1999-06-223913REPS697901999-06-22Mr SPEAKER(Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 2.00 p.m., and read prayers.Condolences697969796979Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I inform the House of the death on Wednesday, 9 June 1999, of Aubrey William George Luck, a member of this House for the Division of Darwin from 1951 to 1955 and for the Division of Braddon from 1955 to 1958. As a mark of respect to the memory of Mr Luck, I invite honourable members to rise in their places.Honourable members having stood in their places—10000Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I thank the House.Questions Without Notice697969796979Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, do you recall your repeated claims over the past 18 months that you are `looking at ways to protect workers entitlements' in the event of their company's insolvency? For instance, on 2 March last year in this parliament, that you were looking at some kind of trust guarantee system; and, as recently as last Friday on Alan Jones's program, that you are `going to discuss the feasibility of establishing' a fund to protect workers entitlements? Are you aware also that your minister Peter Reith has been making repeated claims over the past 18 months that he is `discussing' this issue with industry and with others, from as early as 6 April last year to as recently as last week? Prime Minister, when are you going to stop looking at and discussing this issue and act to protect all workers whose entitlements are not being paid because of employer insolvency? As a first step, in the mining industry, why won't you agree to a one-off coal levy to fund entitlements lost by decent, hard-working and long-serving miners?6979Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I am aware of those statements, and I am also aware of the fact that the Labor Party had 13 years to fix this and did not do so. The outrage which is now being demonstrated by the Australian Labor Party should be set against the fact that the Labor Party in government explicitly rejected the very change it is now advocating in opposition. I also recall the section of the shadow cabinet submission that was circulated in August of last year in relation to the private member's bill of the member for Prospect. It contains a note from John Angley, who I understand then was, and may still be for all I know, an adviser to the Leader of the Opposition, in which he said this:The downside of the levy is that it is another cost on jobs. If it is a state-wide fund like workers comp, the cost per worker in the form of premiums inevitably grows. It also reduces the responsibility of employers/owners to fix their own affairs rather than fall back on the fund.As a result of a cabinet discussion, the government has proposed an amendment to the Corporations Law which will create an offence whereby companies' directors who deliberately arrange the affairs of their companies so as to defeat the entitlement of workers and bona fide entitlees to particular benefits will be subject to criminal penalties and criminal liabilities. The weakness in the case being put by the opposition is the weakness of hypocrisy with a capital H. This opposition, on this issue, sat in government for 13 years and did nothing to cure the situation that they are now with confected outrage talking about.As is well known, there is a delegation of people from the Oakdale mine in the building. Representatives of that delegation will meet the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business this afternoon as well as the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources. They will be accompanied at that meeting, as I understand, by the Minister for Finance and Administration, who is the local member for the affected mine. They will receive from those three ministers a very comprehensive and sympathetic hearing.But I want the members of that delegation, when they meet those ministers, and if they have already met representatives of the Australian Labor Party or if they meet them afterwards, just to remember one fact: the Labor Party had 13 years. That does not disentitle them from now arguing for a change, but it does reflect rather profoundly on their bona fides as representatives of the working people of this country.The Labor Party on this issue, as on so many other issues, is behaving in a very hypocritical fashion. I remind the House of what I said yesterday: in relation to the Cobar mine, as a result of action taken at the instance of the government through the Australian Securities Commission, 85 to 90 per cent of the entitlements of those men were recovered. I would remind the House, without making any claims of wrongdoing under the Corporations Law by the Oakdale companies, that similar action has been taken by the government, and no amount of head shaking by the member for Canberra can alter the fact that you had 13 years to fix this and you did nothing.69806980Prosser, Geoff, MPMr PROSSERRI4ForrestLP10—My question is directed towards the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the fresh opportunity all Australians will have to gain a further stake in a great national company, Telstra. How does the government's social bonus ensure that the benefits from the next sale will be fairly shared by all Australians, irrespective of where they live?6980Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Last night, the further sale of Telstra was passed through the Senate, and I am pleased to inform the parliament that there are very significant national interest benefits that are going to flow from this decision of the Australian parliament. First and foremost, another $16 billion or more will be contributed to a further reduction in the Beazley-Labor debt. The Australian people should be reminded of the extent to which the Commonwealth debt of this country was run up during the time that the Leader of the Opposition was finance minister. Tens of billions of dollars were added to the Commonwealth debt of this country, and it has taken the resolve and the determination of a coalition government to wipe out that debt.I can think of no better gift that the present generation of Australians will give to future generations of Australians than to give to the people of this country in the next millennium an essentially debt-free society. That is what we are about: we are about wiping out net Commonwealth debt. The strongest possible argument in favour of the total privatisation on proper terms and conditions after due inquiry in relation to the nationwide responsibilities of the Telstra company, the greatest contribution of further privatisation of Telstra to the people of Australia, is that we are paying off the Beazley bankcard. What we are doing with the further privatisation of Telstra is taking the debt burden off future generations of Australian taxpayers.But there are more benefits than that. There is $70 million out of the social bonus that will go into rural transaction centres. What that $70 million will do is bring banking services and government services into the bush. There will be a further roll-out of SBS. I know that the member for Dawson, who represents the town of Mackay in this parliament, will welcome the fact that out of the $120 million television fund we can continue the roll-out of SBS around Australia and into Mackay; the member for Murray will welcome the fact that out of that same fund we will be able to roll SBS out into the city of Shepparton; the member for Grey will welcome the fact that there will be a roll-out into Port Lincoln; the member for Eden-Monaro will welcome the fact that there is a roll-out into Eden; the member for Indi will welcome the roll-out to Myrtleford; and of course the member for Kalgoorlie—one of the triumphal victors of the 1996 election—will welcome the roll-out into the great city of Port Hedland.I wonder, in the face of those enormous benefits to the people of rural and regional Australia, how it is that the member for Hunter will vote against an SBS roll-out in the Upper Hunter. How will he explain that to the people of the electorate that he represents? How indeed will the member for the Northern Territory explain to his constituents why they can't have a full roll-out of SBS? How can you face your constituents?Mr Snowdon interjecting—Mr Lloyd interjecting—ZD4Mr HOWARD—How can you face your constituents?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Prime Minister will resume his seat. Actions by both the member for Robertson and the member for the Northern Territory are known to be quite unparliamentary and will not be tolerated—XW4KERNOTMs Kernot—What about the Prime Minister?10000Mr SPEAKER—And neither will the present reaction from the member for Dickson.UU5HORNEMr Horne—Mr Speaker, I have a point of order. I thought it was traditional that all answers should be addressed through you. The Prime Minister was deliberately addressing the member for the Northern Territory directly.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Paterson will resume his seat. The Prime Minister—Mr Snowdon interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for the Northern Territory is warned. The Prime Minister has the call and knows that he has an obligation to address his remarks through the chair.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Mr Speaker, through you, Sir, this dereliction of duty to constituencies knows no bounds, because not only do we have the spectacle of members like the member for the Northern Territory and the member for Hunter voting against the SBS roll-out in their own electorates; even worse than that, they are voting against giving Australians in remote areas untimed local calls to their neighbours.I am very proud to say that on this side of the House the members for Leichhardt, Wide Bay, Maranoa, Parkes, Grey and Kalgoorlie know what is good for their constituents. They know that they want untimed local calls, and that is why they are voting to represent the interests of all Australians in those electorates. But, shamefully, those Labor Party members who represent the people in the electorate of Braddon, in the electorate of Lyons, in the electorate of Franklin and, again, our old friend, Mr Speaker, in the electorate of the Northern Territory are not interested in giving those people untimed local calls because, by their action in this House and by the action of their colleagues in the Senate, they are saying to those people, `You are second-class Australians, and you are not entitled to have untimed local calls.' So not only are you saying no SBS, you are also saying no untimed local calls.The further sale of 16 per cent of Telstra will further reduce debt. It is an intelligent implementation of our election commitment but, very importantly, it will bring enormous benefit to rural and regional Australia. Those Labor members who are voting against it will be remembered at the next election for having let their constituents down.69816981Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Treasurer. Treasurer, do you stand by your statement to the parliament that the Commonwealth will not be providing any additional funding to the states for the new public housing measure in your GST deal with the Democrats? If so, can you explain why Senator Newman told state housing ministers last week:Additional funding . . . has been agreed between the Commonwealth and the States and Territories [and] I intend now to gazette the draft [housing] agreement which has been amended to reflect this additional funding.Treasurer, precisely how much additional funding has Senator Newman agreed to provide to the states? How can you tell the House there is no more money while Senator Newman is on the other side signing the cheques?6981Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—As the House saw yesterday, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is quite good at misrepresenting the facts. One would not want to stand up here and take from him an account of what Senator Newman had to say, or indeed take from him an account of what anyone had to say. He is well known to be somebody who completely misrepresents the facts in this chamber on a regular basis.In relation to the housing situation, I would have thought that even the Treasurer of the state of Tasmania—who feeds you most of these questions—would have known that, at a special Premiers Conference, the Commonwealth agreed to make available to the states what they claim would be the increased cost of building housing. That was agreed at the special Premiers Conference when six states, including the Treasurer of Tasmania, signed up for their share of the GST. He couldn't get his signature on the document fast enough—the old Treasurer of Tasmania—to get his share of the GST. I would surmise that that is what Senator Newman is talking about.Since that time, we have had further claims from the states. I must say that to get a claim from a state Premier for more money is not an unusual event. Hardly a day would go by without an additional claim coming in. As this government has made clear, we are not engaging in additional claims in relation to housing because we consider that matter to have been settled at the special Premiers Conference and additionally settled by this fact: for the first time in decades, the Commonwealth will be giving the states a growth tax.The states will be collecting 10 per cent of the goods and services produced in this country. As the goods and services produced in this country increase, the 10 per cent share of the goods and services produced by the Australian economy will flow to the states. It is a growth tax. The states are guaranteed not only to receive what they currently receive but to have revenues which grow in proportion to the economy—something that has not occurred outside of tax reform.We in this parliament know who opposes a growth tax for the states: the Australian Labor Party. The Australian Labor Party opposes a growth tax for the states. It opposes the reorganisation of Commonwealth-state finances. It opposes modernising the indirect tax system. It opposes reducing personal income taxes. It opposes family assistance. The member for Werriwa goes to the paper and says, `Don't think that there aren't thinkers on the Labor side of politics. Just because we haven't had a policy for the last four years, don't think there aren't thinkers.' He says, `We write books.' And he names all these people who write books. Why? Because it is a substitute for policy advice. You will never get any policy advice out of the born to rule set of the leader and deputy leader of the Labor Party.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, my point of order goes to relevance. This is fatuous ranting. He has not answered the question he was asked.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The chair was in fact monitoring the Treasurer for relevance. I presume that he has concluded his answer.CT4Mr COSTELLO—I have.DT4CREANMr Crean—I seek leave to table the letter from Senator Newman to the state housing ministers offering additional funding which the Treasurer says is not going to happen.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Is leave granted?ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—No.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Leave is not granted.Distinguished Visitors69826982Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—Before I call the member for Fadden, I should indicate to the House that we have present in the gallery the Deputy Minister for the Interior in Thailand, Mr Phinij Jarusombat. On behalf of all parliamentarians, I extend to him a welcome.UNKNOWNHonourable membersHonourable members—Hear, hear!Questions Without Notice698269826982Jull, David, MPMr JULLMH4FaddenLP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Finance and Administration. How many first time investors chose to put their money with Telstra in the first partial float of the carrier? Is it correct to assert that Australia is now amongst the highest shareholding nations in the world? What is the government's response to those who wish to deny Australian investors further access to Telstra stock?6982Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—I thank the honourable member for Fadden for his question, and I know he would agree with me that, by any measure, the first Telstra share offer was an outstanding success. Around 1.8 million Australians, or 14.2 per cent of the adult population, bought shares when they were first offered in November 1997. It is interesting to note that some 81.2 per cent of those who acquired those shares in November 1997 still hold those shares. In fact, through the Telstra float back in November 1997, 559,000 of those purchasers were first time investors in the stock market.This Telstra share offer has brought to some 40 per cent the number of Australians who are investing in the stock market. So in every sense now, alongside home ownership, the great Australian dream includes the ownership of shares. Australia has become one of the truly great share owning democracies of the world. The passage of legislation last night by the Senate allows the government to proceed with the next tranche of Telstra. Whilst the structure of the second Telstra offer is yet to be determined by the government, I can indicate that the government is committed to ensuring that Australian families and first time investors are able to get involved with the share offer that will occur. We will announce that method for the sale of the Telstra 2 shares as well as the timetable over the next few weeks.But it is ironic that last night when the Senate passed the legislation it was once again opposed by Labor. This is the Labor Party that does not want to give tax cuts to all Australians. This is the Labor Party that does not want to make our exports more competitive. This is the Labor Party that does not want to give a growth tax to the states. This is the Labor Party that does not want to bring down the cost of transportation to rural Australia. And this is the Labor Party that does not want to allow this coalition government through the sale of more Telstra shares to reduce that debt which they ran up over 13 years.The government will proceed with the sale of some 2.13 billion shares, and we will do two things. We will provide a billion dollars to rural and regional Australia in particular. I have noted that none of the state Labor premiers are complaining about the boost in information technology that that social bonus will bring to them. I have noted that none of the Tasmanians in this House are complaining about the fact that—Mr Sidebottom interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Braddon is warned.HQ5Mr FAHEY—this government is prepared to give a boost to Tasmania to give them a help, which of course they never got when Labor was around. The second thing we will do from the sale of Telstra shares is continue to reduce that debt which Labor ran up over their 13 years in government.69836983Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister stand by his statement in relation to the member for Leichhardt that ministers and parliamentary secretaries can `retain the assets that they had and the company arrangements they had provided there were not conflicts between their private interests and their public duty'? Is the Prime Minister completely satisfied that none of the assets or company arrangements of the member for Leichhardt result in a conflict between his private interests and his public duty?6983Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—As far as the member for Leichhardt is concerned, I have made my position clear. I believe that the member for Leichhardt has behaved in a proper fashion. I have not had any evidence produced to me of a conflict between his private interests and his public duty, and that remains the position.69836983Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade. Can the Deputy Prime Minister advise the House if ordinary telephone subscribers in regional and remote Australia will see any benefit from the sale of a further 16.6 per cent of Telstra?Opposition members interjecting—FK6Mrs DE-ANNE KELLY—That's right; you are not getting it in your electorate.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Dawson has the call and will address her remarks through the chair.FK6Mrs DE-ANNE KELLY—Are subscribers in Dawson and other regional electorates receiving better telephone and communication services as a result of this government's—Mr Rudd interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Griffith. The member for Dawson will commence her question again.FK6Mrs DE-ANNE KELLY—Thank you, Mr Speaker.Ms Hoare interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Charlton is warned.FK6Mrs DE-ANNE KELLY—My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade. Can the Deputy Prime Minister advise the House if ordinary telephone subscribers in regional and remote Australia will see any benefit from the sale of a further 16.6 per cent of Telstra? Are subscribers in Dawson and other regional electorates receiving better telephone and communication services as a result of this government's policies compared with the previous Labor administration?6984Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNP10—I am delighted to answer the question from the member for Dawson and say yes and yes. In fact, this is one of those splendid days to be in government. Not only do we have Labor on the run—you can never match what we are doing for country Australia with this social bonus—but we have some distant static from state politicians on both sides of politics who could only wish they could deliver the list we are now delivering for country Australia.Not only are we giving $150 million for untimed local calls in isolated areas but we are giving an additional $20 million to meet the special communication requirements of remote and isolated islands such as in the electorate of Dawson, the Northern Territory and elsewhere. Not only are we giving $70 million to the transaction centres to be administered through Minister John Anderson and Minister Macdonald to places like Urana and beyond, but we are giving $36 million to facilitate Internet access and electronic commerce for people in rural and remote areas. We are also giving $25 million referred to by the Prime Minister to the corridors of some of our busiest highways as well as South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania.This is why the hypocrisy on this matter should now be fully exposed. The member for Dobell produced legislation in this place—let me remind both sides of the House; this is an honest representation of the legislation—that at midnight on 31 December of this year the analog system would be junked with no practical alternative for country Australia. He is the guilty person in setting up the bush for a disaster on mobile telephones. That is the truth of the matter.MG4LEEMr Lee—Savaged by a dead sheep.DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—The shame of it is that you were an accolade of Keating the reformer.5V5SMITHMr Stephen Smith—`Accolade'!DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—The member for Perth likewise. There you were in the Senate last night trying to put about some populism when you know in your heart that that is ancient socialism which will deny you government benches for life. I am glad I stun the Labor Party because their decision—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Prime Minister will resume his seat.Mr Griffin interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Bruce! The Deputy Prime Minister has the call.DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—What the coalition government has done as an alternative to junking analog is provide for the spectrum to allow Telstra to roll out the CDMA, an affordable Rolls Royce mobile telephone system—something you are opposed to.Opposition members interjecting—DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—Well, let that be on the record. We have also provided for the filling in of black spots along the various corridors of critical highways, and for that to be further extended in a practical way so that, come midnight on 31 December, we will have done something additional—and that is, allow for flexibility with the shut down date for analog. In other words, we were determined to see that country Australia was not left behind with the junking of analog. Yes, we support the transfer to the digital systems of GSM digital and CDMA digital but at a time which has practical benefit for all of country Australia. We stand up for our constituents. I am just delighted with the outcome on Telstra.Mr Griffin interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Bruce.DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—My predecessors, state and federal, within my party and in other leadership positions in the political fabric of this country can only wish they have such a list as the list the coalition government presents to the people today on telecommunications.69856985Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister and it follows from his earlier answer. Is the Prime Minister aware that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources purchased the leasehold of two large investment properties near Cairns in June of last year? Is he aware that those properties are located close to the controversial Natwest-East Trinity development proposal? Is he aware that those properties will substantially increase in value if the East Trinity development goes ahead, particularly with the construction of a bridge from Cairns to the development site? Is he aware that the parliamentary secretary has been a leading public advocate of the East Trinity development? Prime Minister, isn't that conflict of interest—perceived, potential and actual?6985Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I will analyse the question.69856985Haase, Barry, MPMr HAASE84TKalgoorlieLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Would the minister outline to the House the benefits for regional communities of the further 16 per cent sale of Telstra?6985Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for his question. He of course is a man who represents the largest electorate anywhere in the world, and he does an out standing job. He is at the forefront of people who are looking for new and innovative solutions for the need to develop new job opportunities in rural and regional Australia—something we are committed to doing and you are committed to opposing. We are committed to doing, and you are committed to opposing in every way that you possibly can, from balancing the nation's books right through to developing innovative new approaches.The member who asked the question, I believe, is doing an outstanding job. I have met some of the people from his electorate who are looking for new technologies to help them create new business opportunities right across the country. The expansion in the social bonus, an additional $314 million, I believe will make a very real difference in terms of job opportunities and quality of life matters for people in rural and regional areas.I would like to refer to a couple of these in particular. One is the $70 million for Building Additional Regional Networks, BARN, a program to expand Networking the Nation, including services to the remote territories. When you meet and talk with people from electorates such as Kalgoorlie you find that they are just beginning to become really aware of the opportunities that are presenting themselves, but they need to be able to expand their knowledge and understanding of those new technologies as well as have better access to the capital and hardware needed to do it, and this program will help with just that.Another point that is worth making is that the difference between effective local government and lacklustre local government in regional areas is critically important. We have a $45 million fund made available for Networking the Nation's local government fund. That will be administered under the auspices of the highly successful Networking the Nation program. Each state will receive funding of $6 million, $6 million will be divided among the territories and we will retain $3 million at a national level to ensure that local government authorities in Australia are able to provide online access to their own information and services and public points of access, very valuable, to advance telecommunications services such as the Internet.The other thing I would like to mention, because I think it is very important, is that I remember a former member for Riverina in this place asking a certain former Prime Minister what he intended to do about the closing of banks in rural and regional areas and specific reference was made to the town of Ivanhoe. The reality was that the previous government was not really very concerned about them, and that is an attitude that has continued into opposition. Well we are. Firstly, through what we learnt with Credit Care, we have seen 50 financial institutions put in small towns that had lost access to banking services. Secondly, we have provided $70 million for rural transaction centres. There has been an incredibly positive response to that initiative. In fact, we have had more than 600 expressions of interest and inquiries and over 40 formal applications from across the states and the Northern Territory.Those applications are this day in this town being assessed by the newly appointed independent advisory panel, which will set in process the mechanism by which the first round of rural transaction centres will be shortly announced and opened. It reflects us getting on with our commitment of rebuilding rural and regional Australia. It is in stark contrast to the couldn't care less attitude of the ALP.69866986Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is again to the Prime Minister. I refer to his previous answer—or non-answer—in relation to the member for Leichhardt, the Bob Jelly of the Far North.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The deputy leader will come to his question.DT4Mr CREAN—Is the Prime Minister aware that on 2 April this year the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources released a CSIRO study into the potential for restoring the East Trinity site to its natural state? Is he aware that, according to the Courier Mail , the parliamentary secretary used that report to argue:The only economically viable option might be to allow NatWest to go ahead with its . . . development plans.Is he aware that this argument did not reflect the findings of the CSIRO report, which stated:It is likely that viable management strategies are available for rehabilitation, including reflooding, however, these would require further research.Prime Minister, isn't that a conflict of interest?6986Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The answer to the first part of the question is no. The answer to the second part of the question is the same as the answer I gave to the earlier question—that is, I will analyse it.Mr Speaker, while I am on my feet, could I add to an answer that I gave earlier in question time when I spoke of the benefits of the social bonus from the sale of 16 per cent of Telstra?Opposition members interjecting—ZD4Mr HOWARD—Well? I am on my feet, Mr Speaker.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I will respond to the Prime Minister when I can be heard.83YHOAREMs Hoare—That is appalling.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Charlton has already been warned. I had felt it would not be inappropriate since the Prime Minister's answer to the last question had been so brief for him to add to that answer, but I concede that it is appropriate to add to the answer at the end of question time. I will invite him to do so then.69866986Georgiou, Petro, MPMr GEORGIOUHM5KooyongLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer inform the House of progress made in repaying debt accrued under the former Labor government? Is he aware of any recent events that will reduce the level of Commonwealth debt?6986Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Kooyong for his question. As is probably pretty well known in Australia now, in its last five years of government, the Australian Labor Party took Commonwealth net debt from $16 billion to $96 billion. They ran up $80 billion of debt in five years. If the Commonwealth were to produce a surplus of about $3 billion, as it will this year, it would take us 30 years to undo the damage that Labor did in five. You would have to run a budget surplus of $3 billion for 30 years to actually undo the damage that was done by the Australian Labor Party in their last five years of office. In the last two years of office, Labor ran up $25 billion worth of debt under the stewardship of the then Minister for Finance, Mr Kim Beazley.The great thing about having the budget in surplus is that we are not running up debt. It means that, in relation to the government's privatisation program, every single dollar that is received from privatisation now goes to retire debt. Every single dollar of the privatisation will be going into retiring and putting to bed Labor's debt. When the Labor Party was in office, you will recall that it supported privatisation. I have here a good quote from none other than the then Minister for Finance to the National Press Club on 24 August 1994. He said:The primary objective driving the privatisation program is to make Australia an efficient, internationally competitive economy . . . UNKNOWNGovernment memberGovernment member—Who said that?CT4Mr COSTELLO—That was the then Minister for Finance of the Commonwealth of Australia in August 1994. Mr Speaker, you will not often find me quoting him, but I will quote this. He went on to say:Of course another benefit of privatisation is that it contributes to the Government budget, helping to reduce debt and providing funds for Government programs.There will be backbenchers in the Labor Party who will think that the Labor Party always opposed privatisation. Not so. The Labor Party was a great supporter of privatisation when it was in office. The Labor Party was in favour of privatising Qantas, Australian Airlines and the Commonwealth Bank. The Labor Party became absolutely irresponsible only when it went into opposition. But there is one thing that the Labor Party never did. The Labor Party never used privatisation to retire debt. I want to give the House one example. In July 1995, the Qantas public share offer, a Labor Party privatisation, raised $1.4 billion. Do you know how much of that it used to reduce debt? Not one single dollar, not one single cent. The then finance minister received $1.4 billion for the sale of Qantas, which he spent in its entirety in the year of receipt, and then went and borrowed another $10 billion to finance his deficit. He took $1.4 billion, spent the entire proceeds and then borrowed $10,000 million extra to run his budget in the 1995-96 year. The then finance minister was the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Kim Beazley.You have all sorts of nostrums coming out of the Labor Party now. We always used to turn our backs when we were embarrassed by our record too, and that is precisely what he is doing now. This is the man who supported privatisation, used the proceeds, ran up debt and now wants to lecture the government on surpluses. The frontbench wants to complain about the diesel excise coming back to only 20c. The frontbenchers want to complain that the states are getting a growth tax. The member for Batman wants to go back to the working-class roots and get away from the chardonnay drinkers of the Labor Party. He ought to talk to the member for Kingston. The member for Kingston does not drink chardonnay; he makes chardonnay. He is a winemaker. These are the working-class roots of the Labor Party now—making the chardonnay for the party dos. Old Chifley would have been proud of the vignerons that now make up the frontbench of the Australian Labor Party. Wonderful people but never consistent!69876987Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is again to the Prime Minister, and I ask: does the Prime Minister stand by the requirement of his ministerial code:. . . it is important that ministers and parliamentary secretaries avoid giving any appearance of using public office for private purposes.And in another part:Ministers should not exercise the influence obtained from their public office, or use official information, to obtain any improper benefit for themselves or another.Prime Minister, are you aware that on 8 May this year the member for Leichhardt issued an invitation to a meeting on the environmental impacts of the acid sulfate soils on the East Trinity site and surrounds? Is he aware that the letterhead of that invitation reads:The Honourable Warren Entsch MP, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources . . . Is he further aware that the contact officer in the letter is the ministerial staffer of the member for Leichhardt? Prime Minister, isn't this a direct conflict of interest between the member's executive role and his private interests? Why won't you sack him?6988Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The House has already one day this week been treated to the rather fertile imagination of the member for Hotham when it comes to interpreting letters sent, or statements made, by members on this side of the House. The words of the ministerial code are clear. The statements that I have made in relation to the behaviour of the member for Leichhardt are well known to this House. I can only say in relation to the statements made by the member for Hotham and the Leader of the Opposition in the last three questions that I do not make any admissions, I do not offer any agreement to, and I do not confirm any of the interpretations that have been placed, and I will continue, as I said previously, to analyse the questions that have been put. It is a bit hard to analyse questions while you are still in question time, but if the opposition would like me to terminate question time now so that I can go away and analyse them, I will.The member for Leichhardt, on all of the evidence available to me, has behaved in a totally honest and correct fashion and I have had no evidence presented to me of any conflict between his private interests and his public duty. I think he is performing his public duties extremely well—and so do his constituents.WU5O'CONNORMr O'Connor—What about your standards?