of `personal injury'.6960(Question No. 587)5876960Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin ThomsonUK6WillsALP00 asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 11 May 1999:Is it a fact that the draft report of the National Competition Council on the review of subsections 51(2) and 51(3) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 recommends the removal of certain exemptions for intellectual property under the Act; if so, will he ensure similarly to his assurance concerning the protection of newsagencies' home deliveries that the removal will not endanger research and innovation in Australia.6960Howard, John, MPMr HowardZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The National Competition Council completed the final report for the National Competition Policy (NCP) legislation review of subsections 51(2) and 51(3) of the Trade Practices Act 1976 in March 1999. The Government is considering its response to the final report, and in doing so, will take account of the vital importance of research and development to Australia's future prosperity.6960(Question No. 590)5906960Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MossfieldMK6GreenwayALP00 asked the Minister for Community Services, upon notice, on 11 May 1999:(1) Has Centrelink decided not to notify pensioners directly about changes to their entitlements.(2) Are pensioners required to phone a central inquiry point for information about their entitlements.(3) Are sufficient personnel available to deal promptly with pensioners' queries.(4) What are the delay times in responding to telephone queries to the Centrelink multilingual inquiry points.(5) Has the number of staff been increased to deal with queries to the multilingual inquiry points.6960Truss, Warren, MPMr TrussGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) There has been no such decision taken. Where there is a legal requirement to do so, Centrelink advises customers of changes to their entitlement.(2) Pensioners are not required to telephone a central inquiry point for information about their entitlements. They may inquire about their entitlements by either telephoning Centrelink Call or visiting or writing to their local Centrelink Customer Service Centre. Centrelink Call has improved its services to provide more specialised advice, with a dedicated `13' telephone number to deal with enquiries from Retirement customers (132300) and a separate dedicated `13' telephone number for Disability, Sickness and Carer customers (132717).(3) Yes. For those callers who do choose to contact Centrelink Call, staff numbers have doubled in the past three years. There are now over 3,000 staff working in 22 Call Centres, with another two centres to be opened next year. Over the last two weeks 98.4% of Retirement and 93.6% of Disability, Sickness & Carer customers were able to contact Centrelink Call on their first attempt. Centrelink has Customer Service Centres as well as visiting services and agencies which are available to assist pensioners.(4) Centrelink Call provides a multilingual service to over 21 language groups. The multilingual telephone enquiry centre is located at the Liverpool Call Centre. Customers who rang the multilingual service in April waited on average for just 20 seconds and in May this wait time was just 17 seconds.(5) The number of inquiries to the multilingual service has remained at a steady level of around 800 enquiries each day over the last twelve months. The 38 staff as at May 3 1999, which has also remained at a similar level over the past twelve months, meet the demand with all callers being served on their first attempt.6961(Question No. 595)5956961McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 11 May 1999:(1) Further to the answer to question No 155 (Hansard , 11 May 1999, page 4165) does the concept of segregated air space involve aircraft landing from one direction and taking off from the opposite direction so that the paths of aircraft which are arriving and departing do not intersect either on land or in the air; if not, will he describe the concept which was supported by the study conducted by Ratner & Associates in 1992. (2) Do any modes of operation under the Long Term Operating Plan for Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport involve the paths of arriving and departing aircraft crossing either on land or in the air; if so, which modes.6961Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Airservices Australia advises that segregated airspace provides the facility for the operations of approach and departure controllers to be carried out independently to the greatest extent possible. This is achieved by airspace and flight path design, which segregates the operations of aircraft. Where flight paths are required to cross, procedures ensure that aircraft do not conflict with each other.(2) Airservices Australia advises that all modes of operation at KSA, including the parallel modes that were introduced by the previous Government, require the paths of some aircraft to cross at some point on the ground and/or in the air.6961(Question No. 599)5996961McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 11 May 1999:(1) Has the Integrated Humanitarian Settlement Strategy program been put to competitive tender; if so, (a) why, (b) how will a better service for refugees and humanitarian entrants be provided and (c) how will he ensure that the quality of service will not be undermined.(2) Has he responded to the findings in the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs on competitive tendering of welfare service delivery, presented to the House on 29 June 1998, which advised against the further tendering of welfare services until the Government develops a contestability continuum; if so, what was his response; if not, why not.6961Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) As I announced in a media statement I released at the beginning of February this year, funding for core services for refugee and humanitarian entrants under the Integrated Humanitarian Settlement Strategy will progressively move to a competitive tendering and contracting basis.(a) The Government sees contracting out of humanitarian settlement services as the next step in a process of continuous improvement, stemming from the introduction of the IHSS in 1997-98 as a more holistic and targeted approach to settlement services for Humanitarian Program entrants. The Government's primary goal is to ensure that the specific needs of this vulnerable group are clearly identified and that services to meet these needs are designed and delivered in the most efficient, effective and equitable way. The Government considers that this can best be achieved through contracts in which it clearly articulates required outcomes.(b) Aside from more clearly articulating the outcomes the Government wants for Humanitarian Program entrants and providing an integrated approach for delivering these outcomes, contracted out service delivery should also result in better targeting of services from the client perspective and more effective and efficient financial management. This will allow existing Government resources to benefit the maximum number of entrants.Such results are consistent with the recommendations of the December 1998 Australian National Audit Office report on the provision of migrant settlement services.