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Corio!Mr O'Connor interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Corio is warned.69886988Lieberman, Lou, MPMr LIEBERMANXU5IndiLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Can the minister inform the House of the benefits to the Natural Heritage Trust that will flow from the further partial sale of Telstra?6988Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTrade10—I thank the honourable member for Indi for his question and the interest that he shows in the work that we are doing on environmental issues, particularly in the Murray-Darling Basin as his electorate borders on the great River Murray.Today is a great day as far as people like the member for Indi who are interested in the improvement of Australia's natural heritage and the environment are concerned. We all remember that for 13 years Labor painted themselves as the environmental guardians in Australia, but effectively they never delivered on the ground. We all remember in July 1989 the former Prime Minister Mr Hawke and the former environment minister Graham Richardson standing on the banks of the Murray River promising a billion trees. It was interesting to read on the weekend that a recent visit to the site by press gallery veteran Alan Ramsay showed what a hollow promise that was.In 1996 during the election we went to the people of Australia with a proposal to provide $1.25 billion to Australia's natural heritage, and we have delivered on that promise. We went to the 1998 election making a commitment for a further $250 million, and last night when the Senate, to its credit, approved the sale of a further 16 per cent of Telstra, it meant that we will deliver on that. Our government, the Howard government, will be delivering $1.5 billion to Australia's natural heritage—an outcome that the ALP could only dream of. They could never deliver. We are going to deliver on that commitment to the Australian natural heritage.The further sale of Telstra will be used to restore and indeed boost the natural capital of the Australian environment. This new funding will continue to support the full range of Natural Heritage Trust programs such as Bushcare, Rivercare, Landcare, Coastcare and, particularly important to the member for Indi, the Murray-Darling Basin 2000 Program. These are all very important programs that a lot of Australians and our government support. Not only are we retiring debt—saving the wasting of taxpayers' money on paying interest—out of the further sale of Telstra, we are also investing in Australia's future in the Natural Heritage Trust Fund. On the point of asset sales, because it is as a result of an asset sale that we are able to do this, I would like to point out to the House a quote that I came across in researching the answer to this question.Opposition members interjecting—SU5Mr VAILE—The Labor Party need to listen to this quote. I quote from a speech:Despite some critics suggesting asset sales amount to selling off the family jewels, they do not result in a loss of infrastructure but rather a transfer of ownership. Asset sales allow the government to maintain public services and benefits to the Australian people while maintaining the deficit reduction strategy without increased taxes.Who said that? I wonder whose speech that came out of? Was it the current Prime Minister? No. Was it the current Treasurer? No. It was the then Minister for Finance on 13 May 1994 when Labor had some policies, before they became a policy vacuum in opposition. When Labor sold assets such as the Commonwealth Bank the proceeds were not used to retire debt, they were not used to invest in the natural heritage; they just went back into revenue—into Labor's spending campaign of the time.Our government is delivering on both fronts. We are retiring debt, we are saving taxpayers' dollars from being wasted on servicing Labor's debt and we are investing in Australia's natural heritage, in the environment, and the heritage for our children. We are investing $1.5 billion directly into programs on the ground.69896989Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—My question is to the Minister for Defence. Minister, do you realise it is costing the Howard and Sons pyrotechnics company $10,000 a week in storage expenses at its obsolete Western Sydney site while awaiting finalisation of its lease of Army land at Marrangaroo near Lithgow? Can you explain why this leasing process—now 18 months old—is continually held up by the Department of Defence, despite Howard and Sons fulfilling their part of the arrangement? Will you finalise this process in the interests of 40 new jobs and a desperately needed new export industry in Lithgow?4T4MELHAMMr Melham—They are not related, that's why.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The chair has exercised a great deal of tolerance this afternoon and the member for Banks must anticipate being warned after another interjection.Mr Melham interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—He is.6989Moore, John, MPMr MOOREEI4RyanLPDefence10—I am aware of the circumstances surrounding the question. The negotiations have been carried on for far too long. They revolve around an environmental issue and an evaluation question, but I am quite sure the matter can be brought to a head fairly quickly.69896989Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHLAE4CowperNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation. Can the minister inform the House how the further sale of Telstra will help all Australians benefit from new information technology? How will it help small business to get involved in the information technology revolution?6989McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPArts and the Centenary of Federation10—I thank the honourable member for Cowper for his interest in this matter. It has always been an article of faith for the member—indeed, for all of us on this side of the House—that all Australians, wherever they choose to live, should have access to the Internet at the cost of a local call. Now it is being delivered. The $36 million allowed for from the social bonus fund from the further privatisation of Telstra will mean that all Australians in regional areas will not have to pay STD rates to access the information superhighway. They are going to have the same access to the Internet as those who live in metropolitan areas. At the same time, Australians in rural and regional areas will benefit from the $45 million local government fund which will allow those local governments to provide public Internet access for their communities.Small business in the information technology sector will also benefit, for we are assigning $158 million to assist the growth of the information technology sector through the Building IT Strengths program. The economic benefits to small business from further assistance and access to the information technology sector are only too obvious. If they are going to go into the next century as players in the information revolution we have to have firms that are so developed that they can grasp the opportunities. We do that by assigning $78 million to establish centres, in every state and territory, where small businesses can lease premises, share resources and get assistance to improve their business and planning skills, their technical skills and their networks, to make them more competitive—especially internationally competitive. Businesses at the leading edge of technology—those working on the next generation of IT services—are going to be able to test their work at sites across Australia. An amount of $40 million is going to set up these sites across the length and breadth of the nation. This is going to enhance small business's capacity to develop new designs and products for the next generation of IT services.As the member for Cowper would appreciate, these industries are supporting these innovative proposals. In a statement released yesterday, 21 June, by the Australian Telecommunications Industry Association, its chairman said:It will mean that Australia's small and medium information IT&T firms and entrepreneurs will be provided with assistance to create new business and employment opportunities thereby encouraging international competitiveness and overseas investment.At the same time, the Australian Information Industry Association issued a statement welcoming the government's new initiatives. It said:To encourage the growth of e-commerce in Australia it is important that all Australians have online access to these services, especially those in rural and remote areas. Therefore, the Association welcomes the Government's initiatives to promote online facilities and points of access.Who would oppose these breakthrough, innovative and long-lasting initiatives by the government? Only the members on the other side of the House.69906990Brereton, Laurie, MPMr BRERETON5T4Kingsford-SmithALP00—My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Minister, according to your department's brief, don't key objectives for Australia's participation in Expo 2000 at Hanover include `projecting an updated image for Australia as a reliable supplier of excellent and innovative goods and services and showcasing Australia's culture and the arts'? Why then has the contract for design, construction and operation of the $10 million Australian pavilion at Expo 2000 been awarded to an American company, Caribiner International, instead of the other finalist in the selection process, the highly regarded Melbourne based company, Photomation? When announcing the contract award last Wednesday, why did your department's press release describe Caribiner as `a Sydney based consortium' when in fact it is an American trade show and event marketing group with headquarters in New York?6990Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNP10—This is an exciting project which the federal government is advancing in conjunction with state governments, including the Queensland state government. Indeed, the federal government is putting $8 million plus into the project, the Queensland government—to its credit—is putting in $2½ million, and other state and territory governments are putting in to ensure that the Australian exhibition at Hanover 2000 stacks up in a practical way on a tremendous site which has become available following the reallocation of part of the area which was to be occupied by Korea with proximity to one of the main pathways through the Expo site at Hanover.The process of tender selection was, of course, quite properly at total arms length from either the Minister for Foreign Affairs or the Minister for Trade. It is true that the company which received the tender has international connection absolute. Perhaps that was one of the factors which led to its selection in terms of the project presentation that they made with regard to their tender and their site development. There is absolutely nothing to hide on this issue. But in respect of any tender process which involves the selection of one successful company there will be those who are disappointed, including those from Melbourne and elsewhere who are quite bitterly disappointed. I would encourage them to keep producing submissions for future activities, and they will be properly considered in the very correct way that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade goes about these matters.69916991Nugent, Peter, MPMr NUGENTUT4AstonLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Can the minister inform the House, following the minister's trip to Belgrade, what optimism does the government have for the release of CARE workers Pratt and Wallace? What further action will the government be taking in relation to this most serious matter?RH4KERRMr Kerr—They sold you the dump today, didn't they?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Member for Denison.UT4NUGENTMr Nugent—It's a serious question, and you should have more respect. You ought to be ashamed.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Aston. I will rule his question out of order if he does not exercise some more restraint. I call the Minister for Foreign Affairs and expect the House to extend him the courtesy this question deserves.6991Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I first thank the member for Aston for his question. I know that he and—to be fair—all members of this House have a very great concern for the fate of Steve Pratt and Peter Wallace. The honourable member asked what degree of optimism I had for their early release. I think all of us have gone through phases of being optimistic and pessimistic. During the course of the early part and middle part of last week it is true to say we had a fairly high degree of optimism of a relatively early release, only to find on Saturday that President Milosevic had reconsidered this case on Friday night and had decided for the time being to ensure that Steve Pratt and Peter Wallace were retained in prison. I think, nevertheless, it will not be too long before they are released, but it is very difficult to make any predictions about that.I spent Friday evening and Saturday in Belgrade, and most of Saturday I spent with the foreign minister of Yugoslavia, Mr Jovanovic. I had been advised earlier in that week—on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday; that part of the week—that President Milosevic was likely to see me, and I had hoped to see him on that day. I was disappointed when the foreign minister told me that he had spoken to President Milosevic the previous night, the Friday night, and that the President had decided not to see me and that there would not be a release—with, of course, the two things being related.But the visit was, I think, very useful in ensuring that the Yugoslav government knew several things: firstly, that this issue goes to the very heart of Australia's bilateral relationship with Yugoslavia; secondly, that this is an issue of very real concern not just to Australia and Australians generally but to the international community. Indeed, last Monday I spoke with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan. Following that discussion in which, inter alia, I raised with him the case of Steve Pratt and Peter Wallace, Mr Annan wrote to the Yugoslav government yet again urging the release of Steve Pratt and Peter Wallace.Thirdly, let me say it was an opportunity for me to meet Steve Pratt and Peter Wallace. Members of the House may like to know, by the way, that I passed on to them the fact that this House had passed a resolution on the previous Thursday in support of their release—which I think they already knew, as a matter of fact, through the embassy. But they were in good health and showed themselves to be in good spirits, despite their circumstances. They seem to be well fed. They said the food was adequate. They both reside in a cell in the military court in Belgrade, which they said to me is about 25 square metres. There is one other person—the Yugoslav citizen from CARE Australia—in that cell with them.Needless to say, the Australian government will continue to work tirelessly for the release of Steve Pratt and Peter Wallace, and I will certainly return to Belgrade if it is necessary to do so. We will certainly continue our work with the international community in order to maintain international pressure, because the Yugoslav government does recognise there is strong international pressure on them to release these two Australians. For the time being, the President has made the judgment that for domestic political reasons he does not want to proceed with the release. We want to make sure the release takes place and that the international community continues to focus on this issue.69926992Brereton, Laurie, MPMr BRERETON5T4Kingsford-SmithALP00—My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade. Minister, is it not a fact that Caribiner International is currently facing legal proceedings in the United States for misleading and deceiving public investors about acquisitions and insider trading involving millions of dollars of stock? Minister, are you aware of serious allegations that Caribiner inflated its stock price by disguising the impact of multiple acquisitions it was unprepared to properly supervise and manage and that, once the true position became clear, the company's New York stock price plummeted from more than $US27 to $US6 per share? Minister, what action did the government take to ensure that the selection process run by DFAT fully investigated these matters prior to the government selecting Caribiner as Australia's Expo 2000 project developer?6992Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNP10—Let me make very clear what I said in the previous answer: that this was done quite properly at arms length from the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Trade.Opposition members interjecting—DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—So on the one hand we get accused of interfering too much in tender processing and now we are being accused of interfering not enough. Make up your mind! There is a proper process and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade I am confident has followed that proper process. At the conclusion of that process they made that selection. They no doubt took into account the relevant information with regard to the performance of this company in respect of the Australian exhibition at Hanover 2000. The information which has been displayed about the successful tenderer looks interesting and exciting with regard to the project. The process of tendering was also done in consultation with the state governments, most notably the Queensland government, in respect of Hanover 2000. I will further analyse the information the shadow minister has presented, but this is due process and not subject to ministerial intervention. Nevertheless, in a contract worth around $10 million, it is important that we get absolute performance for every dollar of taxpayers' money being expended on this proper purpose.69926992Schultz, Alby, MPMr SCHULTZ83QHumeLP10—My question is to the Minister for Employment Services. Can the minister inform the House of how the government's highly successful Work for the Dole scheme has been utilised recently to assist in disaster relief? What implications does this have for those who continue to oppose the WFTD scheme?6992Abbott, Tony MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPEmployment Services10—I thank the member for Hume for his question. As local members, we all know the impact of natural disasters on our communities. We cannot stop disasters happening, but we can try to ensure that every facility is made available to help the victims. I am pleased to inform the House that on three recent occasions Work for the Dole teams were involved in disaster clean-ups, along with volunteers from State Emergency Services. For the past seven weeks, 20 Work for the Dole participants have been removing fences destroyed in the Crookwell bushfires. I understand the member for Hume recently attended a community barbecue to thank these good young people. For two weeks after the storms devastated Sydney's eastern suburbs, 55 Work for the Dole participants were involved in cleaning up homes, streets and parks. Most recently, 14 Work for the Dole participants in Byron Bay have been helping to protect public facilities and homes from flood erosion. I would like to congratulate all those fine Work for the Dole participants for acting in the great Australian tradition of mateship to those in need. I should point out that it will be far easier to deploy Work for the Dole volunteers to help in disaster clean-up under the new administrative arrangements planned by the government.This latest demonstration of the success of the Work for the Dole program does have implications for those who continue to oppose it. The Leader of the Opposition is understandably proud of his reputation for decency, but every time he calls this program `mickey mouse' or `social punishment', he demeans people who deserve our support. So I invite the Leader of the Opposition—that former minister for white elephants—to change his mind on this, as he has on so many other things.69936993Brereton, Laurie, MPMr BRERETON5T4Kingsford-SmithALP00—My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and it again relates to the Caribiner contract. Minister, did this contract require ministerial approval? If not, why not? Will you provide to the House the details of the process involved in letting the contract?6993Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNP10—I am delighted to provide a response to the third question on this matter. Caribiner International Pty Ltd has a registration number in this country, ACN 077757307. It is the Australian subsidiary of NYSE-listed Caribiner International Inc. The Australian company was formed for the acquisition of three Australian private companies, Wavelength Communications Pty Ltd founded in Sydney in 1983, the Event Company founded in Melbourne in 1988, and Stagecraft Corporate Theatre Pty Ltd founded in Brisbane in the year of Expo 1988. I am advised that Caribiner employs over 120 Australians full time, including all the previous owners. And it pays tax in Australia. In addition, Caribiner employs over 150 contractors on an ongoing basis.Mr Griffin interjecting—DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—Do you want the answer? The consortium for Expo 2000 includes four other organisations—Tonkin Zulaikha, architects; APP, project management; Rhythm Media, culture and events; and Manboom, sponsorship—all of which are wholly owned by Australian citizens. I just want to make the point there is a due process, that process was fully complied with, and I am excited about Australia stepping forward at Expo 2000 in a very powerful way for the promotion of Australia in Europe.69936993Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—My question is to the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation. Could the minister inform the House of initiatives that will help increase the number of Australians owning shares in public companies, and how does this compare with other countries in the world?6993Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—I thank the member for Wannon for his question. May I take this opportunity to congratulate the member for Wannon for his hearings with the Governor of the Reserve Bank. The governor could not have been more glowing about the state of the Australian economy, and that is just one reason why we are the second greatest share owning nation in the world. Australians have taken to the stock market in very considerable numbers. In fact, I can advise the House that, over the last nine months alone, three-quarters of a million Australians for the first time invested in shares listed on the Australian Stock Exchange. That means that 57 per cent of direct share owners invested for the first time in the three years to 1998.As the member for Wannon and many other members would know, 5.5 million Australians now own shares. That means we are the second largest share owning nation in the world after the United States, where 43 per cent of the population owns shares. If the Minister for Finance and Administration is able to repeat the very successful effort of Telstra tranche 1 and encourage enough Australians to invest for the first time, Australia will become the greatest share owning nation in the world.I ask this question of the ALP: why does the Labor Party oppose extensive Australian share ownership? Why does the Labor Party oppose any effort that is made by the government to give the people of Australia a chance to invest in Australian companies? Why is the Labor Party opposing the abolition of stamp duty on the transfer of shares? Why is the Labor Party opposing the sale of a second tranche of Telstra? Why is the Labor Party doing everything that it can to stop people in its own constituencies—and in fact its own parliamentary members—from owning shares in Australian companies and in Telstra?There are a number of parliamentary members of the ALP who think Telstra is a pretty good investment. I do not think we have time to go through all their names. I cannot; I am going to resist.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Go on! Just a few.DK6Mr HOCKEY—Just to appease the Prime Minister, I want to point out that I know the member for the Northern Territory thinks they are a good investment.Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members on my right!Mr Snowdon interjecting—DK6Mr HOCKEY—They are a good investment. I cannot hear your investment advice from here. We want to find out whether more Australians want to invest in shares and, accordingly, I have approved $180,000 being allocated to a study to investigate the level and extent of share ownership in Australia. It will be an independent report. We could probably save some dollars if we just sent the surveyors to ask the Labor Party some questions about share ownership. But what we want to do is put aside the class warfare that has entrenched the philosophy of the Labor Party. We want more Australians owning shares; we want to become the most significant share owning nation in the world.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper . Miscellaneous6994699415:18:006994Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I want to add to two answers that were given during question time. First and foremost, I want to add to the answer given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs to the question that was asked of him by the member for Aston. The House should be aware that the minister was in North America—Washington and New York—in the days leading up to his visit to Belgrade. I had a number of telephone conversations with him about the desirability of visiting Yugoslavia, given the invitation that had been extended to him by the Yugoslav foreign minister and in the reasonable expectation at that time that he would have an opportunity to meet President Milosevic and the implications that that could clearly give for the possible freeing of Steve Pratt and Mr Wallace. I want to say that the decision that was taken by the foreign minister was in all respects the right decision, given the expectations that were aroused at the time. When he got to Yugoslavia, as he has explained, the circumstances altered because of domestic politics. He clearly had no reason to remain in Yugoslavia after that. I found the critical comments that have been made about his subsequently being in London and attending the cricket to be petty and ridiculous in the extreme.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The Prime Minister has the call.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—The comments that have been made by sections of the press are, I repeat, petty, ridiculous and demeaning in the extreme. Although he did not have the courage in the House today to ask either me or the foreign minister a question on this subject, the Leader of the Opposition, skulking behind a doorstop, was prepared to add to that pettiness with the remarks that he made today. I say to the Leader of the Opposition: you do not do anything for your dignity or for the dignity of this place by engaging in that petty behaviour.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The Prime Minister will resume his seat.VU5GRIFFINMr Griffin—Sit down; you've lost it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Bruce has a very short memory. The Prime Minister sought to add to two questions; I invite him to do so.699515:20:006995Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I would also like to add to an answer that I gave to a question asked way back at the beginning of question time. It was one of the very early questions about the facilities arising from the social bonus. I neglected to mention that one of the other enormous benefits of the 16 per cent sale of Telstra is that, in the electorate of McEwen, SBS coverage will more than double and, as a result of the Telstra sale, we will now get coverage in Seymour, Yea, Alexandra, Mansfield and Bonnie Doon.Personal Explanations699515:21:006995Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—Mr Speaker, I claim to have been absolutely misrepresented.Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The members on my right will come to order, including the Leader of the House.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—They love dishing it out, but they sure hate taking it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition needs to indicate to me that he has been misrepresented in some way.10000Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—In the previous remarks of the Prime Minister—Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I beg your pardon. I am endeavouring to assist the Leader of the Opposition, without a great deal of assistance from his frontbench. The procedure is that the Leader of the Opposition claims to have been misrepresented.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—I do.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition may proceed.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—The Prime Minister got up and said that I had not been prepared to raise these matters in the House with him. He knows darn well that I asked him a question about that yesterday. He would also know that over the weekend when asked my opinion as to whether or not Mr Downer—WI4REITHMr Reith—I raise a point of order.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—Oh, get off it! Sit down! Sit down, you goose!WI4REITHMr Reith—He ought to sit down.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—You will both resume your seats. The Leader of the Opposition is seeking the call.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—Yes. And, as the Sydney Morning Herald editorial points out today, even before he turned up at Lord's, Mr Downer was being criticised—ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—You're playing a bit of catch-up there!Mr Reith interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat and so will the Leader of the House.Mr Griffin interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Bruce will excuse himself from the House under the provisions of standing order 304A.The honourable member for Bruce thereupon left the chamber.Miscellaneous6995699515:24:006995Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNP10—Mr Speaker, I seek to add to answers, firstly, in respect of the shadow minister for foreign affairs and the exciting Hanover 2000 Australian exhibition—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Prime Minister may proceed.DG4Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHER—I am happy to advise that the contract was approved by a deputy secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade absolutely in accord with the process and at arms length from the ministers in the circumstances involved.Fischer, Tim, MPI add also that the class action referred to indirectly by the shadow minister is taking place in the United States. I have been advised—it is a piece of additional information which I simply pass on to the House—that due to the company structure employed this will have no impact on Caribiner's operations in Australia and Europe and the 120 Australian full-time jobs provided by that company.Finally, I happily delete the term `accolade' and insert the term `acolyte'. The members for Dobell and Perth deserve the damning accolade that they were disastrous acolytes of Mr Keating.Questions to the Speaker699669966996Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—Mr Speaker, under standing order 150, could you write to the relevant minister relating to answers to questions No. 90 and No. 450. Might I remind you that I asked you on 23 March to request an answer to question 90. So far there has been no response.6996Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will follow that up for the honourable member for Calare.69966996Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—Mr Speaker, under standing order 150, could you write to the Minister representing the Minister for Justice and Customs requesting answers to question No. 45 relating to an extradition matter, question No. 565 relating to the value of the processing of customs matters and question No. 566 relating to how the Customs Service deals with dumping matters.6996Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will follow up those matters on behalf of the member for Denison.69966996Wilkie, Kim, MPMr WILKIE84GSwanALP00—Mr Speaker, under standing order 150 I ask that you write to the Minister for Aged Care requesting an answer to question No. 414 lodged on 15 February 1999, as the minister has failed to respond despite being given 127 days to do so.6996Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will follow up that matter on behalf of the member for Swan.Personal Explanations699615:27:006996Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—Mr Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for the Northern Territory may proceed.IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDON—During the offensive tirade from the Prime Minister during question time today in relation to the social bonus, the Prime Minister made allegations about the reception of SBS in Alice Springs and how Alice Springs would benefit by this social bonus. For the information of the Prime Minister—maybe it was an inadvertent oversight—Alice Springs already has SBS.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—For the information of all members—this is no criticism of the member for Northern Territory, because it has occurred twice today—the custom is for members to rise and seek leave to make a personal explanation, and I then ask whether they claim to have been misrepresented.Auditor-General's Reports699669966996Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I present the following Auditor-General's audit reports of 1998-99 entitled No. 47—Performance audit—Energy efficiency in Commonwealth operations—Department of Industry, Science and Resources—Australian Greenhouse Office and No. 48—Performance audit—Phase 2 of the sales of Federal airports .Ordered that the reports be printed.Documents69966996Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—Papers are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the papers will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings .Motion (by Mr Reith) proposed:That the House take note of the following papers:First Quarter report of the CEO of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency;Nuclear Safety Bureau 44th Quarterly report;Nuclear Safety Bureau 45th Quarterly report;Government response to the reviews of the 1993-94 Annual Reports of the Reserve Bank of Austral ia and the Insurance and Superannuation Commission;Government response to the reviews of the 1995-96 Annual Reports of the Reserve Bank of Australia, Australian Securities Commission and the Insurance and Superannuation Commission;Advance to the Minister for Finance and Administration—April 1999;Supporting Applications of Issues from the Advances to the Minister for Finance and Administration during April 1999; andAustralian Law Reform Commission—Report No. 87.Debate (on motion by Mr McMullan) adjourned.Matters of Public Importance6997699710000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER— I have received a letter from the honourable member for Brisbane proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The failure of government to provide adequate protection for workers' pay and other entitlements where companies have become insolvent.I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—15:30:006997Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—The incredible thing about this debate on wage entitlement protection that we are about to have is that we will be arguing whether or not workers in Australia should be entitled to receive no more than what is their legally due payment. We have a situation today where workers from the mining industry find themselves unable to be paid the minimum entitlement that the law provides because employers have not set aside that money—and we have a government opposite allowing that situation to continue unabated. This matter has become urgent because we have a government which has sat idly by, arguing and discussing with its employer friends, while workers' rights have gone up in smoke.The prospect of companies going belly up is not a new phenomenon. But what we have seen in the last few years is this government's adept practice at turning big business into small business; it has become very good at promoting small business by turning big companies around and into small companies. What we have seen in recent years is an alarming list of medium and large sized organisations becoming insolvent and leaving workers largely out of pocket. That is not a longstanding practice, that is not a longstanding activity, but in recent years we have seen a number of companies go to the wall with very substantial debts owing to workers and workers being unable to collect or finding it difficult to collect.I will mention just a few: the Woodlawn mine, where 160 workers lost $6 million in entitlements; the Grafton meatworks, where 250 workers found themselves $3 million short; Rockhampton and Yeppoon where 157 hospital workers lost $1.4 million; Sizzler restaurants around this country, where 2,000 workers lost $2 million; and the fairly celebrated and well-known situation at Cobar, where 270 workers lost $6 million in entitlements until there was some action to recover part of that.It is worth while making some comment about the situation at Cobar because the views of the community were summed up, I think, very adequately not just by the miners and the union but by one of the Cobar storekeepers, the longest surviving retailer there. When talking about Ashanti, the company that was running the mine, this is what he had to say:They made $US140 million-odd profit in the previous year, 19 per cent owned by the government of Ghana, 30 per cent owned by Lonrho, which is one of the world's big mining houses. They are listed on the New York, London, Toronto and Sydney stock exchanges. We're talking about guilt-edged stuff here, and they didn't honour their basic requirements—that is, to pay their workers firstly, foremost their workers, and secondly their creditors.That was the situation in Cobar. The Prime Minister in the House yesterday, and on other occasions when this debate has arisen, has sought to claim Cobar as some sort of example of the success of his government's policies in dealing with this sort of matter.Let us have a look at what happened at Cobar. At Cobar, eventually the workers got what? The workers got 85 per cent of their entitlements; that is, they got 85 per cent of what was their money to start with. They did not get a bonus out of this; they actually lost 15 per cent of their legally due entitlement. And this government regards that as a success. It touts that as the example that should be followed. However, on the Alan Jones interview that the Prime Minister had last week, I noticed that, having claimed that as a great success, he did not want to claim he could do the same thing for the people at Oakdale because he was not sure that he could get even that much out of the operators there. Eighty-five per cent of what was legally yours before you started is no great outcome at all.Today we have workers from Oakdale in the parliament, seeking to get some justice from this government out of their plight. There are 125 workers at Oakdale who are owed some $6.3 million. It is worth commenting here in this debate that, while the focus is on Oakdale, eight workers, members of the CFMEU, who worked in a closed mine in Merrywood, Tasmania are owed $380,000.The government has been dragging its feet on this matter because it actually supports the current arrangements. It actually thinks the current system is a good one and it should be followed. There could not have been a clearer example of that than the Prime Minister's comments to Alan Jones on radio last week, on the 18th. The Prime Minister made the comment that this money—money that is the workers' legal entitlements—should be used by businesses to assist with their cash flow, that it is some sort of interest-free loan that has been accorded to them for their investment. After making that observation, Mr Jones, the interviewer, obviously a bit taken aback, said:Oh, but it's not their money. Under your industrial laws, it's the employee money . . . He was trying to get his friend the Prime Minister out of the hole he was digging himself. The Prime Minister kept going, though, and said:Ah, but the point I'm making, Alan, is that in reality, because of cash flow needs, many firms actually use this money for the day-to-day operation . . . Alan Jones persisted in trying to dig his mate out further and said:But you shouldn't employ people if you can't pay them.But the Prime Minister kept going and said, `Oh no, no, but you don't understand. See, they need that money for their investment.' Five times Alan Jones in that interview put a question to the Prime Minister, trying to help him out of the hole he was digging; and five times in succession the Prime Minister said `Oh no, well, it's okay for small business to use this money; it's part of their cash flow, You know, you just juggle it around. It might be the workers' money in the books but, you know, if the company wants to shift it here and there to pay a few bills or new investments over here, that's a good thing, that's what makes the market tick.' Five times Alan Jones tried to save his mate, and five times the Prime Minister was too stupid to realise the hole he was digging himself into and he just dug himself in deeper. The simple fact is that Alan Jones gave up when eventually the Prime Minister said:Look, but in reality what happens because of the cash flow needs of the small businesses, they effectively use that in their day-to-day operations.So what we have is official endorsement by the Prime Minister of this country for businesses to take those payments that are legally due to workers and use them for cash flow purposes. What a disgraceful statement to be made by the head of government in this country. It is an encouragement to business to go out there and take workers' entitlements and use them as if they were some sort of unsecured interest-free loan that is theirs for cash flow purposes. This is not a commercial loan businesses take when they withhold that money from workers. If it were, there would be some interest that would be paid.I mentioned the Woodlawn mine dispute, which was very prominent not that long ago. I just want to quote the comments of some workers at that time on this very point. They said: Well, look, the bank have lent money to our employer, but at least our employer asked the bank if they could borrow the money in the first place, and the bank lent them the money with a risk . . . a premium representing the risk involved. In our case—this is the miners talking at Woodlawn—this was our money. The employer never asked us if they could borrow our money and we're never going to get a premium for the risk that's involved . . . That is the reality of the situation, but not to the Prime Minister of this country who last week on five occasions persisted in his interview with Alan Jones to say, `No, that's not the case. If companies want to use that for themselves, they should be entitled to.' They are not entitled to; that is the simple fact of it. They are not entitled to use that money. It is the workers' money, and it is money that is now being deprived from over 100 workers at Oakdale whose families sit and wonder what they will do to pay their mortgage bills, while this government says they want to have a discussion. This minister opposite has been talking for 18 months about having a discussion. Only last week, they put out another press release to say they are going to have another round of discussions with their business mates. I can tell you that the people out there from the CFMEU, the workers and their families from Oakdale do not want to know about any more discussions; they actually want some results from this government, and they have not got any so far.The workers in this situation are not providing unsecured interest-free loans. They are simply selling their labour for wages. It is a simple contract: they work and they expect to get paid, and they expect to be paid in full what is their legal due, and they have not been. The Prime Minister seems to have a different view of it, and it is a disgraceful view.It is worth noting that the Prime Minister's comments I just quoted from his conversation last week were directly in the context of a discussion about the Oakdale dispute. One of the interesting things about that—apart from the obvious misconception he seems to have about whose money it is and what businesses are entitled to do with workers' wages—is that the Prime Minister kept referring to the problems for small business with cash flows. I do not know about anyone else in this House, but my perception of what goes on in the coal industry is that there are not too many small businesses who run the coal industry. Your average mining corporation is not classified as a small business.In the context of the debate about whether or not those workers are entitled to any money, the Prime Minister of Australia talks about it as if they were small businesses. There is no small business running the mining industry, Prime Minister, and it is about time you stopped trying to protect your mates by using that sort of rhetoric. That is one example that is a recent one.I have to say that we should not have been too surprised by the Prime Minister's comments, because we have opposite the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business whose hand in the Patrick's dispute a couple of years ago demonstrated quite clearly not just government support but complicity and involvement in conjuring up the dispute and in endorsing a contrived restructure of corporation funds to ensure that workers were denied their legal entitlements. We actually had for the first time I think in this nation's history a government and its ministers directly involved and supporting the restructure—WI4REITHMr Reith—Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: the opposition have put up an MPI today. They are required under the standing orders to confine their remarks to the subject matter which they themselves nominated. Given the importance of the matter and the fact that there are only four minutes left, it would help, I think, if the opposition actually put up some proposal to deal with what they are saying is a problem.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—I thank the Leader of the House. Although I did not hear the last minute and a half of what the honourable member was saying, I had been listening quite carefully and he was relevant. Please continue.ET4Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVIS—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. You are very sensitive about the Patrick's dispute, aren't you, Pete? You are very sensitive about that. The situation in the Patrick's dispute is the other example of what has happened in these circumstances—where companies have gone belly up, the people who own the companies have walked off rich and wealthy into their other corporate structures and have gone on and done business very profitably, while the workers have been left without any of their legal entitlements. The really tragic thing, the disgraceful thing, about the Patrick's dispute was that that contrived restructure of the company—which was deliberately designed to prevent workers getting their entitlements—was done with the knowledge and encouragement of this government. That is the disgraceful thing about it.So we have a Prime Minister who thinks this is cash flow money for business. We have got a government whose record on the Patrick's dispute is to encourage and foster that sort of underhanded restructuring. But it goes further: we have a Minister for Finance and Administration, Mr Fahey, who is not in the chamber at the moment, who also showed his attitude towards this when he was the New South Wales Minister for Industrial Relations.8K6FITZGIBBONMr Fitzgibbon—And he's the local member.ET4Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVIS—That is right; he is the local member who is going to meet the workers. But understand this about him: when he was the New South Wales Minister for Industrial Relations, no sooner did he get that job than he decided he would make it illegal for builders in the construction industry to contribute to a trust fund for redundancy of building workers if they wanted to do business with the state government. You had a situation in New South Wales where the industry had established a trust fund precisely to ensure workers made redundant could get their money, even if the company coffers were not there to fund it. That system was in place until the present Minister for Finance and Administration, then New South Wales Minister for Industrial Relations, decided to make it unlawful for companies to do that if they were trading with the New South Wales government.We all know the importance of government contracts in the construction industry. The net result of that intervention by Mr Fahey when he was New South Wales Minister for Industrial Relations was that it destroyed that trust fund's viability. It was a conscious decision to actually take out of the system one of the very few safeguards that was there to protect workers rights. Its parallel today is this minister's desire and this minister's intention to strip away the long service leave entitlements that those workers have. He has put out the press release. He has floated the idea. I imagine now he is quickly getting the rubber out on the second wave of his industrial relations laws, because I suspect he will not want to pursue it after the high profile campaign that has been waged here.There are solutions. There is a long list of European and like countries that we would refer to where these problems have been addressed through trust funds and the like. There are bills in this parliament that this government has refused to accept. There is the Crosio bill: the member for Prospect has legislation in this parliament that addresses this issue. I have moved a private member's bill to deal with the Patrick's contrived arrangement. We have had these matters actually carried in the Senate and, when those matters have been carried in the Senate as amendments to the Corporations Law, this government has voted against them when they have come down here into the House of Representatives.We have a situation where this government turns up to the workers and says, `We sympathise. Trust us.' They don't trust you. You are the same people who said, `No worker will be worse off.' When Peter Reith turns up to his meeting this afternoon and says to the CFMEU, `Hi, I'm Peter Reith, I'm from the government and I'm here to help you,' they are not going to believe you. Not only will they not believe you but the rest of the workers in Australia will not believe you either.15:45:007000Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—This is a difficult issue. There is no doubt that this is an issue that the Australian community needs to confront. In that sense, I am pleased that the opposition has been prepared to raise the matter today as a matter of public importance. I am today meeting with my ministerial colleagues and with representatives of the CFMEU to discuss the particular circumstances of the colliery and also to talk more generally with them about the policy response that may provide assistance in the future in similar circumstances. It is disappointing, though, that the opposition in raising the matter has provided absolutely no policy response whatsoever to this issue.Mr Bevis interjecting—WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—You have two private member's bills. As we have substantiated in the parliament before on the debate on those bills—Mrs Crosio interjecting—WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—In respect of the bill from the member for Prospect, the fact is that aspects of it are unconstitutional.7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—That is not true.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—I am sorry, it is true, and you ought to face the—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The minister should address his remarks through the chair and ignore the member for Prospect.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—We have had legal advice on it, and it is a pity the member is more interested in making a political point than actually trying to grapple with the issue. Aspects of it are unconstitutional, it does not achieve its stated objectives and it fails to safeguard against vexatious and frivolous claims, just to mention some of the major problems with her proposal, her so-called solution.The Bevis bill is the second bill. The Corporations Law changes he proposes are either redundant or unworkable, and we have had advice that the bill is probably invalid. This is a difficult issue. It does require people to actually put some work into what might be potential solutions to it. It is no surprise to us to get this vacuous response from the Labor Party to this issue. That was exactly the response we had from the Labor Party when they were in office for 13 years. They had a chance to do something about this. They never actually grappled with this issue to produce a constructive response. I will say something about their attitude when they were in government because the charge that they are making of us is that we have not dealt with this issue quickly enough or sufficiently in a substantial manner.The fact is that we have been dealing with the issue. We have already proposed amendments to Corporations Law to deal with certain aspects of it. We have undertaken genuine consultations. We have discussed the matter with the states, who have acknowledged that they have a responsibility. The truth of the matter is that the states, including the Labor states, are not interested in this issue, although they have at least acknowledged publicly that they have a shared responsibility for part of the solution.The fact is that we are working on this issue. We are concerned about it. We are prepared to sit down and genuinely discuss the issues. That is in very sharp contrast to Labor's attitude when they were in government. They had the Law Reform Commission report on a wage guarantee system back in 1988. They attack us for not dealing with the issue expeditiously. We have already moved on the Corporations Law in the last 12 or 18 months. It took the Labor Party five years to deal with the Law Reform Commission report, and then they rejected it, except they did make one change: they gave priority to employees over the tax office. Quite frankly, so what! Giving employees ranking over the tax office in my view is the least they could have done.Do not come in here and say, `You ought to act faster.' You took five years to deal with that recommendation from the Law Reform Commission. You rejected its principal proposition, which you are now telling us we ought to adopt. Talk about hypocrisy! Tim Pallas was a bit more honest about it. The former Assistant Secretary of the ACTU was on Lateline last year and he said it was a missed opportunity. He also admitted that:. . . it's a national disgrace that we haven't put in place some mechanism to address it. That is right, and that was a commentary on Labor's failure to deal with this issue for many years. You say we should deal with the issue expeditiously. Let us look at what you yourself said when you were in government. Accord Mark VII, entered into in June 1995, said:. . . and, if practicable and desirable, move to improve the protection of employees entitlements in the event of the insolvency of the employer.So, when you actually turned your mind to it back in 1995, two years after having spent five years replying to the Law Reform Commission, you had a deal with the unions. Does that suggest any urgency? Absolutely none whatsoever. You could not even come to a commitment to do anything. It was only if it was desirable, if it was practicable, put it off for the next millennium. Then you attack us for not having dealt with the issue, as you would claim, expeditiously in the last 18 months. We have done more on this issue in 18 months than you did in 13 years, and we are still now looking at the issues and trying to grapple with them.I am happy to meet with the unions. I am happy to meet with the CFMEU—I have met with the CFMEU before—but I say to them honestly and bluntly that the fact is that they need to lift their own game a bit when it comes to concern about employees entitlements in this industry. Some of us do remember Bill Kelty of the ACTU writing to Japanese coal buyers warning them that Australia was strike prone and unreliable. That was in 1996. John Maitland, the President of the CFMEU, in 1997 was writing to Asian customers telling them not to deal with an Australian producer of coal. What do you think that does to employee entitlements? I never heard the Labor Party get up and support the Australian industry and our capacity to be a reliable supplier.In terms of the attitude of the Labor Party more generally, the state ALP governments are full of rhetoric, but I can tell you from dealing with them—and I have been dealing with them on this issue—that they are not a lot of action when it comes to these particular issues. When you look at the policy issues, we have been calling for greater flexibility within this industry and other industries. The fact is that a more flexible system can allow people to actually cash out entitlements and receive those entitlements on an ongoing basis.I am not saying that that is an answer to every situation, but it is an answer in some situations and yet your policy position is to oppose the very flexibility that could actually provide benefits to employees. Your answer to every one of these problems is to have a central fund, but we know from experience with centralised funds that they rob employers and employees that have a capacity to manage these entitlements in a more flexible way. And who ultimately are the people who are adversely affected by such arrangements? Of course it is the workers, which I think just demonstrates that this is a difficult issue and it needs to be looked at carefully.You yourselves know some of this because, privately, you have been concerned about the impact of an additional cost burden on industry by the imposition of a levy scheme. The quote we have is from a memo—directly off the back of a truck—to Kim Beazley from one of his advisers. In respect of a levy and with regard to the Crosio private member's bill, Mr Angley said:The downside of a levy is that it's another cost on jobs. If it's a state wide fund like workers comp the cost per worker in the form of premiums inevitably grows. It also reduces the responsibility of the employers-owners to fix their own affairs rather than fall back on the fund.What that tells you is that the Labor Party are full of rhetoric of support for the coalminers but privately they actually have a different view to what they are expressing publicly. We know that because when they were in government the concern about the impact of these additional costs on employment generally in the industry was actually what was driving the then Labor government's response to the proposal for a fund. If you go back to the Corporate Law Reform Bill of 1992, Michael Duffy, in the explanatory document he put out at the time, makes the comment in respect of funds:The recommendation is not implemented as the fund would be a further imposition on existing successful businesses and it would be better to retain—(Quorum formed)I am sorry that we have had a quorum to prevent me from properly canvassing all of the options which we as a government are considering. I will certainly be discussing these matters with the coalminers, but I must say I am disappointed that this juvenile behaviour by the Labor Party prevents more opportunity being provided to go through the options. I want to put the problem into context though because, in a search for a solution, some identification of the problem is important. In 1997-98, 3,000 companies were in liquidation, receivership or under deed of company arrangement, but we do not know the value of the lost entitlements. We have a general sense of the proportion of the problem, but I must say the data is generally inadequate other than that more generalised information.The ACTU claim that annually about 17,000 workers suffer from not receiving their full entitlements of an average of $7,000 each, bringing the total loss, according to the ACTU's claim, to around $100 million to $150 million a year. I do not accept their claim but just put it on the table. I suspect it is a bit on the high side but, as the data is inadequate, it is reasonable to refer to the estimate they have made. In looking at what the possible solutions are, you therefore need to say, `Well, here's the extent of the problem. Let's look at what the cost of the solution might be,' because obviously, if the cost of the solution is more than the actual cost you are suffering, you need to see whether there is a better way.On the advice to me, a trust fund based on one-half of one per cent of the private sector gross salary and wage costs has been estimated to have a job-destroying impact—a cost in jobs because of the additional burden on industry—of up to 25,000 jobs. That is one estimate, but I think it does give people an order of magnitude. There is a trade-off here which needs to be calculated as best we can so that we understand the dimensions of the problem and the dimensions of any cost of any solution.There are a number of options which we have looked at. Strengthening the Corporations Law is certainly an option—it is one which we have adopted and one which the Treasurer is moving through the cooperative process for with the states. That is an important step forward which should have been taken years ago and which has seen progress under this government—something that Labor failed to do. Limited priority over secured creditors is another option. This means that a specified amount of employees' claims—between one and five weeks wages, depending on the employees' length of service and age—would rank ahead of both secured and unsecured creditors in the winding up of an insolvent company. The main concern with this option—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The honourable minister's time has expired.10000Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—I am sorry my time has expired. Hopefully others in the Labor Party will be more interested when a further debate will—(Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The honourable minister's time has expired. He will resume his seat.16:00:007003Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—I rise today in support of the matter of public importance brought before the House. It was interesting to have the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business in this parliament questioning what Labor proposes to do about workers' entitlements. Well, Minister, I am glad that you acknowledged that I had introduced a bill in this House in 1998 and reintroduced that bill in 1999. At the same time as I introduced that bill I said to both the minister, who is running out of the House in shame, and his Prime Minister, `If you want to amend my bill, if you want to take credit for that bill, if you want to add your own flourishes to that bill, you are welcome to do it, as long as we get the results at the end of it—as long as Australian workers would never again have to fear being robbed of their entitlements in the event of company insolvency.'What happened? The minister for workplace relations said, `Oh, the Crosio bill—we have legal advice that it's not legal.' I can tell the House that that bill was put together in consultation with a QC from South Australia who is involved in writing bills for both this parliament and other parliaments of Australia, so I can assure him that my legal advice is just as good as his.When we look at what outcomes we want to see—including, I dare say, at times even the majority of members on the coalition benches—we want to guarantee workers' entitlements; we want to guarantee their just rights. We also want to guarantee that the Cobars, the Woodlawns, the Austral Pacifics and the Oakdales will never happen again in this country. For a short time, judging by the Prime Minister's expressions of sympathy towards the plight of the Cobar miners—we all remember that last year—I thought we just might get something up that would solve the problem. But, despite the many examples of the obvious pressing need for rapid action and reform, the Prime Minister and his government have done absolutely nothing but tread water on this issue during the last two years that I have introduced and reintroduced that bill. The miners rally—many of them from Oakdale—in front of Parliament House today is testament that this government has done absolutely nothing.The Prime Minister got up in question time yesterday and attempted to give the impression that not only was his government sympathetic to workers robbed of their entitlements, not only was his government in the process of doing something about protecting them but also his government had been instrumental in reaching a settlement for the Cobar miners. Mr Reith said that today. But without any results, the Prime Minister's words are empty and so are his minister's. If the Prime Minister had really put his government into action 12 months ago, the Oakdale miners would not be without their entitlements today. If he had run with my bill, or something similar—or had amended it in any way he wanted to—we wouldn't have a situation where men who have worked down those mines for over 40 years are not only without a job but also without a future.The Minister for Industry, Science and Resources exposed the government's lack of progress in this matter when he rushed out last week with a joint press release on behalf of himself and the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, who I said earlier has scampered out of the House. The minister for industry said in his statement that discussions `at a ministerial level directly with business organisations are needed' to help solve this difficult problem. Suddenly I was struck with a sense of deja vu. To my ears, the minister's words sounded strangely familiar—this is the minister for industry—and familiar they were. I went back to 1998 when we remember 6 April and the Cobar miners. What happened? I read a press release put out by the minister for workplace relations. Yes, you guessed it. He said, `The government will consult the business community on the issue.' That was 12 months ago and the minister tries to tell this House that they are moving.To back this up, in answer to one of my questions on notice, the minister for workplace relations listed both the Business Council of Australia and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry as the two main business organisations he had consulted with. Yet now, a year later, the minister for industry is embarking on the same consultation process but this time he has the minister for workplace relations in tow. So what has the minister for workplace relations been doing over the last 12 months or more? What did he discuss with the Business Council of Australia and the ACCI? Obviously not much.The Prime Minister also likes to point to the current review on protecting workers' entitlements, involving the Workplace Relations Ministers Council—formerly the Labour Ministers Council—and the Ministerial Council for Corporations, as evidence that he is doing something, but in reality this `review' is nothing but window-dressing. The involvement of the Workplace Relations Ministers Council in this review process began on 1 May 1998. Over a year later we still have nothing concrete from them—no proposals, no recommendations, absolutely nothing. In November last year the council's general report on the problem, along with an independent report prepared by the NSW state government, was referred to the Ministerial Council for Corporations. And that was that. Until the Oakdale tragedy was thrust upon him, that is as far as the minister for workplace relations saw his responsibility extending. He had washed his hands of the whole matter. The report was in the hands of MinCo, out of his portfolio's responsibilities, and he could sit back and relax. And relax he did.At the WRMC's last meeting on 19 May, its discussion on the issue of guaranteeing workers' entitlements amounted to just five lines in the minutes. Five lines is what they have produced! So much for the `other options' that the Prime Minister said the WRMC was pursuing in his answer during question time in this parliament yesterday. As for what is going on at the Ministerial Council for Corporations, the Treasurer has put forward two suggestions to amend the Corporations Law that really do not go any further than messing about on the margins of this problem. The Treasurer suggested that, firstly, criminal penalties should be created and levelled against company directors who deliberately avoid paying workers their entitlements and, secondly, that the `related party and insolvent trading transaction provisions' in the Corporations Law should be strengthened. These reforms would be welcomed but they will do nothing to offer complete protection of the unpaid entitlements of workers. Even with these changes, employers will still go insolvent and, without some sort of a guarantee, workers' entitlements will still be lost.When it comes to my bill—and the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business made reference to it—or pursuing, as I gave him the opportunity, some other avenue that would offer real protection in this regard, the Howard government just cannot bite the bullet. They cannot bite the bullet because they do not want to upset the Liberal Party's natural constituency—the big end of town.But the government does have another responsibility. It has a responsibility to ensure that the workers of Australia, if affected by company insolvency, get what is legally and morally theirs—their full entitlements. We are not talking about workers asking for an extra sweetener at the end of their employment; we are not talking about workers making unjust demands on the wage bills of their employers. We are talking here about the legal rights of workers in this country to be paid what they are owed for their labour—nothing more and nothing less.This is not the money of the employers to lose; it is the money of their workers. I repeat—it is not the employers' money we are talking about; it is the workers' money. And it is not enough for the Prime Minister to seek solace in that other meagre argument he uses to justify his government's inactivity on workers' entitlements, and that is the presence of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission.In the case of Cobar, ASIC was only able to help achieve some level of settlement for the workers there because the mine's parent company, Ashanti, had sent that letter of comfort to its junior partner. The unions were able to get hold of it, and without it the securities commission would have been powerless, just as it has been in the case of retrieving the entitlements of the Woodlawn miners.We do not hear the Prime Minister crowing about his success with regard to the Woodlawn miners, and that occurred at the same time as Cobar. The Prime Minister and his government have spent the best part of 15 months avoiding the subject of how to guarantee workers' entitlements. How ironic that it was Alan Jones, on the radio last week, who actually took the Prime Minister to task for his idleness. Jones asked the Prime Minister:How many more companies will go under leaving employees in the lurch before someone tells employers this can't happen?The Prime Minister's response was:Well, I can't answer that.He cannot answer Alan Jones's questions because he will not answer them.Just as the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business initiated discussions with business groups when the Cobar tragedy was in full swing and then dropped the ball when the media spotlight moved on to a new story, that is exactly what the Prime Minister is hoping will happen now with the Oakdale miners. He is hoping that a few inquiries here and there, a few meetings and a few minor changes to the Corporations Law will buy him an escape from actually doing something substantial to guarantee our workers' entitlements.Prime Minister, the time has arrived when the workers of Australia will no longer let you get away with the legislative equivalent of a whistle and a prayer. The Oakdales, the Cobars and the Woodlawns receive our attention because of the sheer scale of the tragedy that affects these people and their families. But there are hundreds more Australians all around Australia who are without their entitlements because you will not act. The government must act now. (Time expired)16:10:007006Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4LaTrobeLP10—I am afraid that the slogans have got this issue a little bit out of hand, because quite honestly this is a serious and difficult issue. All of us here are sympathetic towards the workers, and certainly we need to discuss the response that the government is giving to this matter.The member for Prospect—and I have said this before in this place on this issue—comes into this debate with some form. For a long time she has been chasing this issue down rabbit holes and doing what she can to ensure that eventually we find a mechanism that will at least partially fix the problem. I will give her credit for that. I do not give the member for Brisbane much credit at all; fair dinkum, `workers' rights have gone up in smoke'!Mr Bevis interjecting—OT4Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLES—The member for Brisbane was a real smoking gun at the table today when he was up at the despatch box. I fail to see exactly what it is that the member for Brisbane achieved.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—What about your company?OT4Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLES—I will tell you about my company; do not worry about that, Mr Bevis. You will hear about that. The member has come in here and delivered trite phrases like `workers' rights have gone up in smoke', when the member knows that this is a complex, legal issue which is tied up in state law, federal law, corporate law and law surrounding partnerships and individuals—an extremely complex issue.It is a joint Commonwealth-state issue. Although the member for Prospect says that little has happened, a lot has happened behind the scenes. Work has progressed and is progressing, but it does depend on the cooperation of the states. The point has been made by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business—and I will make it again—that Labor did have 13 years to fix the problem if they thought they knew how. But they did not; they did not even come close. The ACTU and all those who come into this debate with clean hands and honest hearts acknowledge that it is an extremely complex issue. With the states bound up in this issue as well as the Commonwealth, I would be surprised if anyone could do a quick fix.The member for Prospect has brought a private member's bill into this place which is based on a levy paid by all employers into a central fund or insurance fund. The workers of those employers who go bust will be protected and they will receive benefits from that fund for any outstanding wages owed, long service leave and sick leave not taken, redundancy pay in lieu or whatever.The minister referred to the fact that this bill is of questionable constitutional legality. I am advised that that bill is probably constitutionally invalid, at least to the extent that it purports to rely on the Commonwealth powers to make laws with respect to insurance, bankruptcy and insolvency. The Commonwealth's constitutional power to make laws in respect of corporations would support the bill to the extent to which it required employers who were corporations to take out employee protection insurance. Similarly, the Commonwealth power to make laws with respect to the territories would support the scheme in respect of unincorporated employers therein.However, the bill purports to apply to all employers in Australia, other than Common wealth, state, territory or local government employers. To the extent that the bill purports to apply to unincorporated employers in the states, it is beyond power, and there is no question about that. That is precisely—although in other language—what the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business tried to point out this afternoon.When we have insolvency or bankruptcy there is a pecking order for those who are owed money. Whatever the form of the money, it is in fact money. Those rules have been built up in corporate law over a long period of time. I am not saying that they are perfect; I am saying it is very difficult to change Corporations Law to say that employees have a greater security than the secured creditors who put up the money in the first place in order to back the corporation itself. This afternoon we heard from the member for Brisbane. He said something about there being no small business in the mining industry. I asked the member for Kalgoorlie about that.Mr Bevis interjecting—OT4Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLES—You said there is no small business in the mining industry. I say to the member for Brisbane that he ought to get out of downtown Brisbane. He ought to get out there and find out what the hell is going on in the community. There are hundreds of thousands of small business people involved in the mining industry in this country. Whether they are contractors or subcontractors, whether they own true small business ventures or whether they happen to be opal miners or suppliers to a mining company dealing with small companies, medium sized companies or large companies, the whole industry is full of people who own small businesses and earn small incomes.Mr Bevis interjecting—OT4Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLES—The member for Brisbane made no proposals to protect their income. Neither did the member for Prospect.8K6FITZGIBBONMr Fitzgibbon—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. This is an MPI about the government's failure to protect employee entitlements and the member is raving on about small businesses.