(c) In developing the Request for Proposal documentation, my Department has clearly identified the principles and high standards the Government will expect from potential contracted service providers in their delivery of services to Humanitarian Program entrants. These principles and standards, which place the focus on the client, will form a key part of service delivery contracts and performance against these will be closely monitored by my Department.Contractors will also be required to maintain good working relationships with other service providers, including volunteers. This will assist in maintaining the holistic integrity of IHSS services and the retention of committed volunteers.(2) Responsibility for preparation of the Government response to the inquiry rests with my colleague the Minister for Health and Aged Care and his department. I am advised that discussions are occurring between the Department of Health and Aged Care and other departments, in particular Family and Community Services, with a view to finalising the response in the near future.My Department has provided input to the response. That input related to the Government's access and equity strategy as expressed in the Charter of Public Service in a Culturally Diverse Society and its relevance to contracting out of government services. Also of note is that in 1997-98, my Department collaborated with the Department of Finance and Administration (DOFA) in preparing guidelines for managers to ensure the Charter principles were integrated into the Commonwealth's framework for competitive tendering and contracting. In progressively moving to the contracting of IHSS services, my Department has acted in a manner consistent with the DOFA guidelines.6962(Question No. 601)6016962Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 11 May 1999:(1) Which companies have contracts with the Department of Defence for the carriage of explosives.(2) Do all vehicles used by each company referred to in part (1) to carry explosives meet the required standards set out in Statutory Rules 1991, No 329—Explosive regulations.(3) Do all company employees engaged in carrying explosives hold "secret" security clearance.(4) Does each company carry a Commonwealth indemnity for carrying explosives under contract.(5) Are all company employees engaged in carrying explosives trained to the level of explosive ordnance class 1.(6) What level of training is undertaken annually by drivers engaged in carrying explosives.6962Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPDefence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) DAS Operations Pty Ltd trading as DAS Distribution.(2) Para 2.1(1) and Para 15(1) of the contract stipulates that vehicles must conform with the standards in schedule 3 of the Explosive Regulations (Stat. Rules 1991 No 329). This is verified.(3) Para 12 of the contract details security requirements including the need for Contractor employees to hold Secret security clearances. This has been verified.(4) Para 19 of the contract has specific clauses detailing indemnity requirements.(5) The department's contract (Para's 2.1(vi) and Para 14) requires contractor staff to be competent and fully trained.(6) Whilst the contract does not specify annual training it does require drivers and supervisors to be competent and this aspect is monitored.6962(Question No. 613)6136962Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 12 May 1999:Will he provide details of all foreign awards that current and former Australian Defence Force personnel have permission to accept in respect of overseas military service after September 1945.6963Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The following table lists all foreign honours and awards approved for wearing for service after September 1945 according to available information derived from Department of Defence files:AwardRemarksKorean WarService AwardUnited Nations Service Medal with Clasp `Korea'Unit AwardsRepublic of Korea Presidential Unit Citation United States Presidential Unit CitationVietnamCampaign AwardGovernment of the Republic of Vietnam Campaign MedalUnit AwardsUnited States Presidential Unit CitationUnited States Meritorious Unit CitationUnited States Outstanding Unit Award (with Combat `V' Device)United States Navy Meritorious Unit CommendationUnited States Navy Unit CommendationRepublic of Vietnam Cross of Gallantry with Palm Unit CitationIndividual Gallantry and Meritorious Service Awards (United States)Distinguished Service CrossSilver StarLegion of MeritDistinguished Flying CrossBronze StarAir MedalArmy Commendation MedalNavy Commendation MedalCombat Flying MedalMedal of Freedom(Republic of Vietnam)Gallantry Cross (several levels)Armed Forces Honour Medal (several classes)Staff Service MedalTraining Services MedalCivil Action MedalIndividual Gallantry and Meritorious Service Awards (Cambodia) National Defence Medal (Bronze Star)Gulf WarUnited KingdomDistinguished Flying CrossOne individual awardMember of the British EmpireOne individual awardGulf War MedalService award—exchange onlyUnited StatesSouth West Asia Service MedalService award—exchange onlyLegion of MeritIndividual awardsBronze StarIndividual awardsMeritorious Service MedalIndividual awardsNavy Unit CommendationUnit AwardKingdom of Saudi ArabiaKuwait Liberation MedalCampaign award to all participantsGovernment King Abdul Aziz Order 3rd ClassPost 1975—GeneralIn all cases, these medals have been awarded for exchange or postings to foreign countriesUnited KingdomMember of the British EmpireIndividual awardAir Force CrossIndividual awardGeneral Service Medal 1962 (several Clasps)Campaign awardSouth Atlantic Medal 1982Campaign awardUnited StatesLegion of Merit (various degrees)Individual awardMeritorious Service MedalsIndividual awardNavy Expeditionary Force MedalCampaign awardMulti National Force and Observers MedalCampaign awardMiscellaneousUnited Nations Medal (various according to Activities attended)Campaign awardNorth Atlantic Treaty Organisation MedalCampaign awardZimbabwe Independence MedalCampaign awardKorea Service MedalCampaign awardIndonesian Armed Forces Bintang Yudah Dharma NarayaIndividual awardIt should be noted that only one foreign campaign award is accepted for any one operation. This policy recognises that an Australian service medal should be the pre-eminent award for campaign service without being overshadowed by a proliferation of foreign awards for the same service. Additionally, all foreign awards will only be officially recognised by the Australian Government in cases where a formal offer has been made by the Head of State or the Government of a country with which Australia maintains diplomatic relations; or by an official agency of the United Nations (UN); or by other international organisations recognised diplomatically by Australia.6966(Question No. 641)6416966Albanese, Anthony, MPMr AlbaneseR36GrayndlerALP00 asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 31 May 1999:Has Mr John Sayffer (or Saffer) been employed under the Members of Parliament Staff Act; if so, (a) for which Minister or Member did he work, (b) during what period was he employed and (c) what were his duties.6966Fahey, John, MPMr FaheyHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:No.