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The honourable member for Hunter will resume his seat. There is no point of order.OT4Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLES—I was making the point that subcontractors and contractors come under fire constantly in contracts across all kinds of business all over this country and other countries. If a company fails owing a contractor money and the contractor fails owing the subcontractor money, or it goes back up the chain the other way, everybody suffers. We know that. I will tell you this: a lot of those people down at the bottom that are suffering are people that are on low and sometimes marginal incomes because they are subcontractors or contractors to other companies. They happen to work for themselves. They do not happen to belong to one of the big multiunions in Australia. They happen to be among the 75 per cent of Australians who do not want to belong to a union. They are happy to work for themselves and take some risks. Your proposal deals only with the ACTU and the affiliated unions and those that deal with big business. I am happy to talk about small business and medium sized business.8K6FITZGIBBONMr Fitzgibbon—Mr Deputy Speaker, I am going to ask you to rule on the question of relevance. This MPI is about the failure of this government to protect employees' entitlements and the member is talking about the interests of small business people who contract to the mining industry.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. The honourable member for La Trobe will continue.OT4Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLES—They do not like it. They cannot take it when the going gets tough. When it gets hot in the kitchen, you want to get out. Stick in the kitchen and find out what it is like, Sonny.8K6FITZGIBBONMr Fitzgibbon—Mr Deputy Speaker, as the member refuses to return to the subject of the MPI—that is, the government's failure to protect the entitlements of workers—I draw your attention to the state of the House. (Quorum formed) (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The discussion has concluded.Committees70087008700816:22:007008Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHLAE4CowperNP10—I present the report of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation reports and private members business on Monday, 28 June 1999. The report will be printed in today's Hansard and the items accorded priority for debate will be published in the Notice Paper for the next sitting.The report read as follows—Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation reports and private Members' business on Monday, 28 June 1999Pursuant to standing order 331, the Selection Committee has determined the order of precedence and times to be allotted for consideration of committee and delegation reports and private Members' business on Monday, 28 June 1999. The order of precedence and the allotments of time determined by the Committee are shown in the list.COMMITTEE AND DELEGATION REPORTSPresentation and statements1 AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION TO THE 101ST INTER-PARLIAMENTARY CONFERENCE, BRUSSELS, BELGIUM AND A BILATERAL VISIT TO NORWAY: Report on the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to the 101st Inter-Parliamentary Conference, Brussels, Belgium (10-16 April 1999) and a bilateral visit to Norway (17-21 April 1999).The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to be made within a total time of 25 minutes.Speech time limits—First Member speaking—9 minutes.Other Members—4 minutes each.2 TREATIES—JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE: Report 22—Pine Gap Agreement and five treaties tabled on 11 May 1999.The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to be made within a total time of 20 minutes.Speech time limits—Each Member—5 minutes.PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESSOrder of precedenceNotices1Mr Lindsay to move:That this House:(1) recognises the vital and growing role electronic information transmission plays in education, research and business activity throughout Australia;(2) further recognises that the availability of adequate capacity, high quality and appropriately priced bandwidth—for the electronic transmission of information—is an important strategic issue for the development of the information economy in Australia;(3) notes that regional areas throughout Australia have a poorer electronic information infrastructure than metropolitan areas, and the gap is widening; and(4) acknowledges the urgent need to provide affordable broadband electronic communications to Australia's regional centres and, in particular, to our regional universities.Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 1.45 p.m.Speech time limits—Mover of motion—10 minutes.First Opposition Member speaking—10 minutes.Other Members—5 minutes each.The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.2Ms 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.Time allotted—30 minutes.Speech time limits—Mover of motion—10 minutes.First Government Member speaking—10 minutes.Other Members—5 minutes each.The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.3Mr Charles to move:That the House of Representatives supports the proposal of Tidal Power Australia for a tidal energy station at Doctors Creek, Derby, WA, to supply the electric power needs of Derby, Fitzroy Crossing, Western Metals and Broome in an environmentally sensitive manner with true renewable and non-polluting energy.Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time.Speech time limits—Mover of motion—10 minutes.First Opposition Member speaking—10 minutes.Other Members—5 minutes each.The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.Miscellaneous7009Motion (by Mr Ronaldson) agreed to:That the following bills be referred to the Main Committee for consideration: Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Amendment Bill 1999 Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review) Bill 1999 Statute Stocktake Bill 1999 Bills7009r836Billsr835Bills7009Debate resumed from 9 June, on motion by Mr Truss:That the bill be now read a second time.16:23:007009Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—I rise to speak to the two bills that are before the House today, A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Bill 1999 and A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Consequential and Related Measures) Bill (No. 2) 1999 . I move:That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House condemns the Government for:(1) persisting with the proposal to impose a regressive and unfair tax on families and individuals in a way that has become unworkable, increasing the costs of having children, and widening inequality in society;(2) attempting to administer family payments in such a way as to deny access by families to those payments by incorporating `virtual offices' into the already gridlocked Centrelink structure;(3) attempting to wind back the rights of appeal of citizens in receipt of social security payments by placing inappropriate time restrictions on access to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal".It is a core responsibility of government to provide assistance to families, to provide support where it is needed and to provide opportunities for families to bring up their children and to ensure they have the very best start in life. Everybody knows that raising kids can be very expensive. Bills have to be paid, children have to be fed, clothes have to be bought; and, for many families, it is an uphill battle. A lot of families are struggling at the moment and many are unable to provide the opportunities that their children deserve. So how do we go about fixing the problem? Any reasonable government would be looking at easing the pressures on families and making sure there was a strong incentive for parents to earn that bit extra and to get ahead. That is just plain commonsense.But what do we have here today? We have a government that is not about commonsense, we have a government that is not about making it easier and we have a government that is not about supporting families. This government, despite its family friendly rhetoric, has an agenda that is antifamily. The government has created a massive social deficit by cutting funding and services to families in the areas of health, education, social security and child care—cuts to the tune of around $2 billion after its first term in office. All of these cuts have placed extra burdens and responsibilities on struggling families.The budget brought down last month does virtually nothing to restore that loss and the moneys administered by the bills we are discussing today are of no net gain. The so-called extra family assistance is just inadequate compensation that the government has seen fit to dole out to families in exchange for the antifamily GST. Let us be very clear. By definition a GST is antifamily because it is a tax on consumption and families are very big consumers. Their consumption is not discretionary. They cannot choose whether they buy school shoes. They cannot choose whether they pay the bus fares. Families cannot stop buying school shoes. They cannot stop spending on bus fares. They cannot stop looking after their children so that they can benefit from a shift in the tax system from income. A consumption tax by definition is antifamily.What really happens to a family under the GST is that, with every additional child, they simply move up a tax bracket. That is what happens with the GST. That is why it is antifamily. With every extra child that comes along there is another 10 per cent on the necessities of life. That is why it is antifamily. That is why this is an anti-family tax policy. That comes on top of the $2 billion in cuts to family services that families have suffered in recent years. No wonder Professor Peter McDonald has observed that the agenda of the Howard government has worked against families. He says:What's been happening is there has been cutbacks to family service, the rolling back of family funding and supporting people who have children. We are giving the message that if you have children it is your responsibility, instead of saying that children are a social good and are our future therefore our community should be supporting children.That is the agenda of the Howard government—nothing more, nothing less. Now we get token, miserly, mangy, inadequate compensation for this new $30 billion GST—a tax that is about to shift the goalposts and tilt the playing field against families, particularly low and middle income families.Before I move on to some of the specifics of these two bills, it is only appropriate that we once again look at the adequacy of the compensation provisions that this bill administer. The tax package shifts most of the tax burden onto low and middle income earners and families. As we said before, the GST puts extra pressure on families. Nothing could be more antifamily than pushing up the costs of raising children. The tax cuts offered are not targeted to low and middle income families; they are tilted to high income earners without kids. High income earners—the income bracket where the problems of work disincentives and family problems are less acute—will gain the most under the GST.The massive impost of the GST on families is not just a commonsense argument. The ABS statistics also support the argument. Household expenditure data shows the GST is a tax on families. The GST exemption on basic food still means the GST will hit the vast majority of expenditure items for families. Three-quarters of a family budget is still hit by the GST, as indeed is a third of all food purchases still hit by the GST. Worse, because families with children spend more on housing costs, fuel and power, clothing and footwear, household services, transport and recreation compared with couples without children, the GST on all these items will hit them far harder.Let us take a couple of examples. Families with three or more children spend $98 a week on housing costs compared with $76 for couples without children, $23 on energy costs compared with $16 for couples without children, $46 on clothing and footwear compared with $29 for couples without children and $45 on household services compared with $29 for couples without children. All of these items rise in price. The GST taxes most of the things that families spend more on. More evidence of this can be seen overseas. Take the Canadian experience. The Canadian tax expert Professor Neil Brooks has said:The most recent incidence study of the GST in Canada found that families with children and with incomes of $10,600 paid 11.1 percent of their income on the GST in 1992 . . . Those with incomes of $24,000 paid 5 percent of their income on the GST. The percentage of their income paid on that GST declined until at $372,800 a family was paying only 2.1 percent of its income on the GST.As the experience in Canada shows, the GST will hit poor families the hardest. The new tax on all of the necessities, plus the combination of tax cuts that go to the top end, means that income inequality will widen and poor families will go backwards. Even with the Democrat-Liberal-National Party deal, a family with three children and earning $30,000 gets just $16 a week in tax cuts compared to $60 a week for a couple earning $100,000. This means that children born into a family earning $30,000 are worth one-quarter of the tax cut that they would have got if they had been born into a family earning $100,000 a year. How could that possibly be fair?But, as those opposite will argue, there is more to it than just tax cuts: there is the so-called compensation, the extra assistance for families. But that too is a cruel hoax. The so-called family package is an attempt at compensating for an unfair GST. But the government has assumed that the GST cost per child will be just 30c extra a week. That is what they have based their calculations on—30c extra a week. How pathetic. What a joke. A tax on household bills, on haircuts, on video hire, on schoolbooks and uniforms will amount to considerably more than just 30c a week. The Democrats acknowledge this, but their dud deal with the government did nothing to address it at all.The Democrat-Liberal-National Party sweetheart deal did not increase the family tax package measures at all. It did nothing in that area. The family payment and the family tax initiative all remain the same. All they got was the miserly youth allowance measures that were offered to Harradine in the government's last-ditch attempt to buy his vote. That is fairly pathetic, and we will be talking about that later this day. It delivered just $50 million—not enough, and less than what the Treasurer was able to get out of the deal for the Taxation Office to administer the whole GST mess.Given the opportunity, the Democrats failed to improve the family tax package. The deal provides only $1 for every $5 in additional expenditure directly to people in the form of increased compensation. Families got just seven per cent of the total additional compensation package. Families were obviously not the high priority of the Democrats or of the government. The GST package also penalises some families over others. Children in families with one child and with one income earning $50,000 get $61.60 a week, while children in dual income families earning the same amount get just $27.31 a week. Why is one group of children worth half of what the other group is worth? This is very, very bad social policy. Even worse, single income families with one child which earn $75,000 a year get $60, while double income families on $35,000 each—totalling $70,000—get just $20 a week.Mr Cameron Thompson interjecting—2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN—I would like to see the member opposite explain that to many of the families who live in his electorate. This will have very perverse results on women's incentive to work. We do not need more poverty traps; we need fewer. If this is not enough, the fine print in the family tax benefit reveals an $850 a year back to school penalty when children turn five, because of the family tax initiative. This penalty goes to the heart of why the GST is unfair to families. GSTs by their nature tax people at stages in their lives when they can least afford to pay—namely, when they are consuming most of their income, as opposed to saving it. Families are outlaying money all of the time; it is not just when kids go back to school and need shoes, uniforms and schoolbooks.When a couple newly marries there will be a GST on the service if it is not in a church. Then they go to buy a new house—you guessed it—GST. What about when new a arrival comes? The GST will tax nappies, strollers and baby formula. What about renovating to make space for the growing teenagers? You guessed it—a GST. I do not know about you or those opposite, but the GST sounds like tax on families to me, taxing parents when they can least afford it. So much for the family values that those opposite mindlessly mouth, day in, day out.Going to the heart of assisting families is also giving them some incentive to work. The GST package offers an inadequate improvement in poverty traps, especially when compared with Labor's tax credits. The package only gives families with incomes above $24,000 a reduction in effective marginal tax rates, so families with incomes under $24,000 get very little, as do singles. Of course, the way to address this is through Labor's tax credits, but the government stubbornly refuses to introduce them or to acknowledge the wisdom of that course of action. Is it any wonder that the majority of Australians do not want tax reform with the GST?No-one can be clear about either the costs of the GST or the claimed benefits. So far we have had three different versions from various people of just how much people will end up paying additionally with the GST. In fact, most Australians will get less than what the government claimed in the 1998 election—and I might run through some of those basic figures—and that is still the case, even though some elements of food have been withdrawn from the GST.Let us take a single age pensioner. During the 1998 election campaign the government claimed they would be $2.89 a week better off, using their modelling. After the Liberal-National-Democrat deal, the Democrats claimed that same person would be $3.59 better off. They claimed they had got a miserly 70c a week increase for that pensioner. But, of course, the Warren and Harding analysis published in the Australian on the weekend in fact reveals that they will get only $2.61, even if you accept their calculations—which we do not—which is 28c less than the government promised in the 1998 campaign.Let us take a single worker on an income of $20,000. In the campaign the government claimed they would be $4.28 a week better off. The Democrats claimed as a result of their deal they would be $5.84 better off, the Democrats claiming they had got a great additional $1.56. Warren and Harding, however, said they would only be 94c a week better off, which is $3.34 worse off for that person compared to the claim that the government made during the election campaign.Let us take a double income family on $40,000 with two children aged five to 12 years. During the election campaign the government claimed they would be $21 a week better off. The Democrats claimed that as a result of their deal the family would be $28 a week better off. Warren and Harding only claim $19.18, which is $1.83 less than the government claimed during the election campaign. And that is using the very conservative modelling techniques that were used by Warren and Harding, with very optimistic inflation forecasts and calculations assuming a very high pass-through rate, which virtually no-one in this country believes will occur.The truth of the matter is that people will be substantially worse off and that the government's rhetoric is completely overblown. On published figuring, even if you dispute the assumptions used by the modellers, the government is delivering nowhere near what it is claiming. And the Democrats cannot claim to have considerably improved conditions for any of these groups I have just spoken about. What they did in the election campaign was to claim they would `keep the bastards honest'; what they produced was a bastardised tax which is going to leave many Australian families a lot worse off.What about the long-term effects of the GST? The fundamental features of the government package are that high income people get the lion's share of the tax cuts and the GST shifts the tax base onto lower income earners.WU5O'CONNORMr O'Connor—It is wrong.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN—Absolutely. That is the case. That is why it is so unfair. The GST package is also heavily dependent on the budget surplus. If the economy deteriorates and the surplus is reduced, you can bet compensation will be the first thing to go. That inadequate compensation, which does not give people back what will be taken away when the government has its hands in the pockets of families in a hundred different ways, will go eventually and people's positions will be further eroded over time. This Treasurer has slashed social security outlays before and there is nothing stopping him from doing it again; however, the GST is guaranteed to stay.It is all part of the government's agenda. The Howard agenda is to hand over responsibility for family services to the states and force them to raise the GST to pay for health, education and social services. It is also part of the Prime Minister's call for a social coalition, asking business and welfare groups to cooperate in taking a greater role. But what it is really about is putting a larger burden onto the shoulders of the non-government agencies. Clearly, Howard should not be believed when he says he supports families or any of those organisations out there that actually have to look after families and clean up the mess after the government has failed families. I think the Prime Minister's position is somewhat akin to that of a lifesaver who, on seeing swimmers in a rip, turns his back, looks around and says, `It is good to see people keeping fit.' The fact is that families will be worse off. The charities and the not-for-profit sector are having their funds cut and, simultaneously, the government is withdrawing services that assist families—they are hit at every stage of the process. The Prime Minister's social coalition is nothing more than a sham.The bills we are considering today also put into effect the mechanism for the government to deliver the inadequate compensation assistance to families. The new arrangements will be unquestionably complex to administer. The government said the new payments for families were about simplification; but plainly, after one reads this bill, that is not the case. We heard in the budget last month that a massive organisation was required to administer the so-called simplified arrangements. An amount of $350 million was allocated to the Department of Family and Community Services for GST administration and the Family Assistance Office. The Family Assistance Office was supposed to be this great new organisation that was going to deliver these simplified payments to families.84CTHOMPSONMr Cameron Thompson—It still is.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN—You are in for a rude shock, sport—a really rude shock. That $350 million is certainly not going to be spent on service delivery. It could be spent on some valuable programs for the labour market or early intervention rather than the pitiful amounts that this government spends on them. It could be done. But it is certainly not going to be spent on the Family Assistance Office. There is no doubt about that, because if one reads the minister's second reading speech, he describes this new beaut Family Assistance Office as a `virtual organisation' which would exist in all of the existing delivery agencies, Centrelink and the tax office.A virtual organisation? Are we running some mad hatter's tea party in this government? A virtual organisation—what does that mean? It means that it will not exist. It means that when people walk into Centrelink and say, `Where is the Family Assistance Office?' someone behind the counter who is a Centrelink worker will suddenly put on their family assistance hat and the people have found the office. What a joke; how pathetic. You are not serious about simplifying payments or delivering services to families. The minister should be ashamed to walk into this House and talk about providing a virtual office. She is going to spend, on this virtual office and other GST related matters, $350 million a year. Set that against the billion-dollar cut to Centrelink. Go around the Centrelink offices in this country and see what they could do with $350 million. They could actually put some staff behind a counter; they could beef up what was going on in the families area; they could answer their telephones. They could do all of those things if they had any money. But of course they cannot do that because Centrelink is copping $1 billion in cuts over four years, and we all know what the consequence of that is. How on earth does the government expect Centrelink to deliver extra services to families, given its current problems? I will not take too long to go through them all because we know what they are: 81 per cent of calls receive an engaged signal; many offices have very long waiting lists for appointments. Of course, all of this is going to blow out early next month. We know what sort of shemozzle is going to occur in Centrelink when the new payment cycle stuff kicks into gear. All of those members opposite will be severely embarrassed in this House when that occurs—we have no doubt about that. It is not the fault of people who work in Centrelink; it is the fault of the government which is starving it of funds and starving it of resources.The true depth of the government's cuts to Centrelink were revealed in this year's budget papers. Based on the forward estimates, Centrelink will have endured a massive cumulative funding cut of $1.084 billion over four years. These cuts are making it harder for families and pensioners to access their entitlements. Every member in this House knows that because these people walk through our doors or ring us up every day of the week. If they do not, then members are not doing their job.Centrelink will not be able to survive the cuts and deliver anything resembling decent service for its six million clients. All of those people working in Centrelink are going to have to put on their mad hatter's family assistance office hats. They are going to find it extremely difficult to handle the new payments that this government is talking about and very difficult to continue to provide any decent level of service for all of the other existing payments. As I said before, the current cuts have already resulted in a service crisis in Centrelink. The government's own figures show that 81 per cent of callers get an engaged signal when they call, that there have been delays of up to three weeks at some offices just to get an appointment, that customer aggression is up 160 per cent and that staff stress has increased dramatically.If this is not bad enough, in the next financial year, Centrelink will suffer the second biggest staff cut of any federal government agency or department—in total, 872 staff to go. Cumulative cuts over $200 million each year for the next four years will be devastating. You would have to be dumb or very naive to believe that the `virtual office' in Centrelink will be able to deliver for Australian families. Based on these concerns, I have moved a second reading amendment to highlight this.The opposition was also hoping that the government would learn another lesson from Centrelink's activities in regard to the administration of these payments. Specifically, I would like to mention the enormous financial hardship the current assessment procedures place on families who provide an estimate of their income for the current tax year in applying for their rate of payment. As the current system works, many families are penalised— particularly low income, part-time or casual workers—when their estimated income for the current tax year is underestimated. Many have fluctuating incomes, others just receive pay rises or do extra overtime, but the end result sees their actual income exceed their estimated income. As a result, many are incurring debts, even though they fulfil their obligation to advise Centrelink of a change in their income. This is an extremely common problem and no doubt contributes to the 32 per cent of family assistance recipients who incurred debts during Centrelink's compliance and fraud reviews. This is the highest of any payment type, including the payment made to Newstart recipients.The rhetoric of the government is, of course, that they are really tough on fraud and all of the fraud is perpetrated by all these nasty Newstart recipients. But, of course, when you go through Centrelink reviews for programs administered under the Social Security Act and you have a look at family payment, there are 85,950 reviews and 27,477 debts identified. That is 32 per cent. That is how high it is in this area, and it is not the fault of the people applying for the money. This is a very big problem that this bill is going to make a lot worse.Provisions in this bill can make things only worse as all families applying for assistance will be required in the future to estimate their income and not to go on their past taxable income. Currently, many families elect to base their assessment on previous tax returns. For many, this is the safe option. Surely, as a result of these changes, more families will unwittingly incur debts, and they will be branded welfare rorters and cheats by this government when they have been forced into that position by an act of government policy. The opposition sees that this may be a sly way for the government to prop up its compliance and review figures by having people placed in this category because they have unwittingly, through estimated income, received too much by way of family payments. These families will not be welfare cheats but, once again, victims of the system.While the opposition support the government's provisions to introduce a back pay ment system to alleviate some of the problems associated with income assessment, we think it does not go far enough. There must be a better solution. The opposition will be moving to refer this bill to a Senate committee to look at this and other matters. An issue that should also be investigated by the Senate committee is the government's move in this bill to place a 28-day limit on appeals to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal. This is a very reprehensible move, and not one that the government can provide one skerrick of justification for. These changes are also contained in the Social Security (Administration) Bill 1999 that will shortly be considered in this House. It is the opposition's view that these restrictions signal a winding back of social security recipients' rights that people have fought hard to put in place. The restrictions effectively close the window of opportunity for higher level appeals. The government's special circumstances provisions are nowhere near adequate.Also of concern is the lack of details relating to child-care benefit. The government has promised that the administration bill will establish the method of payment system. While the bill does establish some rules concerning eligibility, approval of services and registration of carers, for the most part, the bill simply allows the minister to make regulations to determine payment methods. The opposition will need to scrutinise the regulations that are to be made under this bill to ascertain whether they are beneficial for the child-care sector.We find in this bill what we have found in all of the ANTS package. We have a government that is very weak in taxing the strong and very strong in taxing the weak. We have a deformed tax system, not a reformed tax system. We have a tax system that is going to do real damage to the families of this country. It is not one that the Democrats succeeded—in any sense of the word—in making fairer for Australian families. Never before has a government promised so much and delivered so little. Never before has a government talked so much about what it is doing for families and done so little.The Prime Minister continues to champion a tax package that creates the single biggest indirect tax hike on families, raising the costs of settling down and having children. It is designed in a way that discriminates against some families to the detriment of their children. These family tax hikes come off the back of some of the deepest cuts to family services we have ever seen in this country's history. As welcome as it was on reading the Sydney Morning Herald this morning to see the Prime Minister respond to the agenda that Labor outlined in our new directions statement of family policy, actions speak louder than words. That is all we get from the coalition. We get words; we do not get any action. We get cuts; we do not get programs. We get rhetoric, but we do not get significant budget allocations. Can we really expect the coalition to invest in early childhood when they have cut $1 billion out of child care and have cut school funding? Can we really expect the coalition to invest in parenting skills when they spend just $2 million on better parenting programs? This is a shameful act admitted even by Mr Kevin Andrews.Can we really expect the coalition to forge a national partnership with the states on family policy when they are in the process of handing back family programs to the states as part of the GST deal? This is the ultimate irony. Under the coalition, the families of Australia will end up paying for new investments in early intervention, if they are game to make them. They will pay for them at the supermarket, at the hairdresser, at the school uniform shop and at the video store. The fact of the matter is that when it comes to their family policy, like their new family office, it is nothing but a virtual policy. It does not exist in reality. There are no programs and there is no funding.What the Howard government believes in is the individualistic `every man for himself' philosophy that all of the conservatives in this House stand for. It is precisely this philosophy that undermines traditional values like responsibility, sharing, sacrifice, family and community. The coalition's approach leads to the weakening of family values. What this country needs is a government committed to family values, to strong programs to support families, to give them a fair go, to give them a fair tax system and to support low and middle income Australian families. I commend my amendment.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Is the amendment seconded?WU5O'CONNORMr O'Connor—I second the amendment and I reserve my right to speak on it.16:54:007016Thompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON84CBlairLP10—The amendment moved by the member for Lilley to the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Bill 1999 consists of three points, two of which are falsehoods and the other of which is an absolute insult to public servants. The amendment says that there is an attempt to administer family payments in such a way as to deny access by families to the payments by incorporating such things as `virtual offices'. To talk about public servants being unable to do two things at once is quite disgusting, and I think it is a bit retrograde—even taking account of the member for Lilley's well known viewpoint on those matters. The fact is that his whole address was full of lies, damn lies and plenty of statistics.The government, as a result of its move on the new tax package, is going to give the states a growth tax. Every cent from the goods and services tax will be going direct to state governments for schools and hospitals, direct to police, direct to the needy. It is not going into the wasted kinds of retrograde programs that were pioneered by people like the member for Lilley, such as Working Nation and things of that ilk. Those programs did not progress us very far at all.I come from Blair in Queensland. In that state, thanks to One Nation, we have a Labor government. I do not know what the member for Lilley fears about the priorities of the Queensland government, but if anything is going to happen to impact on that money going direct to schools, to hospitals, to all those programs that support families in our state of Queensland, then he ought explain what it is. Is the Queensland government not going to support those programs? Is there a hidden agenda that they have whereby they are going to go further into debt, whereby they are going to have to pay off something that we do not already know about. It is quite an insult.The member for Lilley is also living in the past. He criticises the Family Assistance Office. As I said, they can do two things at once: they can talk and chew gum at the same time. Under the Labor Party we had a whole lot of public servants whose job it was to talk; we had another whole lot whose job it was to chew gum. That was the kind of thing that they did. Only in the 1990s would the Labor Party continue down this path and continue to go against the very well known principles of multiskilling. Years ago when I was at the ABC we got into multiskilling. It has been happening all over the Public Service. People in the Public Service are capable of talking and chewing gum at once, and I think that the member for Lilley ought to endorse them in their efforts.Labor gave Australia interest rates of 20 per cent. For families, for people who are struggling to make ends meet, to pay off mortgages—he spoke about the fact that they do have mortgages to pay off—interest rates as high as 20 per cent do not help. Hundreds of dollars every week are now in the pockets of average families because the coalition government is in power and because people voted them to be there, not the Labor Party. People were jacked off with 20 per cent interest rates. That was a ridiculous kind of situation to put them in.This is a government that is proposing more take-home pay for families, having more money in your pocket, more discretionary spending. That is good stuff, that is the kind of thing that people like to hear. What do they get from the Labor Party? The Labor Party want to give them less money in their pockets. They want to charge 22 per cent on things like cornflakes and dog food. Those are things that people buy every day. Those are important things. If you want to continue with this dunger of a tax system that we have got now, then good on you. But I think most Australians are well and truly shot of it and they are glad to see the back of it.The member for Lilley spoke about a study of Canada. In Australia the Senate did the biggest study of the GST. I think it was the biggest Senate study that there has ever been. And what happened at the end of it? The Democrats came and supported the government's position. They negotiated with the government and reached a solution that was going to be effective for Australians. That is what I call a good outcome from a sensible study into the impact of a goods and services tax.The bills before the House—the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Bill 1999 and the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Consequential and Related Measures) Bill (No. 2) 1999 —get down to the nuts and bolts of this reform. This is a huge area of government activity. In 1998, 3.4 million children benefited from Commonwealth family allowances. The big reform that is being undertaken in this process is the simplification of the Australian tax system. This system covers everything from income tax to family allowances. Australians understood that at the election. They wanted a simpler system, and that is why they voted for this government.The opposition stands for red tape. It wants people bound up in a wholesale sales tax net that has multiple rates—and we have been through them: 12 to 22 per cent, 32 per cent, 37 per cent, 41 per cent and 47 per cent. The same applies in this bill; it is about simplification. If you want to make a choice between the government and the opposition, it will be a choice between the opposition's 12 different systems of family assistance and our total of three.Under these two bills, the new Family Assistance Office will deliver family tax benefit, child-care benefit, maternity allowance and maternity immunisation allowance. The Family Assistance Office will form part of the duties of all Australian Taxation Offices, all Centrelink offices and all Medicare offices—and I am sure that they all are up to it.When it comes to making a claim for family tax benefit, a primary carer will be able to do so in one of several ways: they can lodge a claim with the Family Assistance Office, for example through Centrelink, for fortnightly payments; or claim a lump sum payment at the end of the year through the taxation system, either through the primary carer's tax return or their partner's tax return. Families will have a further option to reduce their or their partner's tax instalment deductions during the year in anticipation of their end of year family tax benefit lump sum entitlement.In the area of child-care, families will be able to claim their child-care benefit for formal care in approved child-care services in one of several ways. It can be done either as instalment payments paid directly to their nominated child-care service; that will enable the service to reduce the fees that the family will pay, and current arrangements under which child-care assistance advance payments are made to child-care services will be preserved for child-care benefit purposes. Alternatively, it can be claimed as a lump sum after the end of the financial year from the Family Assistance Office. Child-care benefit for informal care will be claimed as a lump sum for a period of care of up to 12 months and paid via the Family Assistance Office. Child-care benefit will not be delivered through the tax system because of the complexity of the information parents would need to retain to be able to correctly assess their entitlement.When it comes to the maternity allowance and the maternity immunisation allowance, families will be able to claim single one-off payments under those two categories from the Family Assistance Office, through Centrelink. Like the child-care benefit, those two benefits will not be delivered through the tax system.The coalition wants to cut red tape; that is what we are about. We want to assist businesses and families. For 13 years Labor's goal was to tie people down and make them dependent on welfare and to tie them up in red tape. It tied down businesses, and it still has the unfair dismissal legislation as something it continually hankers after. The coalition is just the opposite. Everyone wants a simplified tax system and less red tape, particularly when it comes to the basics of family assistance.Back at election time, the Labor Party could not get the message. In 1998 even the One Nation Party wanted a single low rate of tax on goods and services. That party did not recognise it, but it was proposing a goods and services tax of some sort. So, while the dogs are barking about the need for simplification, a new tax system, a simplified system of support for families, the Labor Party has cloth ears.Families and the institution of marriage deserve greater support from the government. The marriage rate in Australia has decreased since 1987 by 6.5 per cent; divorce rates over the same period have climbed by 29.1 per cent. These are issues I think we should bear in mind and take cognisance of, and we should set about taking some of the red tape burden off these people—and I am pleased to see that this is what the government, of which I am a backbencher, is proceeding to do.There are plenty of examples of simplification in the new tax system proposed by the government. We have the pay-as-you-go system for small business where we replace 11 existing systems with one. Among those systems that are being replaced are very burdensome things like PAYE, PPS, provisional tax, RPS and company instalments. Currently, businesses are making up to 32 separate payments in a year—some in advance. Now they will make one return 21 days after the end of every quarter in arrears. Those are things I think the public out there need to hear about. They certainly need to hear about the advantages that will be achieved by proceeding down this path of providing people with a simplified family allowance system.Madam Deputy Speaker Kelly, in closing I would mention a group of people very close to your own heart, just as they are very close to mine—families in rural areas in 1996 were recorded as representing one in seven of all families in Australia, and this would still be the case. Their limited access to the sorts of services that governments provide, particularly state governments, is a big issue. We need to provide those services to those families in rural areas and, in order to do that, we need a system that gives more dollars to, and in support of, the state systems.17:05:007018Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—The A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Bill 1999 and the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Consequential and Related Measures) Bill (No. 2) 1999 follow the main family assistance and consequential and related measures bills that passed through this House last month. Those bills contain measures designed to simplify the family assistance regime by reducing the current 12 different family benefits to three. The new payments will be delivered by a `virtual' Family Assistance Office to form part of Centrelink, the ATO and Medicare offices.The A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Bill 1999 before this place now contains the administrative, procedural and technical rules that will apply under this new system, while the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Consequential and Related Measures) Bill (No. 2) 1999 amends some 20 other Commonwealth acts to bring them in line with the proposed new scheme. With the changes contained in these bills, the government has tried to simplify the system and at the same time reduce the severity of poverty traps. The advice I have is that these changes will go some way towards reducing the poverty trap phenomenon, though there is still some way to go. The government has tried to achieve this by combining overlapping payments, income tax cuts, changing payment rates, increasing the income test free areas, removing the asset tests and cutting the taper rate.The changes will see the new family tax benefit part A replace minimum family allowance, family allowance, family tax payment part A, and family tax assistance part A. A new tax benefit part B will replace the basic parenting payment, guardian allowance, family tax payment part B, family tax assistance part B, the children rate of dependent spouse rebate and the sole parent rebate. A new child-care benefit will combine and replace the current child-care fee relief and child-care cash rebate schemes.Quite obviously an enormous amount of work has gone into devising the new payment scheme, and I do not intend to go into the detail of such workings at the moment. I want to confine my brief comments to the changes being implemented by these bills to four areas: first, questions about the need to extricate the family assistance system from the Social Security Act and the efficacy of setting up a virtual office to administer the system; second, the government's clamp down on supposed abuses of the current family benefits system; third, problems experienced helping families in my electorate deal with the current family benefits system; and, fourth, major concerns about the proposal contained in the bills to base assessments under the new system on income estimates for the current financial year.According to the Minister for Community Services, while the legislation does not refer to it, because it will not really exist, the new system will be administered by a virtual government agency to be known as the Family Assistance Office. This office will use the infrastructure of Centrelink, the Australian Taxation Office and Medicare offices. One may ask, `What is the point?' We have seen the name of DSS's delivery arm changed to Centrelink, we have seen the responsible minister's title changed from Minister for Social Security to Minister for Family and Community Services and now, with the changes proposed with these bills, we will see the government excising the Family Assistance Scheme from the Social Security Act and setting up a virtual office that exists in name only but is really just part of the existing infrastructure. It appears the government has some difficulty facing the fact that what we are talking about here are social security payments—nothing more, nothing less, but payments, I might add, that are estimated to cost over $2 billion a year and form part of a welfare state budget of around $50 billion.If you are trying to simplify the system to make it easier for families to deal with, why bother fiddling with the semantics? While families might welcome the simplification of the payments themselves, I do not think they will see the point of the smoke and mirrors trick the government is playing with these name changes. Might I add that, for a government that was quick to criticise the opposition last week for the member for Batman's statements about the Labor Party being captive to the middle classes, these bills could well be labelled middle-class welfare, increasing as they do the income thresholds below which family assistance is available.Under the current system, entitlements to the minimum family allowance cut out at $68,600 plus $3,413 for each additional child and $70,000 plus $3,000 per additional child for the family tax benefit. Under the proposed new system, the cut-off has been increased to $73,000 plus $3,000 for each additional child. The combination of increased rates, higher income thresholds, lower taper rates and removal of the assets test proposed under the new system will result in assistance being available to people on higher incomes than under the current system. These changes are in addition to the tax cuts provided by the GST package.The government has made much in recent times of its success in reducing social security fraud. Many of these so-called successes have been in the area of family benefits, but I contend that many of those successes have been the result of flawed legislation and flawed administration, and similar flaws seem to have been embedded in this legislation. In the minister's press release dated 13 May titled `Reducing social security fraud', he claimed:Compliance activity in Centrelink in the six months to December 1998 resulted in savings to taxpayers of around $9.7 million a week in that period with 116,370 payments cancelled or reduced.He also said:The vast majority of social security recipients are honest and are entitled to the payments they receive, but there is still a small minority seeking to cheat the Australian taxpayer.There is no real doubt that such endeavours to cheat are going on. The release included figures which are very telling. For the period 1 July to 31 December 1998, Centrelink conducted 86,000 family payment reviews. From these, 13,500 resulted in total cancellation, 4,075 resulted in a rate reduction and 27,477 had debts otherwise raised against them. These overpayments resulted in some $28.2 million being raised against families for this period alone. This means some 32 per cent of all families tested were wrongly paid during that period.Given the size of the sample, I think it is quite reasonable to assume about 32 per cent of all family allowance claimants have been wrongly paid. This compared to around 10 per cent for other payments, such as age pension, disability support pension, sickness allowance, Newstart allowance, partner allowance, youth allowance, Austudy and others.The minister and other members of the government have trumpeted these sorts of figures as examples of what a wonderful job the government is doing cracking down on welfare fraud. On the contrary, I would suggest they point to a broken system, a system that is too complicated for many to understand, a system unable to cope with the vagaries of the way people earn income today, particularly as it does relate most overwhelmingly to this family payment area.My office, like all members' offices I suspect, has dealt with many of the human faces behind these statistics in recent times. Invariably, the families my office has dealt with accused of this so-called fraud by the government are honest, well-meaning, ordinary families who have done all they have thought was expected of them and have received their payments in good faith, only to be slugged sometimes two years later for overpayments.My office has tried to assist these families by representing their cases to the department, advising them on their appeal rights and assisting them in fact to prepare their cases to the SSAT and so on. It is clear from most of these cases that most problems arise when families agree to have their payments based on estimates of their income for the current financial year rather than on their actual income for the financial year ending the previous calendar year. This mechanism is meant to accommodate families who experience a change of financial circumstances or families for whom it is difficult to estimate what their income will be from year to year. Once families agree to this method of assessment, it is then their responsibility to ensure their income estimates are as accurate as possible and to inform Centrelink of any subsequent changes to their circumstance. This is invariably where the breakdown occurs.Families claim they have informed Centrelink of changes. Centrelink then does not act on this information or claims that notification has not occurred. The families think that, because they have told Centrelink about their change in circumstance, the continuing payments are correct and so accept the money in good faith only to find out some time down the track that they are not. What concerns me is that, while all members must be seeing the same sorts of cases that my office is, the government appears with these bills to apply the current income estimate system to all cases, and I would suggest that is just asking for trouble. As the minister stated when introducing this bill:Families who choose to receive fortnightly payments will estimate their income for the current financial year. Their estimated income will be compared with their actual income at the end of the year.If an overpayment has occurred, it will be obtained through a range of mechanisms. Has the government forgotten the debacle it presided over back in 1997 with the Austudy actual means test which then asked all families to estimate their income and expenditure for the coming financial year?Let me remind the House: the result was a disaster as the families targeted—invariably farming families, small business people, the self-employed—could barely estimate what they would earn in the next fortnight, let alone a year down the track. These are the very same families that have fallen foul of the current family allowance system due to having their assessments based on estimates. Little wonder changes were made at the end of 1997 to base actual means assessment on the base tax year that was the actual expenditure of families during the financial year ending in the previous calendar year.This change, along with the others, brought the Austudy system more in line with the family allowance system, and this test was then incorporated in the common youth allowance last year. I might add that a lot of the work on that went through my office and the minister at the time acknowledged the submission that was put in because it was based on hard, coalface experience with these people during that period. So there is a little reservoir of intelligence on this in my particular electorate office. As I am sure other members can attest, since the changes in the system were made, it has run much more smoothly.But these bills propose to go the other way, as far as I can see it, to require all families who want to receive their payments on a fortnightly basis to have their assessment based on an estimate of their income for the current financial year. As the Bills Digest to the main bill considered here some weeks ago suggested:. . . questions arise about how current income will be calculated before income tax assessments are available and how discrepancies between estimates of adjusted taxable income and actual taxable income will be resolved.It goes on:Frequent overpayments and under payments would seem to be inevitable under this arrangement.The proposal to base payments on current financial year estimates would not be a problem if the breadwinners were in stable, unchanging PAYE employment as accurate estimates would then be possible. But the proliferation of part-time, contract, casual and consultancy work, people being out of work for shorter and longer periods as well as those self-employed, as outlined above, mean increasingly families will not be able to accurately say what their income will be for the coming year.For families whose breadwinners earn income this way, the only fail-safe option will be to wait for a lump sum paid through the tax return system, but I suspect the vast majority of families will want to continue receiving the payments on a fortnightly basis. Those who can afford to wait for the lump sum, I would suggest, will be the ones who least need the payment to cope with day-to- day expenses—those at the higher income levels.By basing the assessment system for the new regime on estimates of family income, the government risks further alienating the very families it says it is trying to help. I know it is genuinely trying to help many families but, as stated above, according to the government's own much publicised compliance figures, some 32 per cent of all family allowance recipients under the current system have been wrongly paid. The vast majority of these errors, I would suggest, have arisen where families have been assessed on the basis of their income estimates. At the very least, amendments need to be made to this bill so assessments can be based on actual income from the base tax years.I understand the opposition is looking at technical amendments, although I hear it will be referred to a Senate committee. But I would suggest that government and other Senate representatives examine the points I have raised and these flaws I think we are building into this bill so we can not only minimise the overpayments, which is necessary, but also minimise the distress caused by the current system.17:19:007021Lawler, Tony, MPMr LAWLER834ParkesNP10—In opening, I recognise the work the previous speaker, the member for Calare, has done on other social policy. As he mentioned, many of his research results have actually been used in government policy, however I am not quite sure how he intends the government to estimate how much of a payment is due to people if it cannot use an estimate of what they are likely to earn. It seems the only other way would be to do it on a week by week basis, and to me that seems like an administrative nightmare and totally impractical. I do also acknowledge, however, his point that many of the so-called overpayments that the government uncovers are in fact accidental overpayments, and I think the government has recognised this by putting on some 140 new people in Centrelink to assist people in preventing this from happening.Having said that, as usual, the Labor Party continue to focus on small aspects of the tax package. They are incapable perhaps of looking at the whole picture. They complain time after time about how much more one group will get compared to another. How can a party that offers nothing to anyone complain about one group getting more than another group? That defies belief in my view.The current system of assistance for families, particularly the overlap between the various income tests for benefits, results in disincentives for low and moderate income families to work. Many families face an effective marginal tax rate of 85.5 per cent or more if they increase their income. To remove these overlaps and disincentives, the government intends to ease substantially the income test for family allowance by increasing the level of income at which it begins to be income tested from $24,350 a year for one child to $28,200 a year and reducing the income test taper rate from 50 per cent to 30 per cent.These measures represent a major social reform that provides substantial extra income to help lower income families raise their children and improves work incentives. They ensure that unemployed families will not incur a sudden drop in family allowance when they leave the income support system, improving incentives for them to obtain a full-time job. Isn't that what we all should be doing?At the same time, these measures combined with tax cuts will ensure that low income working families will have much better incentives to improve their circumstances. For example, their effective marginal tax rate will drop from the aforesaid 85.5 per cent to 61 per cent over a substantial range of incomes. I believe this marginal tax rate is still way too high, yet Labor is voting to support this effective tax rate of 85.5 per cent. Let us make this very clear: Labor wants low income people to pay an effective tax rate on an increased part of their income of 85.5 per cent. Where is the incentive to work? Who would work harder when the tax rate for that extra income is going to be effectively more than 85 per cent? Would a Labor politician work under this regime? No. It is about time to put low income workers back on some form of equal footing.Combine our changes with the decrease in the tax rate for all Australians and all of a sudden the mist starts to clear, and there lies the incentive to work. Here we are not trying to overcome people with an allergy to work, like some people who are perhaps in some work programs; the people we are talking about are willing to work but are being penalised for doing so. These are the easiest people to get back into the work force, and Labor want to deter them from doing this by charging them an effective tax rate of 85.5 per cent.At present, when families are applying for family allowance, those families must, as we discussed, estimate their annual income. Under the current system, which Labor supports, if a family overestimates their income and therefore gets a reduction in their family allowance, at the end of the year they will not receive a top-up payment. What I am saying is that if they overestimate their income and claim less than they are entitled to they have no redress. On the other hand, if a family underestimates their income and receives payments greater than those to which they are entitled, the government grabs it back with the glee of Ricky Ponting taking that catch the other night.Let us make it clear: Labor supports the system that grabs back accidental overpayments but does not make restitution for accidental underpayments. This new system eliminates this longstanding problem by providing for payments to be reconciled against actual taxable income at the end of the year. If a family is entitled to more money, then they will be repaid. Likewise, if they are entitled to less, then that will need to be paid back. What could be fairer?In addition to this change which makes the family payment system much fairer for low income families, family tax benefit part A customers who claim their benefit on a fortnightly instalment will be automatically issued with a health care card at six-monthly intervals. Before now they would have had to apply for the health care card every six months and provide documentation of their previous eight weeks income to get that. In some cases, perhaps that paperwork might not have been available or perhaps they might not have bothered if they did not have any particular reason for wanting a health card at the time. But a problem might arise if, for example, the kids, who are normally healthy, are suddenly taken ill. They may be in the predicament where they have to pay full price for some of their medication. This could represent a substantial cost to someone if they suddenly have to hand over $50 for an antibiotic and a couple of boxes of ventolin. By having an automatic delivery of their health care card at six-monthly intervals, this will not happen.Another improvement of the new family tax benefit is the level at which income testing begins, which will increase from $24,350 for a one-child family to $28,200 per family. Further, the income test taper rate, as I said, will reduce from 50 per cent to 30 per cent. Again, lower income families will be substantially better off. As well as making the system much easier to implement by reducing 12 existing benefits down to three, people are financially better off and it is much easier for them to understand the system. Enhancing the family tax initiative also allows family to keep more of the income they earn. The greatest beneficiaries will be single income families with very young children who will have a tax-free threshold of $13,000. But every family will be better off under this system by not paying the 85.5 per cent effective tax rate on part of their income. I commend this bill to the House. I congratulate the government for its initiatives.17:27:007023Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—A large component of the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Bill 1999 and A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Consequential and Related Measures) Bill (No. 2) 1999 is essentially administrative in nature. But even an administrative bill under the Howard government contains new pain for struggling Australian families. I refer in particular to the fact that this legislation imposes a time limit of 28 days in respect of appeals to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal. As is well known, the government is in the process of cutting 5,000 staff from Centrelink. This is going to put Centrelink clients in an invidious position. If they are poorly treated by Centrelink, which is quite likely in the circumstances where Centrelink is losing 5,000 staff and the remaining Centrelink staff are massively overworked, then these clients of Centrelink who are really struggling Australians and their families will be in a situation where they can now confront a new time limit of just 28 days in respect of appeals to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal. We have yet another example of effectively a callous application of policy by the Howard government in respect of not only Centrelink staff but importantly clients of Centrelink.The bill contains partial compensation for the common youth allowance—compensation that was sought, for a long time unsuccessfully, by Senator Brian Harradine. When the government finally realised that it needed to deliver on this issue in order to try to secure Senator Harradine's vote, it put a proposition to Senator Harradine which he ultimately, through his good sense and sense of social justice and fairness, rejected. But, of course, what Senator Harradine rejected was more than enough for the Democrats to accept. In fact, as we have seen the sorry saga of the GST package unfold, the Democrats have capitulated on every point of principle in their dealings with the Howard government.It reminds me of the cartoon where Senator Lees goes into a card game with four aces and John Howard has in his hand two sevens. Mr Howard says to Senator Lees, `What have you got?' She says, `Four aces.' He says, `Bad luck. I've got two sevens. I win.' That really is the story of the deal that was struck between the Prime Minister and Senator Lees on behalf of the Democrats.It is quite clear that the Democrats, in conjunction with the government, have sold out on countless Australians. I refer in particular to tables that were presented in the weekend media, including in the Weekend Australian. These tables were prepared by Professors Warren and Harding, who frequently have been cited by the Treasurer as being an authoritative source on the impact of the government's tax package on various households. In fact, when some work was done by Professors Warren and Harding for the Senate GST inquiry, the Treasurer boasted that not one category of family, not one type of household, could be found by Professors Warren and Harding to be worse off. Of course, we have news for the Treasurer: it is clear that even under the original tax package proposed by the government there are a number of categories of households that would be worse off. If you look at the number of people and families in those households, you will see that countless thousands of Australian families would be made worse off by the original Howard-Costello GST package.For example, if a single income couple with no children were earning $30,000, then under the original package they would be, at a minimum, 80c a week worse off. Let me explain the assumptions behind this. One is that there will be full and immediate pass-through of all indirect tax reductions associated with the package on Saturday, 1 July 2000. We know, of course, that that is nonsense, but it is an assumption that has been used in this modelling and, as a consequence, the modelling of Warren and Harding understates the damage from the package to low income households.The second assumption they have made, which they had to for data reasons, is that a particular household type, irrespective of income, consumes the same bundle of goods. For example, a sole parent with no other income consumes exactly the same bundle of groceries, electricity, public transport and so on as a sole parent earning $100,000. Of course that is a patently absurd assumption but, as I say, Warren and Harding had to make that assumption because of data limitations. But it is a second source of major bias in their calculations that has the same effect as the first—that is, to understate the damage of the tax package to ordinary Australian families.I will give a second example in light of the Treasurer's claims that the Warren-Harding analysis found no losers from his tax package. A two-income couple with no children on $30,000 would be losers. In another category on $45,000 they would also be losers. A twoincome couple with no children with a differ ent income split—that is, two-thirds and one-third—would be losers. In relation to age pensioner couples I remember the Treasurer frequently saying that age pensioners would all be better off—surprise, surprise!—and that they would automatically be protected. Well, what do we learn from the Warren-Harding analysis released on the weekend? An age pensioner couple earning a private income of $5,000 a year would be at least $2.78 a week worse off. And so it goes on.A two-income couple with one child earning $45,000 a year would be $2.82 a week worse off. Self-funded retirees—the Prime Minister says he is the champion of self-funded retirees; he is going to protect them and they are all going to do so much better under the government's tax package—with an income of $10,000 would be worse off. Self-funded retirees with an income of $30,000 would be worse off. A self-funded retiree couple on an income of $20,000 would be worse off. With regard to the self-employed, again the Prime Minister and the Treasurer said, `We are the champions of small business.' Surprise, surprise! A self-employed couple with two children on $45,000 would be worse off under the government's tax package. A disability support couple with no children on $5,000 would be worse off and so too would some categories of single student youth allowees.There is a very long list of households that would be worse off under the original tax package. It flies completely in the face of what the Treasurer said: that no-one would be worse off and that the Warren and Harding analysis proved that. It did nothing of the sort and that is completely revealed in the material released on the weekend. But of course we have heard from the Democrats that they have saved Australia from the damage of the tax package: now everyone is a winner and everyone is much better off. Again, under the Warren and Harding analysis, that is not so. Again, looking at the critical category of self-funded retirees that the Prime Minister said he was protecting, under the new Howard-Lees package a self-funded retiree on $10,000 would be $1.37 worse off, while a self-funded retiree couple on $20,000 would be 84c worse off.Let us have a look at some of the gains the Democrats believe they have achieved on behalf of all Australians from their ridiculous deal with the government. One is that a single person earning $20,000 would gain 94c a week. When I was reading the Weekend Australian I also saw a story from the Prime Minister that he is now going to be working hard to become known as a compassionate Prime Minister and he is going to be appealing to generation X, to people under 30. This seems to be the Prime Minister's idea of appealing to generation X. Imagine you are a young single person earning $20,000 a year and just starting out. The Prime Minister, who has great appeal to you as a young person, is to give you 94c a week. Company executives up the line earning around $100,000 will get $50 to $80 a week, but the generation Xer—the young person whom the Prime Minister wants to appeal to—will be getting 94c a week maximum.Imagine that that young person gets married. This couple are just setting out; they are thinking of having children. They are finding it hard to make ends meet with a combined income of $30,000 a year. What do they get from the Howard-Lees tax package? Whoopee, here you go: $2.34 a week. That is how the Prime Minister feels that he is going to appeal to young people—by offering them 90c a week or $2.34 a week. Who does he think he is kidding?We have heard a bit of discussion from members opposite about how this legislation is going to reduce effective marginal tax rates. There is a range of income and household types over which there are some reductions in effective marginal tax rates, but there are also areas—and I will use one or two examples—where the effective marginal tax rates must be very high indeed. Under the analysis released on the weekend, a two-income couple with an income split of fifty-fifty earning a combined income of $30,000 would get an overall benefit of $31.63 a week. But if they earned $35,000, that would drop from $31-odd to $3.40 a week. That is a very high effective marginal tax rate. There is another example of a self-employed couple with two children. According to this analysis, a self-employed couple on $40,000 would get something in the order of $20 a week, but if they went to $45,000 they would get $5.50 a week. That is again a very high effective marginal tax rate.The point of all this is that we could have achieved a lot in the reduction of effective marginal tax rates by the application of tax credits, which is Labor Party policy. I have heard members opposite saying, `Labor has no policies. It is against reducing effective marginal tax rates, and it is against reducing poverty traps.' Nothing could be further from the truth. The policy was released before the election, and Labor's tax credits were much more effective in lowering effective marginal tax rates than the policies that are contained in this legislation. As I have pointed out from these tables, the legislation still provides for very high effective marginal tax rates across important ranges of incomes for different types of families.There is the alternative: Labor's tax credits applied and financed fully with no GST. Let us contemplate this for a moment. A GST itself reduces the incentive to move from welfare to work because, in moving from welfare to work, you will have a lower disposable income with a GST than without a GST. A GST reduces the purchasing power of paid income. That needs to be taken into account when people say, `Isn't it marvellous how this is reducing effective marginal tax rates.' The GST itself actually increases effective marginal tax rates. This nation would be far better off with tax credits and no GST because tax credits themselves unambiguously reduce these effective marginal tax rates and provide genuine incentives for people to move from welfare to work and to increase their work effort.I return to the Prime Minister's claims on the weekend that he is going to be looking after the people under 30, the Generation Xers, the people who look forward to employment in the future. I refer to a report that was released today by Professor Peter Dixon and Maureen Rimmer of the Centre of Policy Studies at Monash University. It is a damning indictment of the government's tax package. It is a damning indictment of the Howard-Lees package because it concludes that the Howard-Lees tax package will reduce Australian living standards by more than the original tax package and will result in the risk of substantial job losses in the short term and create no jobs in the long term. So we have a situation where the under-30s can now look forward to very substantial job losses under the Howard-Lees package, which is the subject of this legislation. I cannot for the life of me see how this could possibly be in the interests of Australians or how it could possibly be in the interests of young people. Even at this late hour—in terms of the Senate timing of this legislation—I urge the Senate to reject the Howard-Lees tax package.17:42:007026Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—In summing up the debate, can I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate on these two family assistance bills, in particular the members for Blair and Parkes for their strong interest in the government initiatives to assist Australian families and for their constructive comments on this important legislation, with which the comments coming from members opposite contrasted sharply—with their lack of any kind of policy initiative. It seems to me quite incredible that any group of people in this parliament actually would vote against these pro-family measures. The only people who could vote against these measures are people who are not pro family. It is most regrettable that members opposite would seek to deny these very substantial benefits to Australian families.The bills are a part of an ambitious program to reform our tax and social security systems. We inherited from the previous government an arrangement which was far from cohesive, and we are now moving to unwind the complexity of the system to get rid of a dozen or more different benefits payable to families and replace them with a simpler, fairer and more generous system. There are many instances in the past where the interaction of the tax and welfare systems produced high effective marginal tax rates that effectively penalised families seeking to escape from poverty traps. One of the government's major priorities when we took office in March 1996 was to restore balance to the social security system.From the outset, the government recognised the pressures on low and middle income families, particularly single income families. The coalition has never doubted the critical role and the importance of families in our society. By building stronger families, we build a stronger society and a stronger nation. In January 1997 we introduced significant benefits for Australian families through the family tax initiative. That initiative is worth about $2 billion to Australian families, and it raised the level of Commonwealth assistance to families with children to more than $7 billion a year.It was a significant step but now the government is going even further. As part of the wider reform of the tax system, the government announced a comprehensive reform to family payments, and this legislation gives effect to those announcements. We will be reducing the 12 existing benefits to three: family tax benefit part A, family tax benefit part B and the child-care benefit. Under the new tax system means testing for benefits will be liberalised, especially for family tax benefit part A which will replace family allowance and related payments. The threshold for the maximum rate of family allowance will be raised by almost $4,000. The threshold for the low income health care card will be raised by more than $2,000. The current tax-free thresholds under the family tax initiative will be doubled. Enhancing the family tax initiative will allow families to retain more of the income they earn. The greatest beneficiaries will be single income families with very young children which will have an effective tax-free threshold of $13,000. Sole parents and two-parent single income families can also look forward to significant and substantial tax relief.These latest changes to family assistance will provide a further $2.4 billion a year in benefits to Australian families, and the reforms target the areas of greatest need. Recent research by the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling suggests that single income families have faced particular problems in past years. From 1982 to 1996, the centre claims, single income families experienced a fall in living standards, unlike other families. At the same time the proportion of children in single income families also fell, suggesting that many families were choosing, or being obliged to seek, a second income. The NATSEM research confirms that the government is responding to a genuine community need.The Australian newspaper has no doubt that these changes are long overdue. A few moments ago we heard an honourable member selectively quoting from a newspaper, but obviously he did not turn to the editorial in the Australian on 8 June. It commented that `the traditional family'—that is, the two-parent single income family—`was left behind' during the 1980s and that the coalition has correctly sought to address this social problem. The newspaper pointed out that the government has been criticised in some quarters for assisting single income families, but said that with tax reform `families will benefit no matter what personal choices are made on work and family'.The two family assistance bills now before the House, A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Bill 1999 and A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Consequential and Related Measures) Bill (No. 1) 1999 , are primarily technical bills. The House has already passed the major family assistance legislation.One of the most important characteristics of the new system will be choice. Families will be free to choose how they receive their family assistance. In commenting on these aspects of the legislation, the honourable member for Calare, and I think also the honourable member for Lilley, expressed some concern or wonderment about the notion of a virtual office. In fact, the Family Assistance Office will operate effectively through Centrelink, through Medicare and through the Taxation Office to deliver services in an efficient way and to offer choice to families who want to use them.These members also expressed concern about the estimates of annual income and the difficulties that can be created in determining income. This has been an unavoidable problem associated with the means test system for people receiving unpredictable income. The system has relied on estimates of annual income for many years, but in the past the system has been unfair in that if people overestimated their income they received no benefits. If they underestimated their income, they were forced to pay back any benefits they had received. This legislation introduces a reform which I would have thought would be welcomed by all. People will receive their exact entitlement. Families which otherwise miss out if they have overestimated their income will receive a top-up payment—something that has not been available in the past—whereas those who have underestimated their income will continue to have to pay that money back. But people can change their estimates at any time, as they can under the current system.Someone made the claim that social security debts are largely made up of people who have underestimated their income. The reality is that only 11 per cent of preventable debts, according to the 1997-98 figures, arise from family payment estimate errors. In actual fact this has been an issue causing concern. I freely acknowledge that, as minister, I have been receiving quite a lot of correspondence about this issue, but it is effectively addressed in this legislation.I was disappointed with the contribution of the honourable member for Lilley, as I usually am. I am ready to give up on endeavouring to correct the errors that he repeats time and time again. We are not allowed to call people in this House liars, so I will not do that. But I find it difficult to think of pleasant words to describe the situation when the honourable member for Lilley came in and repeated the same false statements that he made the last time we confronted one another across the table. I pointed out to him at that time that his statements were totally inaccurate. They are still inaccurate, but he still goes on with his nonsense about waiting periods at Centrelink and about the `new billion dollar cuts' in the budget. He knows all of that is nonsense. He knows it is false. But, sadly, he keeps repeat ing these false statements. It is hard to think of a nice word to describe someone who keeps making the same false statements even though he must know that the statements he makes are inaccurate.This legislation is very important for Australian families. It represents an important new deal. It represents an opportunity for Australian families to be more fairly treated through the tax system. It will provide real benefits to Australian families through family tax benefit parts A and B and through the new child-care benefit. It gives effect to this government's commitment to ensuring that Australian families get a fair deal under the new tax system. I commend the bills to the House, bills which will be warmly welcomed by Australian families as a recognition of the special role that they play in our society.Question put:That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Swan's amendment) stand part of the question.The House divided. [5.52 p.m.](Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr F.W. Mossfield) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 ——Voting details are recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Question so resolved in the affirmative.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.7028Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Truss) read a third time. Bills7028r8357028Consideration resumed from 9 June, on motion by Mr Truss:That the bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.7028Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Truss) read a third time.Bills7028r6377028Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration for the next sitting.Bills7028r6367028Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration for the next sitting.Bills7028r6357028Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration for the next sitting.Bills7029r6337029Bill returned from the Senate with an amendment.Ordered that the amendment be taken into consideration for the next sitting.Bills7029The following bill was returned from the Senate without amendment or request: NRS Levy Imposition Amendment Bill 1998 Bills7029r8407029Debate resumed from 9 June, on motion by Mr Truss:That the bill be now read a second time.18:06:007029Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—I rise to speak on the Social Security (Family Allowance and Related Matters) Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 and to move an amendment. I move:That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:"whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House condemns the Government for:(1) claiming to have provided sufficient compensation for families for money that was taken from them as a result of the Youth Allowance; and(2) failing to abide by its commitment to provide families adversely affected by the Youth Allowance with adequate compensation."Mr Deputy Speaker, if you want one issue which demonstrates the extent to which families have been plundered by the Howard government, I do not think any issue demonstrates it more than the common youth allowance, which has forced many families on low incomes into a very difficult situation. Many of these families were, and still will be after this bill is passed and implemented, in desperate need of some financial relief. In the process of continuing to dud these families, the government has not abided by its promises to Senator Harradine. Nor have the Democrats, in their new coalition with the Liberal and National parties, succeeded in gaining any additional relief for these families.We had the farce during budget week of amendments being circulated in this House to give effect to changes in the budget to try to provide some additional support for the families who were originally savaged. All that was done in some sort of cynical attempt to gain the support of Senator Harradine for the GST, but that was so cynical and so short-changed families you would have thought the government would have learnt from the lesson of that tawdry episode in this House. But they have not. What they have done and continue to do with the youth allowance is a symbol of what they have done across the board for the last few years to education, labour market programs and social security. All of those things have been plundered by the Howard government and will be further massively plundered by the GST.The measures in this bill today demonstrate the extent to which the government is indifferent to the living standards of low and middle income earners, be they single or be they families. The abolition of the common youth allowance has forced many lower middle income families to support their unemployed adult children. These are families who were, and sadly will continue to be, in desperate need of some financial relief. The bill and the second reading speech of the Minister for Community Services purportedly say that families will be financially compensated for the devastation caused by the introduction of the youth allowance on 1 July 1998. Somehow the families that were devastated by that are supposed to feel better about losing up to $174 a fortnight, but this bill returns only a fraction of that for many families. This bill is really just more of the government not compensating the people who can least afford it.What the government is doing is comparable, let us say, to someone stealing a bicycle and then deciding to return it, but when they bring it back it has no wheels, no seat and no handlebars. The government is again trying to trick everyone into thinking it is giving something substantial back, something that was there before, something similar to what was taken away, with this new payment of up to $50. What the government is really doing is attempting to return the stolen bicycles it took from Australian families on low to middle incomes, but they are returning them minus the wheels, at least, because families are still short-changed.The government is trying to say, `Sorry, we know the youth allowance caused some hardship, so here is $50 to make up for the $100-odd you lost.' Australian families have been short-changed, but what the government is now offering is completely insincere and tokenistic, because it is only giving back a fraction of what was fleeced from families. Offering up to $50 to some families affected by this government's systematic assault on low to middle income families is really saying to these families, `We know that you were financially disadvantaged, but we think you are worth having only $50 of that back.'The mean-spirited measures of the youth allowance forced parents on incomes from as low as $23,000 up to $40,000 to support their adult unemployed children. It started to cut out at $23,500, and it went up to $40,000, so there is a whole bracket of families who were pretty badly hit. If the GST is so fair, and what the government is doing with the youth allowance is so fair, why are we getting this compensation back? We are getting it back because this is implicit recognition that the whole package stinks to high heaven. The government is drawing attention to the stench of that debacle by wandering into the House and offering up to $50.The government appears to have what it wants. It appears it will get the GST with the active support of their new coalition partners, the Democrats. As we all know and have said in previous bills, the GST is absolutely antifamily; it discriminates against people who consume all of their income. It effectively lifts the tax bracket for every additional child in the house. You have to pay it on another set of school uniforms, another set of bus fares—all of those things that take so much of the family budget. These same families are the ones who were plundered by the youth allowance. The government is going to give them some tax cuts, but these will be more than eaten up by the rises in the cost of living. All of this is just a cynical manoeuvre to redistribute the tax burden in the country from lower middle income earners to those at the top.Let us cast our minds back to 1 July 1998. The press was awash then with stories of families badly affected by the youth allowance. We all know why that was the case: families on low incomes—people who could ill afford it—had many of their children forced back home. Those young adults could no longer afford to stay away from home. Many of them, for example, had been locked into long-term lease or rent arrangements for housing, but suddenly their whole support mechanism and their whole life was ripped apart. The government said, `We do not care about that. You can go home. That is the only option for you. Too bad if you have nowhere to go.' Many moved back home, and this put an additional burden on their families. There is no GST compensation in the ANTS package for any children living at home over the age of 17, is there? All the calculations for compensation work on the basis of 30 cents a week additional cost for a kid—30 cents a week. When you throw the package together with these measures and the youth allowance, you can see that lower middle income earners get hit badly.When you look at this legislation, you can see there is a bit of a catch. You can get up to $50 a fortnight, but you only get $50 if your current youth allowance entitlement is less than $50. So there will be a whole bracket of families out there who are not even going to benefit from this. There will be some who will have a big hit or reduction in their allowance, but because they get just over $50 a fortnight they will get nothing. I want to look at a couple of examples. Let us take a family that is on roughly $36,000 per annum that has an unemployed young adult living away from home and, say, a 17-year-old living at home. Under Newstart at the time, if that family had a young person unemployed and living away from home, that person would have been on $260 or $270 a fortnight. That person could have been living away from home and paying rent of up to $140 a fortnight. The introduction of the parental means test meant that her youth allowance payment could have dropped to $180 a fortnight—that would have been a loss of something like $84.50 a fortnight—but the rent did not go down; it was still $140 a fortnight. If that person had moved back home, which doubtless she would probably have had to have done, her youth allowance would have been assessed at the at-home-rate rather than at the away-from-home rate. That probably would have meant that she would have received something like $88 a fortnight instead of $180 a fortnight. Under the current proposals, this family would still not be eligible for the $50 payment because they are currently receiving more than $50 in youth allowance. So this family is still going to be substantially worse off.There are many more anomalies. We in the opposition are extremely concerned about the unfairness and the arbitrary nature of the proposals in this bill, because there will be a whole bracket of families in that lower income range who will have been receiving some youth allowance of more than $50 a fortnight but who will be completely locked out of this initiative. There will be another group of families whose income is slightly higher, whose children are receiving less than $50 in youth allowance, who will suddenly become eligible for this payment. So you are going to have two classes here with a whole lot of unfairness and inequity. We think this measure is extremely unfair and, like the whole of this government's tax package, like the whole of the compensation arrangements, once again it is working against the interests of low and middle income Australian families, creating new classes of people who are discriminated against. Therefore, I have moved our amendment, drawing attention to all of these deficiencies.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mossfield)—Is the amendment seconded?UU5HORNEMr Horne—I second the amendment.18:19:007031Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWSHK5MenziesLP10—The Social Security (Family Allowance and Related Matters) Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 is a practical embodiment of the Howard government's commitment to Australian families. It provides no less than $42 million in the 1999-2000 financial year to improve the living standards of Australian families, and it shows the government's particular concern for low income families, the battlers who came to us in droves after years of disillusionment with the elitist policies of Labor under Mr Hawke and Mr Keating.The government understands that it is still tough for very many families. There are many who have never recovered from the Keating induced `recession we had to have'. In August 1997, 700,000 children under the age of 15 were living in families where neither parent had a job. Just over 200,000 of these children were living in families in which neither parent had a job and at least one parent was actively seeking a job. This was after 13 years of Labor government. Over that period, the number of children increased by seven per cent and the number of children living in unemployed families increased at double this rate, to just under 16 per cent. This increase occurred, too, despite the fact that overall unemployment at the beginning and the end of this period was about the same. This highlights the difficulties, indeed the increasing difficulties, faced by many Australian families. To be fair, not all of this can be sheeted home to the Labor government in exile, which now sits on the opposition benches, wondering, like Alice in Wonderland, where oh where might they now turn.The increase in children living in unemployed families is the result of the rise in the number of single parent families between 1984 and 1997, from 270,000 to 437,000. The same families in the same period became increasingly likely to be unemployed, with the unemployment rate of single parent families rising from 14.7 per cent to 16.9 per cent. This resulted in a staggering 148 per cent rise in the number of children living in single parent families. By comparison, the unemployment rate for couple families rose only slightly, from 4.7 per cent to just over that amount. The effect of the Labor government's economic ineptitude under Messrs Hawke and Keating was such that, increasingly, Australian families have found it virtually impossible to survive without two wages. This means that between 1984 and 1997 the composition of the Australian family changed dramatically. In 1984 the two-income family accounted for only 33 per cent of all families, but by 1997 it represented 40 per cent of all families. A sea change in family type had occurred due to economic exigencies.The Howard government recognises that raising children is fundamental to the future of Australia in the next century and beyond. It is quite simply our future. But raising children comes with many economic costs for families. Even on the lowest measurement, the basket-of-goods Lovering approach, which includes food, clothing, fuel, household provisions, costs of schooling—apart from fees—gifts and pocket money, but does not include housing, transport, school fees and uniforms, child care, and medical and dental expenses, parents are worse off by up to $4,134 for low income families and up to $6,878 for middle income families. If I can say this against my own sex, I think that many of us are too apt to underestimate exactly how much children cost, because it is women who mostly do the buying and budgeting.This bill recognises too that increasingly young people are remaining at home and being supported by their families. Unlike my own generation, the present generation of young people are staying put for a variety of reasons, which has had a major effect in adding to the existing financial and emotional burden on many families. Overall, an additional 12 per cent of young people were being supported by their families or were having to survive on less than subsistence income in 1995-96 compared with 14 years previously. This was the conclusion of a recent study by the Social Policy Research Centre at the University of New South Wales.That study, by Judy Schneider, found that much of the change in financial dependence was driven by increased participation in education and lower incomes for the full-time employed. These, in their turn, were the result of government funding for education, incentives associated with different forms of income support, changes in the labour market leading to less demand for young people's labour, and changes to wage arbitration. So in 1982, 79 per cent of 15- to 17-year-olds were dependent, but in 1995-96, 96 per cent of the same group were dependent. Those aged 15 to 17 simply have lost virtually all hope of being able to earn a living above the poverty line as the labour market's educational and training demands have risen. This has meant school retention is much greater.I should note that the report states that the cause of the lack of opportunities in the workplace is the increase in the school retention rate, but this seems like putting the cart before the horse. People would not have been staying at school in such unprecedented numbers except that there were few opportunities in the workplace. The Keating-engineered `soft landing' that drove many thousands of businesses to the wall was the catalyst for school retention and the much touted `clever country' slickery only an attempt to dress up necessity as opportunity.The report does go on to say school retention is thought to have been driven partly by the market, through the collapse of teenage employment, and partly by government, through greater provision of income support to low income families of post-compulsory school students. The introduction of the youth allowance by the Howard government last year, making school participation a necessary condition for receipt of any income support for young people under 18 years of age, is expected to lead to further increases in school retention.The upside of this is that more of our young people are receiving higher levels of education and training in line with the requirements of a post-industrial state on the cusp of a new millennium, and it is hoped that this will lead to greater productivity and employment in the long run as we produce more people with the high skills required to manage an increasingly complex and unhomogenous society and a technologically sophisticated economy.The Howard government introduced the youth allowance in July last year as part of a major rationalisation of a plethora of confusing income support arrangements for young job seekers and students. Five different payments with 13 different payment regimes were amalgamated for the sake of simplification and efficiency. The government also sought to provide greater incentives for young people to choose continued training and education over unemployment. Under Labor we had the ludicrous situation, often pointed out by distressed students and their families, that they would be better off being unemployed than continuing to study with all the associated costs. So under the Howard government, the youth allowance for a 16- or 17-year-old can be received only if they are in full-time education; gave 18 months full-time work in the previous 24 months; or meet the youth training allowance independent criteria, which means that they are not and cannot be expected to obtain or seek support from parents and guardians for reasons of domestic violence, parents unable to exercise care and so on.The bill, as the minister has explained, will assist Australian families by extending the qualification for family allowance so that it covers both job seekers and students who have turned 16 and continues until age 21 for job seekers and until age 25 for full-time students. It also increases the fortnightly rate of family allowance to $50, payable in respect of a young person who is aged 18 to under 21, or who is undertaking full-time study and is aged 21 to under 25. It also ensures that young persons are not inadvertently deprived of a health care card by force of these amendments.Finally, I would like to commend the work of the minister in seeking to improve the living standards of all Australian families, particularly low income families, and in building on previous measures to help families, as outlined in the family tax package. Recent research by the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling—NATSEM—shows that the Howard government policy is beginning to reap benefits. After the 13 years of government in which the gap between the haves and the have-nots became much greater despite all the rhetoric about social justice, the living standards of children are more equal now than they were in the mid-1980s. The NATSEM report states:The decline in income inequality among Australian children was driven largely by an improvement in the living standards of those at the very bottom. While there is some evidence of growing inequality at the top of the income spectrum, this has not nearly been sufficient to swamp the much greater movement at the bottom of the income distribution.By 1995-1996, almost 45 per cent of Australian children lived in families where both parents were in paid work. Just under one-third lived in couple families where only one parent worked—a dramatic drop since 1982.The results indicate that the extension of government assistance to low income working families, allied with improvements in social security, has had an enormous impact on the living standards of Australian children.This bill, in addressing family allowances, is part of a comprehensive range of measures which have been introduced by the current government, not only in this current term of parliament but also in the previous term of parliament, beginning with the family tax initiative and continuing with this package of bills that we are debating at present, and also the measures in the reform of the taxation system package which is before the parliament. In combination, these measures mark an improvement in the public policy outlook for families in Australia, a serious consideration of families and children within families, so that we can provide for their wellbeing into the future. I commend the bill to the House.Sitting suspended from 6.29 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.20:00:007033Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—We are considering the Social Security (Family Allowance and Related Matters) Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 tonight because the Howard government has decided to impose a GST on all Australians. The government now has to compensate Australians because Howard, Costello and the Democrats have decided to hit all Australians with a regressive, unfair, inequitable tax. It is a tax that will impact on all Australians every day in every way.This tax will impact particularly on those families that are forced to financially support their adult children because of this government's unfair, draconian youth allowance legislation, legislation that was introduced in 1998. With the GST about to be thrust upon families and young people in this country, the government now has to address the anomalies and the hardship that its legislation has caused. And now the lives of these families who have been forced to care financially for their adult children will be affected by this latest version of the Howard-Costello-Democrat GST. That GST will impact on them in every way and make it harder for them to survive and support their children, particularly those young adults whom they have been forced to care for in a way that in many cases they have not had to do for a number of years.This GST will impact on the family home. People will be forced to pay GST on their electricity and on their insurance—and because of the government GST, this government will have to be compensating them. An area that impacts upon young people, particularly those young adults who are being financially cared for by their family, is the family car. Most young people have second-hand cars. Currently, we do not have to pay any sort of tax on a second-hand car. But, once the Howard-Costello-Democrat GST comes into play, there will be a tax, a GST, on second-hand cars. Young people getting their first car will have to pay that tax on their car, and those families that are forced to support their young adults will have to pay a GST on their adult children's cars. Education, books, pencils, uniforms—all those things will be taxed under the GST. Along with health, there are many health products where a number of inequities will be caused by the GST.The government has been forced to recognise that, with the enormous way in which all these things will compound and impact on families, particularly those with young adults, it will have to compensate those families. The government will have to compensate those families because it has chosen to force this hardship on them. Even with something as simple as bus fares, young people seeking jobs will have to pay a GST on their bus fares. This creates a work barrier for them.The latest version of the GST is extremely confusing. It will be very confusing for all people in the community, not the least of whom will be the young people who are or have been forced into being dependent on their parents. We have heard the great chicken debate, whether something will or will not have a GST. We have the bread debate which even includes talk of a recipe for bread being included in legislation. Then there are salads: is it a salad or a prepared meal?One of the most important issues is that surrounding books, as I mentioned earlier. One aspect that is very important for young people, particularly those who may be studying or seeking to better themselves, is the fact that they now will have to pay a 10 per cent GST on their books, a 10 per cent tax on obtaining knowledge. That just demonstrates to us how bad this GST will be. It makes us understand why the government has recognised to some degree the hardship it caused by the legislation it introduced back in 1998 when it made young adults dependent on their parents. I cannot help but remember how the Democrats' motto always was that they would keep governments honest. They have hopped into bed with the government on this one.The implementation of the GST will result in an increase in poverty in Australia. The compensation package will be eroded quickly, and this will force Australian families and young adults to rely more and more on charitable organisations. Like most other members in this House, I have received considerable correspondence from charitable organisations and welfare agencies. They write to us expressing concern at the introduction of the goods and services tax and its impact on both their administrative procedures and the services they offer.This issue is particularly important when we look at the fact that the GST will increase poverty. It will be particularly bad for those families being forced to care for their young adult children. In many cases, they will be forced into a situation where they will have to resort to seeking assistance from some charity or another. The legislation is having a negative impact on these charitable organisations, creating uncertainty about how the GST will affect their community services. It is also a fact that it will impact on all the services—services that until now have been GST free—that charitable organisations provide to their clients.I am worried in particular about the impact it will have on family counselling and youth counselling. Young people who are unable to find jobs because of the policies of this government and those who do not have any independence or ability to support themselves will be forced to rely on charitable organisation in many cases, and the unclear nature of this Howard-Costello-Democrat package will only make things worse for them.So even though this legislation is designed to get around some of the problems that have been caused by the previous legislation, designed to get around some of the hardship caused by this government, it is still going to create a lot of problems. As I mentioned, the charitable organisations are particularly concerned about this.We have a situation where this government is forcing a regressive, unfair and inequitable tax on Australian families—a GST that affects families every day in every way in their lives and, because of this, the government must compensate the families. It is compensating them, as I have already mentioned, because of the hurt it will cause.So, in the guise of simplifying the system, this government is making a half-hearted attempt to address the hurt that its GST is causing and the hurt caused by its changes to the youth allowance in 1998. The government is insincere, I believe, in the moves it is making—moves that are very tokenistic. The changes that the government made have forced parents to support their young adult children, our young Australians. Once these children reach 18, they have the right to vote, they are treated as adults as far as the criminal and justice systems are concerned, they are allowed to consume alcohol and they can join the armed forces, but this government is treating them in such a way as to make them dependent on their families. Now it is trying to fiddle with the edges, but there are still so many inequities in the system and it is causing so much hurt. These young people are adults in all ways except when this government has to support them, and it has to support them because the system has let them down because they cannot get a job.Youth unemployment has never been higher. The tokenistic Work for the Dole scheme is not helping young people gain the skills that they need. So, on the one hand, the government is failing to give young people the training, the education and the opportunities they need to have hope for the future and, on the other hand, it is not giving them the financial independence they need to become people in their own right.I believe that we are only looking at this legislation in any shape or form because it was forced on the government by Senator Harradine. The government completely forgot about the promise it made to him back in 1998 until they were trying to get their GST package through the Senate. Senator Harradine had always said that the government's legislation was failing families and that the minimum poverty threshold should be $5,400. But the tokenistic changes that this government was prepared to include in this legislation led Senator Harradine, the honourable man that he is, in respect of this legislation, to reject the GST. He said that, in all consciousness, he could not support the package that this government was trying to thrust upon the Australian people, the package that this government has no conscience about, the package that this government is going to leave as its legacy to the Australian people.Senator Harradine said that he could not inflict a GST on his children, their children, their children and future generations of Australians, but this government can. It is offering inadequate compensation to young adults and their families. Young adults are forced to take handouts from their parents and, in most cases, the income these parents receive means they cannot afford to give their children the money they need to look for work or just go to the movies with their friends. These are adults, young people, who through no fault of their own but rather because this system and this government have let them down, are unable to find work, and now they are put into a situation where they are dependent on their families and quite often dependent on charitable organisations to help them through. I am afraid the government we have in Australia today is very heartless. It does not care: it does not care about families and it does not care about our young people that it has failed.What does this lead to? This leads to family breakdown and it puts enormous financial strain on families. Families find they are unable to support their young adult children. In many cases, they have other children who are attending school, and they need things as well. We are not talking about wealthy families. A wealthy business person or a family that is actually able to hide its income can get the youth allowance for their children, but there is no way the ordinary family earning about $40,000 a year can get away from the problems associated with this youth allowance legislation. Some families have even been forced to disown their children because they cannot afford to look after them.I think I have demonstrated how ineffective the youth allowance legislation compensation is, how draconian the original legislation was and how the GST is going to have a very negative effect on those families that have young adult children who are either eligible for a youth allowance or ineligible for a youth allowance.The other interesting aspect of this legislation is the detail of who is going to administer it. I noticed in the legislation that it is proposed that a new family assistance office will be responsible for the administration of these new payments. But there is going to be no new office established. It is going to be absorbed within the Centrelink office. I find this extremely interesting. Centrelink staff numbers have been slashed. There is already so much stress on the staff who are actually working there.Every day I have people contacting my electorate office with a problem that relates to Centrelink and, in many cases—if not most cases—it is caused by the fact that Centrelink is underresourced. It is not the fault of those people who actually work in the Centrelink office. They are good, dedicated, hardworking people, but they are unable to cope with the change, the lack of training and the lack of resources that this government is offering. This looks like just another change that will be thrust upon them without adequate resources. It is the office you have when you do not have an office.The final thing I would like to touch on is probably the worst aspect of the legislation. That is, the appeal process is going to be changed and there will be only a 28-day period in which people can appeal to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal. We are talking about people here who, in some cases, are deprived of somewhere to live, somewhere that they can access. Families that are ofent under stress, and I see this as a denial of natural justice. The simple fact is that, if a person has a problem in relation to this matter and they do not lodge their appeal with the Social Security Appeals Tribunal within that very small time frame of 28 days, their appeal will not be heard.Like most of the legislation that the government bring to us here in the House—legislation that looks at social issues, that looks at families, that is about people having a social security safety net—this legislation abrogates their responsibilities instead of being there for the people to offer them support. In every way, they try to move away from the responsibility that they owe Australian families and, in this case, young Australian adults who are eligible for the youth allowance and their families who are forced to support them. I am disgusted with this government and their approach to those people, Australians who need the government's support for their security.20:18:007036Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—Can I say that I am greatly honoured to be speaking in this House while you occupy the chair, Mr Deputy Speaker Quick. I am very pleased to be speaking on the Social Security (Family Allowance and Related Matters) Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 , which underlines the government's ongoing commitment to support for families in all of their circumstances.In my electorate of Makin, there is tremendous diversity in the types of family units that live and work and raise children, but the one thing they all have in common is that they want greater choice and opportunity for themselves and their children. They struggled for 13 years under Labor's high inflation and high interest rate policies. They remember those years and do not want to go back to them. They want a brighter future for their children.I remind the House of the outlook of families in my electorate of Makin because it underlines a fundamental point that must not be forgotten. It must not be forgotten that this bill is made possible only by the responsible economic management of this government in turning a $10 billion deficit into a $5 billion surplus in just three short years. It is also made possible by the fact that the coalition alone, out of all of the Australian political parties, had the courage to establish a comprehensive package of tax and social security reforms and to take this package to the people in a general election.Our fiscal responsibility and our tax package have made this bill possible, and I do not mind saying that this is a clear example of a major political party not acting in a populist fashion but taking a hard decision that was in the national interest. Other political parties dipped a cautious toe in the waters of tax reform before deciding that it was all too hard. We have led the way and created the environment in which reforms such as those we are dealing with today could happen.This bill does two important things for families with children and young adults who are in the employment market or studying full time. Firstly, it extends the qualification for family allowance so that it covers both job seekers and students who have turned 16 and continues until age 21 for job seekers and until 25 for full-time students. Secondly, it increases the fortnightly rate of family allowance to $50 payable in respect of a young person who is aged 18 to under 21 or who is undertaking full-time study and is aged 21 to under 25. In order to ensure that this does not do any young person out of a health care card who might otherwise be eligible for one, it contains amendments to ensure that this will not happen.This legislation will take effect from 1 October this year. This bill is part of the bigger picture in two important ways. Firstly, it takes place against a background of consistent pro-family policies by this government since we were elected to office in 1996. Secondly, it is part of a much larger package of tax and social security reforms designed to increase the range of choices available to families. Taking the first point, it is important to establish the background of reforms over the past few years in the context of which this reform is taking place.One of the problems we inherited from the previous government was that the system did not adequately recognise the cost of raising children. In its first term this government introduced a number of tax measures to reverse that situation. The centrepiece of our first term reforms was our family tax initiative. This provided for an increase in the tax-free threshold of $1,000 per child for families on lower and middle incomes. The effect of this reform was to decrease the tax paid by eligible families by $200 per annum per child. The second part of our family tax initiative provided for an increase in the tax-free threshold of $2,500 for single income families who have at least one child under five years of age.The effect of this reform was to decrease the tax paid by eligible families by a further $500 per annum. Importantly, this support is not simply available as a tax refund cheque at the end of the financial year. For families who want to access it immediately, it is available in the form of a fortnightly payment. Also in our first term we gave families greater encouragement to take out private health insurance through our Private Health Insurance Incentives Scheme. This provided eligible families with a rebate of up to $450, claimable either as a tax rebate or directly as a reduction in the health insurance premium. We also introduced a raft of social security measures to further strengthen families.In this context it is worth remembering that previous coalition governments also had a strong record in social security reforms. It was the coalition which previously introduced family allowances, rent assistance and the automatic indexation of pensions, and it was the coalition which also introduced the sole parents pension. In the first term of this government we continued to build upon this proud record. We developed a package of measures to improve the position of carers, including more respite for carers, an increase in the domiciliary nursing care benefit, access to income support for those caring for a disabled child and encouragement for carers to return to the work force.We introduced the parenting payment by amalgamating the sole parent pension and the parenting allowance in recognition of the fact that people need support with child rearing responsibilities, regardless of whether they are partnered or not. We consolidated and simplified voluntary work provisions allowing people to undertake voluntary work as part of their activity test. We established a youth homeless pilot program with a greater emphasis on voluntary mediation and early intervention at the time of application for young homeless payment. Our highest priority in this area of policy was to make every effort to reconcile homeless young people and their families.The other context in which this bill has to be placed is the package of tax and social security reforms which we are introducing to give effect to our new tax system. This new tax system is unashamedly pro-family. It is designed to give assistance to families in all the circumstances in which they find themselves. It will benefit over two million families to a total amount of more than $2 billion per year. We are doubling the extra $1,000 tax-free threshold for each independent child under the family tax initiative to $2,000, providing a 70 per cent increase in assistance, equivalent to $140 per child. We are also doubling from $2,500 to $5,000 the extra tax-free threshold available to one income families, including sole parents, with a child aged under five years, providing a 70 per cent increase in assistance, equivalent to $350 per year per family.We are also increasing the maximum assistance for child care for lower income families by $7.50 per week or seven per cent. At the same time, we will be increasing the level of income at which family allowance begins to be income tested from $24,350 to $28,200, and reducing the income test withdrawal rate from 50 per cent to 30 per cent. These reforms, building upon the reforms of our first term and against the backdrop of our long-term record for supporting families, have made an enormous difference to the security, prosperity and range of choices available to families.Viewed in the above context, it is easy to see why this government is justly proud of its record. This bill seeks to build upon the family allowance and the family tax benefit. Without the coalition, there would have been no family allowance or family tax benefit to build upon. Without our fiscal responsibility and our willingness to grasp the nettle of genuine tax reform, there would have been no money with which to provide tax cuts and greater benefits for all our families.I am proud to be part of a government which has made this bill possible. Under the previous government this would not have been possible because the Labor Party was adding to debt each year and was therefore unable to institute important social reforms. We have taken the hard decisions in our first term and now we are able to return the rewards to Australian families. The families in my electorate of Makin who have struggled for so many years under high interest rates and recessionary policies will welcome these initiatives and will, I am sure, understand and appreciate the hard work that was required to bring them about.I support this bill, a bill which in turn will give support to a great many families in my electorate of Makin. As I said earlier, and I feel it is worth repeating, in my electorate of Makin there is a tremendous diversity in the types of family units that live and work there and raise children. But, again, as I said earlier, the one thing that they all have in common is that they want greater choice and opportunity for themselves and their children. They have struggled for 13 years under Labor's high inflation, high interest rate policies. They remember those years and do not want to go back to them. I have brought this point up again because the families in my electorate have to remember this fundamental point: if it were not for the coalition government we would not be able to introduce this bill. I support this bill.20:29:007039Stone, Sharman, MPMrs STONEEM6MurrayLP10—I would like to thank honourable members for their contributions to today's debate on the Social Security (Family Allowance and Related Matters) Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 . In particular, I thank the members for Makin and Menzies for their comments which reflect their well-known concern for battling families.In this year's budget the government announced that family tax benefit part A will be extended to families of young persons up to the age of 21 in cases where the young person does not qualify for youth allowance because of the parental income test. It is estimated that families of 51,000 people benefit from these changes at an annual cost of $53 million. Legislation has already passed the House, A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Bill 1999 , to implement this commitment. Family tax benefit part A will replace the family allowance and family tax payment part A from 1 July 2000. Families will benefit significantly from this new payment, in particular from its more generous income tests and income taper rates.Under the new arrangements families will receive more assistance and will be able to retain 20 per cent more of the income they earn above the income free areas. While this is a generous initiative which will benefit many Australian families, the government has decided to provide even further assistance to families with dependent young adults. The bill now before the House will, firstly, allow these families to qualify for family allowance from 1 October 1999. Secondly, it will extend these payments to students aged 21 to 24. Thirdly, it will pay a higher fortnightly rate of $50 for 18 years and older than originally proposed and, fourthly, it will remove anomalies in the treatment of under 18-year-olds under the current family allowance rules.Under this bill, the families of job seekers aged 16 to 21 and the families of full-time students aged 16 to 25 will be eligible for family allowance. The maximum fortnightly rate of family allowance will be increased to $50. With this legislation the government will treat 18- to 20-year-olds in the same fashion as 16- to 17-year-olds. If ineligible for youth allowance, their families can receive instead family allowance. The changes will take effect on 1 October 1999 and will have a cost over the coming financial year of $42.5 million.With regard to the treatment of under 18-year-olds, only families with dependent secondary students aged under 18 years can obtain family allowance at the moment. If the person is unemployed or at university the family cannot qualify for family allowance. The bill will rectify these anomalies to ensure that all families are treated fairly. I commend the bill to the House.Question put:That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Swan's amendment) stand part of the question.The House divided. [8.36 p.m.](Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr H.V. Quick) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 ——Voting details are recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Question so resolved in the affirmative.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.7039Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Truss) read a third time. Bills7040r8427040Debate resumed from 10 June, on motion by Mrs Bronwyn Bishop:That the bill be now read a second time.20:43:007040Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—This bill, the Aged Care Amendment (Omnibus) Bill 1999 , will make a number of amendments to the Aged Care Act 1997 in order to address a number of problems that have arisen under that act since its promulgation. Labor will be voting against this bill in the House. As the bill was only tabled in the House on 10 June, we have had little time to consult interest groups over the impact of this bill. Further, while Labor accepts that the bill goes some way towards addressing problems that have arisen under the Aged Care Act, a number of issues remain unclear. As a result, we will be responding to the bill in detail in the Senate.While Labor supports many of the measures in the bill, it is important to note that they address many of the problems we have been raising with the government for some time. In particular, we support the provisions that will ensure that those who were residents of nursing homes prior to October 1997 will be refunded any accommodation charges they have been required to pay. These charges were levied despite the assurances of the Prime Minister that residents of nursing homes would not be subject to the charge. The government gave a commitment to stop this practice only after pressure from Labor and after these residents had been paying the charges for almost 18 months.The Minister for Aged Care knows full well that it is because of the pressure from the member for Chisholm, the member for McMillan and other members in this House that the government has been forced, dragged kicking and screaming, into taking some appropriate action—18 months too late, Minister. It was in the government's best interests to bury the issue of nursing homes in the lead-up to the federal election. The government's duty of care to the community was overridden by its sense of self- preservation. It is ironic that after such delays the government has attempted to rush this legislation through without allowing for the proper scrutiny of parliament. But that is consistent with the attitude of the government benches. The government, whenever it is confronted by a controversial issue, delays, prevaricates and hides. The minister is now, on a bill of which she has charge, walking out of the chamber because she does not want to hear what is happening in aged care in Australia.I can understand why the government is eager to avoid scrutiny of this bill, as it symbolises the government's mismanagement of the aged care sector since coming into office in 1996. The bill provides a list of the failings of the Aged Care Act. If you want to know what the government has done wrong, just have a look at the bill. Go through the provisions. The provisions outline one by one the mistakes made and the attempt—a sorry attempt—by this government to fix some of the problems, once again only after pressure from the Labor Party on these issues.Unfortunately for aged care residents and providers, the government has compounded those problems, born of haste, through its subsequent inaction. I will come back to those problems a bit later, but first it is worth examining the process that has led up to this bill. The government announced its aged care reforms in the 1996-97 budget, without extensive consultation with the aged care sector, and proceeded to implement many of those measures in October 1997 through the Aged Care Act. Remember that at the time Minister Judi Moylan—she now sits up the back—was the minister responsible. Again, it must be emphasised that this was all done without the benefit of any real input from the sector.We should not forget that in the 1996-97 budget, along with these changes, the government announced $500 million worth of cuts to the sector. On the one hand, they came in here and said, `We're about reform,' but the real agenda was half a billion dollars of cuts to the aged care sector. This figure clearly demonstrates the government's motive for its so-called reform of the sector and it explains its undue haste to implement its changes. But of course it was not about reform; it was about the government's ideology of public sector slash and burn. Instead of safeguarding the interests of people who require nursing home care, the government seized the opportunity to save money and at the same time open up the nursing home industry to the forces of the free market. The government argued that this would be in the best interests of elderly Australians, but we all know that just a few people—friends of the government; the consultants and former members of the government—were the real beneficiaries of these aged care reforms; people such as the former member for Lowe who has had a very hard time of late. He was doing quite well as a consultant to the Moran Health Care Group at the time that these reforms were coming in. At best, the government failed to recognise, at worst it refused to admit, that if you adopt a free market model then you must accept that profit rather than accessibility, affordability and quality of aged care becomes the goal.At the same time the coalition suffered its first casualty in the Aged Care portfolio: the then minister suffered a demotion for her rather pathetic efforts to disguise the half a billion dollar budget cut as aged care reforms. Unfortunately for the new incumbent, the then member for Bass, Warwick Smith, was appointed the new minister.84HZAHRAMr Zahra—Where is he today?R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESE—He arrived just as the government started paying the price for its rush to reform the aged care sector and its lack of consultation with the sector. The member for McMillan may well ask where the former member for Bass is today. Perhaps he is a consultant, along with a number of other former Liberal Party representatives such as John Hewson, Bob Woods and all those failed Liberal party politicians who have ended up as consultants in this area. But it has got to be said that, within a month of the Aged Care Act coming into force, the Prime Minister appeared—not in this parliament; he did not come into this parliament to announce a change—on A Current Affair to announce yet another change in policy, abandoning the proposed accommodation bonds in the face of widespread concern. Soon after taking up his post, the minister had to front an angry audience on the Midday Show to try to explain how cutting half a billion dollars from the aged care sector would not lead to a reduction in the quality of care delivered to older Australians. He was about as popular as was the current Minister for Aged Care, the member for Mackellar, when she went to a meeting as the grand leader, the future leader, of the Liberal Party. The poor member for Bass had to go along and defend the half a billion dollar cut on the Midday Show . Who can forget how angry older Australians were at that time about these changes.But of course it did not stop there. On 5 March 1998 the government tabled the Aged Care Amendment Bill 1998. The bill currently before the House mirrors many sections of that earlier bill. Both list a number of problems that have arisen in the aged care sector because of the Aged Care Act. So, within three to four months of the Aged Care Act coming into effect, the government had already discovered a large number of problems in the system—problems that were a direct result of the government's rush to make changes in the aged care sector.I want to outline to the House some of these problems. The first relates to residents being charged for places by providers before they arrive at a facility and even before they have accepted a place. Under the Aged Care Act, it is possible for providers to charge people fees `before the person has formally agreed to take up a place'. That would seem to be a significant problem. Think about the parallels. In what other form of service provision do you have to pay a fee before you agree to accept that service? And yet it is in the legislation. It would seem to be a significant problem with the legislation. It did indeed need to be remedied.Secondly, the department is unable to revoke provider status where the provider has committed serious breaches of the act including fraud. Under the act, the department has to shut down an entire facility, which would require the immediate relocation of all residents. Where there are not sufficient alternative places available, the department has no choice but to allow the provider to continue to operate. There are some providers that are currently in this position.Thirdly, the act does not recognise residents in aged care that are financially responsible for children who were not actually living with them, nor does it recognise grandchildren who lived in the same house as `close relatives' of the resident. People in these situations, who are currently disadvantaged, have been forced to rely upon the discretionary hardship provisions under the act—surely an unacceptable situation.Fourthly, where a person entering a facility has a mental impairment and has not yet had a financial administrator appointed, it is impossible to sign the required entry agreements within the seven days stipulated. This leaves people in this situation in a precarious position, with the potential that providers might refuse them entry.Fifthly, because the government repealed the previous legislation and the Aged Care Act does not provide for sanctions under those previous acts, the department cannot impose sanctions where a provider committed breaches prior to 1 October 1997. Through sloppy, bad, regressive legislation, the government has in effect granted an unintended amnesty to those providers who had committed breaches under the previous acts.These problems in the system have placed great strain on families already in crisis. When a person requires nursing home care, it is not something that can be put off while the families involved sort out the finer details and shop around for the most suitable accommodation. People do not choose to go into nursing homes. It is not a lifestyle choice. It is not an option—it is a medical necessity, and it usually needs to be organised in a hurry. So Labor believes that it is the government's responsibility not only to provide the funding necessary for high quality, accessible and affordable nursing home care but also to ensure the process is straightforward. Labor is concerned that this bill does not go far enough in ensuring that the process involved in arranging a nursing home bed meets the essential criteria of quality care, accessibility and affordability.The bill before the House also formalises the accommodation charge in the act. We have a number of concerns about the accommodation charge and its effectiveness in funding the capital requirements of the aged care sector. Despite the government's assurances, many older Australians have had to sell their homes in order to pay the charge. Remember in the last parliament we had ministers saying, `It hasn't happened.' We had to come in here and give practical examples before the government would concede what was going on in the community. Given the often traumatic circumstances in which a person enters a nursing home, the last thing they need to worry about is having to sell their home at short notice in order to pay the charge.Meanwhile, providers have come to us complaining that the accommodation charge does not deliver the up-front capital they need to meet the certification standards that they must all meet by January 2001. We also have concerns that, under the bill, providers will not be required to actually spend the money raised through the charge on capital improvements. The whole logic of the government's position and rhetoric on this issue was all about capital upgrades. Surely then the legislation should ensure as a minimum that the government's own objectives are met, but that has not occurred. While the bill includes a rule to that effect, the department has informed us that it will do nothing to ensure that providers abide by that requirement.The bill contains a number of other technical amendments that address other problems under the Aged Care Act. Having identified these significant problems and drafted legislation to address them, the government then made a blatantly political decision to minimise its exposure on aged care. The bill did not get beyond the government's second reading speech in the Senate on 26 March 1998. It was running up to the next election and was obviously eager to limit the damage from its failed aged care policies. Knowing that there were a number of serious problems in the system caused by these hasty reforms, the government chose to drop the bill that would address those problems. It put politics before good policy. Here is a government that was content to put its own short-term political interests ahead of the interests of the 135,000 aged care residents in Australia.Then, as 1 July 1998 approached, we saw another problem emerge. The sector was concerned about the impact of another of the government's key so-called reforms—the coalescence of nursing home subsidies which was due to take effect from that date. The government has proposed an arrangement whereby the different nursing home subsidies paid across the states and territories would be brought together to a single national rate. Accountants and perhaps some economic rationalists on the other side support the mathematical neatness of the proposal, but it ignores the fact that the cost of providing aged care differs across the states—which is the reason the subsidy paid to providers differs.It would be like arguing that housing costs for non-aged care people do not differ across the states, across regions and across cities. A major cost in providing care is the cost of labour. The government knows well that wage rates do vary across the states. Even more significant is the huge differences in real estate prices between the states in urban and rural areas. To argue that the cost of setting up and operating a nursing home in the eastern suburbs of Sydney would be the same as for a nursing home in Dubbo is just a nonsense. As a result, this arrangement is clearly flawed.With the 1998 election looming, the minister tried to sweep the sector's concerns under the carpet by announcing a Productivity Commission inquiry into coalescence. In the words of the minister, this would be a `comprehensive' and `independent' review of the government's proposed move to uniform nursing home subsidies. The government set a reporting date of 13 January 1999 for the inquiry. The minister also sent a letter to the industry—just prior to the election—which gave commitments that yet more problems with the system would be fixed by the coalition if re-elected. It is an interesting tactic: you promise, if re-elected, to fix the problems that you have caused.The government recognised that they had created a complete mess of the system, but they said, `Give us another go, and we will try to fix it up.' They almost acknowledged how wrong they had got it. Despite these desperate attempts by minister No. 2—Warwick Smith, the member for Bass—he became the second coalition casualty of the government's aged care reforms. He lost his seat. The new, improved member for Bass, Michelle O'Byrne, made sure that all of the people in the electorate of Bass knew what a mess Warwick Smith had made on this issue. It is one of the prime reasons why Michelle sits in this House today and why she will be here for some time to come.We then moved on to the third coalition Minister for Aged Care. So we had Moylan gone, sitting up the back. We had Warwick Smith, gone completely. Who did they pick? Who would you want to bring in but the member for Mackellar? You can imagine it: the member for Mackellar, once touted as the future leader, the great right wing hope of the Liberal Party, being told that she had the poisoned chalice of aged care. Two colleagues had already sacrificed their careers to this government's half a billion dollar cuts to aged care and the hasty reforms they used to justify those cuts. The member for Mackellar must be desperate to avoid their fate.We now know how desperate she is, because for the last nine months she has done as little as possible, obviously on the assumption that if she decreases her profile—this is a person who once was just running in front of every camera in the country, but now she is the invisible minister—she will minimise the opportunities for making mistakes. The head in the sand technique may work for ostriches but not for government ministers.Unfortunately for the aged care sector, this policy of inaction could not have come at a worse time. Having suffered because of the government's rush to bring in changes, the sector now cannot get the minister to make the decisions needed to resolve the many problems those so-called reforms caused. Good government is about taking time to develop sound policy, with the involvement of all stakeholders, while moving decisively to resolve urgent problems. This government rushes into change without thinking and then refuses to fix up the problems that result.The minister's desperate policy of inaction is no more obvious than in her dealing with the Productivity Commission's report into coalescence. The inquiry duly reported to government on the appointed date, 13 January 1999. That left the government six months to respond to the report's recommendations before 1 July 1999 when the next stage in coalescence is due to take effect. Weeks went past. Months came and went, but no announcement was made. The report was not even tabled. The sector started demanding a response. It needed certainty of funding, and coalescence went to the heart of the funding arrangements that would apply for the next seven years.On 31 March 1999, 11 weeks after the Productivity Commission's report was handed to the minister, it was finally made public. An interesting date, 31 March 1999—after the New South Wales state election. There are seats with a high aged population, such as the state electorate of Tweed—the member for Richmond's electorate. I was very happy to visit it during the state election campaign to see my friend Neville Newell, who now visits me in Sydney when he is in parliament in Macquarie Street as the member for Tweed. So it is no wonder they delayed releasing that report.Let us look at what that report found. It found that the government's proposal for coalescence, a key plank of its aged care reforms, was `deficient in several important respects' and should not proceed. It found that under the government's policy the quality of care provided to residents would become the balancing item in the funding arrangements for nursing homes—in other words, the quality of care delivered to residents in some states would fall as a direct result of the policy. This was the report card on the government's policy after a `comprehensive' and `independent' review. Yet there was still no response from the minister, apart from a misleading media release that claimed that the report supported the government's policy. That media release also stated:The report raises a number of issues that the government will consult on, and make a decision about, in coming months.The sector was consulted about coalescence for six months by the Productivity Commission and is generally satisfied with the report's recommendations. It does not want or need more consultation on this issue.Almost a year after the government admitted that its policy of coalescence needed to be examined, and almost six months after the government received the report that does not endorse this policy, we are still waiting. To date, the minister has not responded to the Productivity Commission's report. I would have thought this debate tonight was an opportunity for her to do so; but no, she left the chamber because she was not interested in debating these issues.If the minister has been doing as little as possible, why do we suddenly see a new amendment bill before this House? The reason the bill is before the House today is that Labor pushed the government to meet its commitments to those residents who were in nursing homes before 1 October 1997. In response to questions from Labor in the Senate, the government undertook that where these residents had paid the accommodation charge they would be fully refunded and would be no longer required to pay the charge. It is only because legislation was required to fulfil that undertaking that we now see sections of the previous amendment bill reintroduced, over 12 months after the government was aware of the significant problems that those provisions seek to address. It must have been with some reluctance that the minister agreed to introduce this bill into the House.Unfortunately, the government has not taken advantage of the delay in reintroducing this amendment bill to ensure that many of the other technical problems under the act are addressed. I want to outline these for the House tonight. Firstly, self-funded retirees are potentially in the position of not being required to pay the accommodation charge, but they are not eligible for the concessional resident supplement. This means providers stand to lose $12 a day if they accommodate such a person. Given the minister's exhortations to the sector to act commercially, self-funded retirees may be denied care because of this loophole. Secondly, and similarly, where a person in a rural or remote region has a house that is worth less than $23,000, they too may not be liable for the accommodation charge, but they are ineligible for the concessional resident supplement—they miss out.The government has not used the time since March 1998 to thoroughly review the impact of its legislation and to ensure that all the problems that have flowed from its hasty changes are addressed. The parliament needs to be confident that this bill addresses all the problems in the aged care sector, not just the ones that the government identified over 12 months ago.As I signalled at the start of this speech, Labor will be opposing this bill because of the lack of time provided to consider its implications and scope. The aged care sector deserves proper parliamentary scrutiny of any legislation that will apply to it. Given the fact that we now have members in the chamber such as the member for Chisholm and the member for McMillan, that scrutiny is happening. But we need leadership from the government rather than being forced to respond to backbench members representing their constituents. Given the government's lengthy delay in implementing these measures, its sudden desire to rush them through with a week's notice simply cannot be justified.We support many of the measures in this bill. Many of them do seek to address problems with the Aged Care Act that we have raised with the government time and time again—now with three separate ministers for aged care in this government. Labor will be responding to the measures in detail in the Senate and we are willing to cooperate in ensuring that the measures are implemented as soon as possible.21:12:007045Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—The purpose of the Aged Care Amendment (Omnibus) Bill 1999 is to address the administrative and procedural issues that arose from the introduction of the aged care standards re forms in 1997. I will speak about these in a moment. The bill seeks to do a number of things. The first is to clarify the provisions for pre-entry leave. The second is to strengthen revocation action which would be taken by the secretary to the department where a provider was no longer considered suitable to be providing services—as the member for Grayndler pointed out, to give effect to sanctions. The third is to formalise the daily accommodation charge for people entering high level residential care. The fourth is to similarly formalise the reduction of the qualifying period for co-residence for a carer or close relative of the person occupying the family home and in receipt of an income support payment from five to two years.It also provides authority for residents who have already paid an accommodation bond in a hostel to roll over that bond on entering a nursing home instead of paying an accommodation charge in lieu of it. It further enables legal provision for representation of people with mental impairment so the accommodation payment arrangements can be entered into within a defined period. It further exempts from payment of an accommodation charge those nursing home residents who were in care at the commencement of the Aged Care Act 1997 and who would otherwise be liable to pay an accommodation charge on moving to another aged care service.The bill also ensures that concessional resident status applies to a person who has a determination in place that the payment of an accommodation charge would cause financial hardship. This status currently applies only to a person for whom a waiver for an accommodation bond actually exists. Finally, it allows for rental income to be excluded from the pension income test, and the value of the home will be exempted from the pension assets test where a former home is being rented to pay for an accommodation charge—this being one of the options available under the act for those who are liable for an accommodation charge, and for them to meet it.The member for Grayndler in his contribution made a number of remarks, some of which I would like to address. The first is that he said that the government's aged care reforms were the government introducing some kind of competition into the sector. The reforms themselves do not change the nature of competition within the sector but, in fact, it is a limited form of competition that is actually required. One of the reasons why we have seen a phenomenon, over the last decade in particular, of some nursing home proprietors acquiring racehorses, expensive pieces of property and all kinds of other things—whilst owning a nursing home or a number of homes that would not be the sorts of places into which you would like to place one of your parents—is that there is a lack of competition.You actually have aged care assessment teams assessing the need of a person to go into a residential aged care facility. The nursing homes themselves have occupancy rates in excess of 95 per cent, usually approaching 98 to 100 per cent. Why should you spend money on your nursing home when you have quite a lengthy list of people waiting to go into it and the money could be siphoned off and put somewhere else? When you think about it, we spend over $3 billion on residential aged care on 135,000 nursing home and hostel residents. You have to wonder whether all of the money that is allocated is actually going to where it is intended.The further point that is made by the member for Grayndler is that people have had to sell their homes to go into a nursing home. I do not know whether he is aware of it but, when the act was actually introduced prior to these reforms, 50 per cent of people sold their home to go into a nursing home.He also alleges that the reforms have not raised enough money to spend on capital. I will emphasise this point in a few moments, but in 1992 the previous government allocated $45 million for all of the nursing homes in Australia for capital upgrading and maintenance. By 1995, that allocation was $10 million. These reforms will raise between $1.2 billion and $1.3 billion over a 10-year period for capital expenditure. Also, with the introduction of an accommodation charge for the first time, we actually have prospective residents and their families asking questions about whether in fact they are prepared to pay an accommodation charge to go into the facilities which are available to them.The member for Grayndler said that the legislation should ensure that the money is actually spent on capital. One of the things that the legislation does is introduce an aged care Standards and Accreditation Agency and a quality assurance framework which ensure that, no matter what standard a nursing home is actually at, it has significant incentives applied to it to improve its capital.Finally, on the issue of coalescence, the concept of coalescence was actually argued for by the industry. In fact, across the country there is variation in terms of superannuation and workers compensation. It depends in no small way on the number of beds in a nursing home facility. You can have a nursing home—for example, a 25-bedder in Victoria where there is a disproportionately large number of such facilities—that might well be competing with a 90-bed facility in Queensland that has completely different economies of scale. The Productivity Commission inquiry was as necessary as it was overdue.More than anything else, the ageing of Australia will change the political, economic and social priorities of this country—and in many ways it already has. Our life expectancies are increasing and, with the exception of indigenous Australians, are amongst the highest in the world. The circumstances that we all face as Australians are these. At the moment, about five per cent of us over a lifetime will eventually need some form of residential aged care. Currently 135,000 people are in receipt of such care. About 13 per cent of us are over the age of 65 at the moment; by the year 2010, it will be around 16 per cent. About eight per cent of Australians over the age of 75 and a quarter of Australians over the age of 85 suffer from dementia. The next 40 years will see a 300 per cent increase in this age group alone. In fact, whereas last year Australia had 1,660 centenarians, by 2060, there will be some 54,000.The National Commission of Audit, which was commissioned by the government shortly after it came to office in March 1996, included significant work by the retirement income modelling taskforce. It found that in 1993 the ratio of Australians between the ages of 15 and 64 was 5.3 to one. It is called an age dependency ratio. It is estimated by the National Commission of Audit that, by the year 2030, that ratio will be 2.6 to one. To put it in other terms, we will need to spend 10 per cent more of the nation's entire productivity on the health and welfare costs of ageing just to maintain the current level of services, above and beyond real growth. In other terms, in 1996 dollars, in the year 2030 we will need to spend $38 billion, if you include $6 billion in pensions, on the health and welfare costs of ageing. That is more than the relative drain on the Australian economy during the banana republic crisis of 1985.The ABS estimates at the moment that about seven million Australians are working, and they support some 6.2 million Australians, most through no fault of their own, who are relying on some form of social security benefit. In 1974, we spent 7½ per cent of GDP on welfare. By 1995, it was almost 15 per cent. When the previous government was starting to turn its mind to the issue of aged care, in 1992 it consulted Andersens, and in 1993 it commissioned Professor Bob Gregory from the Australian National University who was also on the board of the Reserve Bank to do a major review of the nature of Australia's residential aged care and what problems it might have.Amongst other things, Gregory found that we would need to spend $1 billion on fire, health, design and outcome standards just to bring Australia's nursing home stock up to acceptable standards in 1994. The Australian Valuation Office study of 150 nursing homes for the Gregory report found that three-quarters of homes needed to be fixed or completely rebuilt to meet Australian design standards. Seventy per cent of homes failed to meet outcome standards. Thirteen per cent did not meet fire standards. Thirty-nine per cent of residents in nursing homes lived with at least three other people, and 13 per cent lived with at least five other people. Gregory reported:Since 1987, irrespective of the type of accommodation received, a nursing home resident, irrespective of income, pays a set fee representing 87.5 per cent of age pension, meaning that the wealthiest person in the country can be accommodated in a nursing home for this rate of payment.Yet, as Gregory also told us, 85 per cent of residents at that time had income above this, totalling $238 million in 1994. Then you wonder why the government introduced the same kinds of reforms in 1996 that the then Labor government introduced into the hostel sector in 1988. To complete the scenario, while all this was occurring Labor was actually reducing the capital funding provided to nursing homes from $45 million in 1992-93 to $10.7 million in 1995-96. To put that into perspective, this government is currently providing $40 million in capital funding for nursing homes in low income, remote and rural areas. This was also in the context of a government that was financing essential social infrastructure on debt and asset sales while simultaneously casting the social security net further across the nation's income bands and condemning an increasing number of Australians to a future of government and welfare dependency.As I said to the member for Bass last sitting week, whatever our politics we cannot have it both ways. We cannot live in a country that, up until recently, was sustaining underlying growth rates of between two and three per cent and, on the one hand, say, `I am not going to have waterfront reform, industrial relations reform, regulatory reform; I am not going to consolidate the finances of my country; I am not going to undertake reforms in communication and energy' and, on the other hand, snuggle into bed at night and say, `Yes, but I want every Australian to have a first-class and free education; I want every Australian, irrespective of their means, to be able to have access to a fully funded government nursing home place or for all of us to have access to the most modern health interventions that are available and to have them provided basically by the government.' As noble as those objectives might be to many Australians, they are simply not achievable.The options that we have ahead of us are these: we can live in a country that sustains over a very long period of time very high rates of growth and we can provide all these things; or we reduce services; or we increase taxes, which has significant impacts on wealth creation and employment; or we introduce some kind of user-pays for those who are able to afford to do so.When the Labor Party went to the 1996 election, it took with it a policy on aged care that was 211 words. Yet many well-intentioned and decent members of the opposition stand up in this place and give us all kinds of lectures about what we have sought to do for what is best not only for aged care but for the future of this country, standing behind a policy of 211 words. When you read between the lines of that policy you will find that, had the Labor opposition won in 1996, much of the reforms initiated and, with some courage, taken through by this government would have in fact been implemented, I believe, under a Labor government.Central to these reforms have been accommodation charges. Particularly if we look 30 or 40 years hence, if we as a government cannot raise the resources to fund all of these things, we have said that those people who can afford to do so ought to make some contribution for their nursing home care, and that is what we have done with accommodation charges. Similarly, we have introduced income tested daily fees. We have sought to amalgamate the nursing home and the hostel sectors and have started with the new resident classification scale. We have also established the Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency, and we have done so in consultation with the industry, who have been a major driver in this regard. So no matter what level a nursing home is at, it actually has to improve beyond the standard that it is currently at.I have visited over 60 nursing homes in three states, often at four o'clock in the morning, when you really find out what they are like. When you walk into one of these places the critical test is asking yourself: is this a place that I would like to have my mother in? Many of them are, but I can tell you that many others most certainly are not. We have also made a contribution to capital infrastructure in nursing homes which is four times the amount that was actually budgeted by the previous government when it left office in March 1996.In terms of accreditation, the government has introduced an accreditation based quality assurance system for residential aged care services. We have developed, in consultation with the industry and in a way which reflects practices in many other industries, a form of accreditation. As agreed with the industry, the providers will be required to pay a fee to cover some of the costs of accreditation. It will not in any case be more than one per cent of the revenue going to that particular nursing home. We are providing a subsidy level on a sliding scale that is linked to the number of approved places or beds that are owned by the facility. The fees are for all providers and they will be subsidised by the government. The fee and subsidy levels have been developed using coverage and industry income, and the cost to each service will be less than one per cent of average annual income. Providers with fewer than 10 beds will be fully subsidised; those with up to 19 beds will be partially subsidised. All Commonwealth funded aged care facilities need to meet accreditation standards by 1 January 2001 and they need to have applied for accreditation by January next year. If they have not done so, there will be no Commonwealth funding.I go back to the comments made by the member for Grayndler in relation to competition. What we need a bit more of in this sector is competition, not less of it. I have not yet been through this process with my own parents, but over the years I have been through it with patients and their families. When you reach that point where an aged care assessment team assesses a person's needs and says that residential care is required, there is no market; you basically have to go where you are told to go.Some of the places into which people go are dumps, but they have no choice. With an accommodation charge of $4,380 perhaps being required for each year for up to five years, prospective residents and their families—and perhaps in some cases their lawyers—are now at least actually asking questions about the quality of the facilities into which they are going. However, if nursing home occupancies were 95, 90 or 85 per cent, perhaps the proprietors, people running hotels or motels, would have more incentive to put on extra rooms, to put money into painting and upgrading the facility—in other words, to make that facility more attractive to those people who essentially are buyers subsidised by the government in the marketplace, with the assistance of aged care assessment teams.Essentially, the process of accreditation will require self-assessment by a provider. The provider then applies to the Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency, and the provider can nominate three preferred assessors. There is then a desk audit and, if that is okay, they will move on to a site audit. The decision to accredit will be for a period of between one and three years. This is a process that is very much long overdue.In concluding, I would just say this: one of the tragedies of our parliament is that, no matter what the government does or whoever the government is, the opposition feels it has a moral obligation to oppose everything that is being suggested. I just repeat what I said when all of these reforms went through. By all means, criticise the detail of what the government is doing even while supporting that detail. But, as a matter of principle, it is absolutely critical to this country that we introduce a form of sustainable funding for residential aged care which ensures not only that there is a place available when we eventually need it but also that it is a place of quality and one in which you would be proud to be placed or have a member of your family placed. If we do not set into this system now some kind of user-pays provision for those who can afford to pay it, we are abrogating our responsibilities to the future of aged care in particular. (Time expired)Debate (on motion by Mr Tanner) adjourned. Bills7049r8617049Bill presented by Mr Anderson, and read a first time.704921:33:007049Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme Bill 1999 represents the fulfilment of commitments that the government made to Australia's rural and regional heartland in the lead-up to the 1998 election. It is being introduced in conjunction with the Customs and Excise Amendment (Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme) Bill 1999 , which implements changes to the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme that extend both the range of eligible uses and magnitude of benefits available under the scheme, although not to the extent originally proposed by the government in A New Tax System, ANTS.In the lead-up to the last election, the government promised that the impact of the goods and services tax on petrol and diesel prices would not just be offset by reductions in excise to ensure that the price at the pump did not rise.Recognising Australia's dependence on transport due to the vast size of our continent, we also promised that the price of our major transport fuel, diesel, would fall and fall very substantially to the benefit of businesses and consumers—in particular for those people living in regional, rural and remote areas, where transport costs are a significant part of the cost of living and doing business.Under this bill and the customs bill, and the environment expenditure package agreed between the government and the Australian Democrats, there will be large and enduring benefits to regional Australia, to the environment and to transport operators in the road, rail and marine sectors. Businesses across Australia will all pay less for fuel than they do now because they will get back the GST paid on inputs, including fuel. It is expected that businesses should save around 6c to 7c per litre by this measure alone, although the actual amount will not be determined until next year after the final pre-GST half-yearly CPI adjustment to excise rates.In addition to the GST input tax credits on fuel purchased, the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grant Scheme will provide a further major cut in costs, with grants in the order of 16c to 17c per litre of diesel used for a wide variety of Australian businesses that provide transport services to country areas. These include:. interstate and city-country road transport;. the transport of goods from all Australia's rural export regions and processing centres to their markets in the city or offshore;. essential inputs being transferred from ports or factories in the city to the bush; and. the very bread and butter, indeed all of the goods, consumed by people living in country areas across this vast continent.In addition to the grants available under this scheme, which extend to cover alternative fuels, the government is extending concessions available under the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme. The major additional benefits are:. firstly, recognition of the rail industry as an off-road user of diesel and the consequent extension to rail operators of the full rebate of excise on diesel;. secondly, extension of the full rebate for diesel and like fuels to marine use and other existing qualifying uses, including agriculture, fishing and mining;. however, in the case of forestry, this industry will continue to have access to the rebate in the proportion that it currently receives.The government's objective has always been to reduce the price of transport fuels for business. However, in order to honour the agreement reached with the Democrats, it is no longer possible to deliver this entirely through the tax system. As the intention is to offset costs for only a specified part of the transport fleet and its users—those servicing regional areas—the tax system is, on legal advice, an inappropriate means by which to deliver the benefits. Thus we will deliver this measure through a grants scheme. In addition to this, the use of a broad-ranging grants scheme will make the transition to the new long-term scheme of energy credits foreshadowed in the bill much easier, reducing the impact on industry of multiple changes to arrangements.As agreed between the government and the Democrats, the grant for diesel use in prescribed vehicles and prescribed areas will be set so as to provide a cumulative reduction in the cost of diesel by around 23c per litre, when the GST input tax credits are added in.The bill not only provides grants for diesel fuel use but also covers alternative fuels, including CNG and LPG, canola, ethanol and recycled oil. Grant rates for each of these fuels will be established by regulation so as to maintain the current price relativities between them and diesel, given that, unlike diesel, they are not subject to excise. Additional fuels may be added by regulation. The grants will be potentially available for all road transport vehicles above 4.5 tonnes, however, fuels used in vehicles between 4.5 tonnes and 20 tonnes gross vehicle mass will qualify only in the following circumstances:. if the vehicle is engaged in transporting goods or passengers within regional Australia;. between a metropolitan area and a regional point (and vice versa); or. between metropolitan areas on an interstate journey.Fuel used in vehicles of 20 tonnes or more gross vehicle mass will qualify if used by a business for road transport, and if the business is registered for the purposes of the scheme with the Australian Taxation Office. The explanatory memorandum accompanying the bill contains some examples of qualifying journeys, and I commend it to members.Members will recall that previously the ANTS package had proposed that diesel fuel credits be available to vehicles of 3.5 tonnes GVM or greater. However, this had the potential to encourage business operators to switch to heavier vehicles in order to capture the benefits of the diesel fuel credits. The result could also have been an unintended switch from petrol to diesel powered vehicles, with consequent increases in particulate emissions.The use of 4.5 tonnes as the cut-off point under this bill for a grant scheme removes these unintended incentives. 4.5 tonnes is a natural cut-off point for vehicle classes because different licensing requirements apply at this level—a truck drivers licence is needed to operate such vehicles. In addition, very few transport vehicles use petrol at this new threshold. Some 99.9 per cent of articulated vehicles and 90.5 per cent of rigid trucks already use diesel, as do a similar percentage of the bus fleet. Thus, the scope for fuel switching in heavier vehicles is extremely limited under this bill. In fact, viewed in the context of the full set of environmental commitments made by the government, particulates emissions in cities will actually fall substantially.The Bureau of Transport Economics has estimated that, based on its projections of fuel use, reflecting anticipated growth in the national transport task, fuel use would have increased by approximately 50 per cent by 2015—and by more with the added economic stimulus of the tax package boosting national productivity and our export competitiveness. As a result, there would have been a substantial increase in particulate matter emissions—and I emphasise that this is the case with or without the new tax system. In capital cities, where the health impacts and associated costs were likely to have been most noticed, this would have seen an increase from 5.7 gigagrams of particulate emissions in 1997 to 10.3 gigagrams by 2015.With the establishment of:. standards for low sulphur diesel in 2002,. incentives for the introduction of ultra low sulphur diesel from 2003,. the introduction of mandatory ultra low sulphur diesel standards from 2006, plus. the vehicle emission standards to be determined and gazetted before this bill takes effect,it is now expected that particulate matter emissions across Australia will be no greater in 2015 than they were in 1997. And in cities, where the issue is potentially at its most serious, pollutant levels should fall from the 5.7 gigagrams noted earlier to 4.2 gigagrams—a 26 per cent reduction.I would like to underline what a great achievement this is when one considers the anticipated growth in the national transport task over this period that I have mentioned already. Improved emission standards for both petrol and diesel vehicles are effectively incorporated into this bill.Section 2 of the bill outlines the commitments we have given in this regard. The commencement of the act is contingent upon them being implemented in Australian Design Rules made under the Motor Vehicle Standards Act. Dates of application have been specifically incorporated in the bill at the request of the Democrats and I am repeating their intent today, because of the complexity of the subject. The outline in the bill in substance recognises our obligations to apply:. Euro 2 emission standards to all new light diesel in 2002, and continuing models from 2003;. Euro 3 to all new medium and heavy diesel models in 2002, and continuing models from 2003;. Euro 4 to all new diesel models from 2006, and continuing models from 2007;. Euro 2 to all new petrol models from 2003, and continuing models from 2004; and. Euro 3 to new petrol models from 2005, and continuing models from 2006.The exception noted in section 2 of the bill is important. Our vehicle industry would have serious difficulty coping with the application of standards under Euro 4 for petrol vehicles. We thus have yet to make a commitment in that area, and the legislation is intended to reflect this.Overall, the benefit is huge. These standards will mean that emission rates from oxides of nitrogen and particulates in new medium to heavy duty trucks will be:. 40 per cent and 70 per cent lower respectively after 2002; and. 50 per cent and 90 per cent lower respectively after 2006 than they are in vehicles meeting current standards.There has also been some acrimonious debate over carbon dioxide and related greenhouse gas emissions, with the suggestion that greenhouse gas emissions will increase as a result of this package. We need to get this issue straight. Greenhouse gas emissions are a serious matter and one which the government intends to address seriously. But expecting the tax package to solve such an issue is nonsense. Greenhouse gases emitted by the transport sector continue to grow for a reason—the reason is that the economy continues to grow, and transport grows with it. Moreover, there is nothing written in stone or derived from logic that says transport emissions must not rise. For Australia, the question must be what is the least-cost adjustment to reach the Kyoto Convention target, not simply transferring that target to each sector.Clearly, taxing our transport sector more heavily in order to suppress demand for transport is an unacceptable option, unless we are also attempting to suppress overall economic growth. As a nation, we need to recognise diesel is our main heavy transport fuel. The solution to lower emissions growth in transport lies with improved engine efficiency, use of intelligent transport systems, better intermodal transfer efficiency, higher public transport efficiency and better land use planning.It is not affected in any substantial way by the price of fuel. The price of fuel has been increased by taxation very significantly in Australia over many years, with not much impact on growth in demand for its use. It is relative pricing that will matter, not the absolute level, as this bill itself demonstrates with its plan to maintain the differentials between fuels. Under a high fuel tax regime, all that will change is the cost of doing business in Australia and, for transport dependent communities in regional Australia, that is not the soft option that it is for some city based think tanks.We also intend that a further bill, putting in place the administrative arrangements, including the compliance mechanisms needed to support this bill, will be introduced by the government in the spring sittings in consultation with the Australian Democrats. We will be seeking passage of the administration bill prior to Christmas in order that industry can develop record keeping arrangements and plan with confidence for the introduction of the grants scheme on 1 July next year.Mr Crean interjecting—4K4Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON—They could certainly plan with confidence if the Labor Party were in, but the confidence would be that fuel excise rates would continue to rise, just like they did despite the commitments they gave the Australian electorate prior to 1993. The administrative arrangements will be developed by the Australian Taxation Office in consultation with the Australian National Audit Office, and its views will be factored into the compliance and audit procedures.It is the government's intention that the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme and the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme will sunset in mid-2002 and be replaced with an Energy Grants (Credits) Scheme. The future Energy Grants Scheme will maintain benefits that are equivalent to those available under the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Credit Scheme and the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme.Very importantly, it is the government's intention that the Energy Grants Scheme will also provide active encouragement for the move to the use of cleaner fuels by measures additional to those available under the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme. The detail of the Energy Grants Scheme will be developed jointly by the government and the Australian Democrats and introduced through a jointly sponsored bill.This bill is being introduced in a highly charged atmosphere, where emotion may cloud reason. However, there is every reason for all members to support it because lower transport costs benefit all Australians and because of the significant improvements to emission standards inherent in it. Good policy is producing cheaper transport costs at the same time as helping clean up the air in our cities. This bill makes a substantial contribution to the case for tax reform—for without tax reform, the funding required to support it would simply not be available. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum to the bill.Debate (on motion by Mr Tanner) adjourned.Bills7053r8627053Bill presented by Mr Anderson, and read a first time.705321:49:007053Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The Customs and Excise Amendment (Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme) Bill 1999 implements changes to the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme agreed with the Australian Democrats as part of the package of environmental measures that will now accompany the introduction of the new tax system on 1 July 2000. The broad details of the environmental package, in so far as it applies to the use of diesel and alternative fuels, has been covered in my second reading speech introducing the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme Bill 1999 , as have the broad details of changes to the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme.The main features of the Customs and Excise Amendment (Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme) Bill 1999 are as follows. It introduces a 100 per cent rebate for all diesel used by registered businesses in rail transport and in the marine industry. It provides for the rebates available for diesel to also be made available to qualifying users of like fuels such as light fuel oil and bunker fuel. These like fuels will be prescribed. The full rebate will be extended to existing qualifying users, including agriculture, fishing and mining, as well as private residences, bush and other nursing homes, hospitals and aged persons homes.This means that the government intends to rebate all the excise paid on diesel and like fuels for use in primary production and all currently qualifying mining uses. Currently they do not receive a full rebate. Forestry will continue to have access to the rebate in the proportion it currently receives. The Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme will sunset on 30 June 2002, and benefits equivalent to those available under it will be grandfathered into the new Energy Grants (Credits) Scheme that will come into effect on 1 July 2002.Those off-road businesses that receive rebates under this scheme can be assured that the government will ensure these benefits are not diminished under the new Energy Grants Scheme. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum to the bill.Debate (on motion by Mr Tanner) adjourned.Bills7053r8427053Debate resumed from 10 June, on motion by Mrs Bronwyn Bishop:That the bill be now read a second time.21:51:007053Zahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA84HMcMillanALP00—I welcome the opportunity to speak to the Aged Care Amendment (Omnibus) Bill 1999 . The mark of any civilised society is the way they care for the most disadvantaged in their community. Amongst the most disadvantaged in our community in Australia certainly are the aged, and in particular the frail aged. When you look at the way this government has looked after the most disadvantaged in our community, I think you would have to give them a fairly poor score. When you look at the way they have treated the indigenous people in our community and the way they have cut funding and shown a contemptuous view to our indigenous Australians, I think you would have to say that that reflects a fairly poor attitude on their part to helping a group within the community which is particularly disadvantaged.When you look at the way they have treated young people—a group of people who are growing increasingly alienated from the mainstream in Australia—and the way they have introduced programs like Work for the Dole and have cut the common youth allow ance and regional universities and TAFE colleges, I think you would have to give them a fairly poor score. When it comes to the elderly, in particular the frail elderly who are in nursing homes, I think that by any assessment people objectively looking at the performance of this government would have to say that the government has failed the elderly in our community.I welcome one provision in particular in this bill—that is, the provision which allows for the repayment of the asset tested aged care levy of $12 a day introduced by this government over the last few years. We had a situation in my electorate where this was of particular importance. This bill attempts, and this is why I am very pleased to see that it is included in the provisions of this bill, to allow for the repayment of moneys which have been incorrectly paid by these people to nursing homes—that is, those people who were asked to pay this extra asset tested charge of $12 a day because they were put in a nursing home after October 1997. That money is now going to be repaid to them.We had this situation in my electorate. It attracted an enormous amount of community attention. People in the community of McMillan appreciate that, whilst it is happening to only a small number of people now, and I think it only affected 12 or 14 people, it stands to affect a significant number of people in the future. They care about the way the elderly are looked after now because they recognise that it will be their mums and dads and their relatives in the future. This has always been the strength of people in the Latrobe Valley in particular and of people in McMillan more generally.I think it is worth mentioning the details of the particular nursing home which I am referring to for the information of this House. This is probably the second or third time I have spoken about this issue in this chamber, such is its importance in my electorate. What happened in my electorate was that the Latrobe Valley Nursing Home was privatised when the Latrobe Regional Hospital in the Latrobe Valley was privatised. Quite simply, the ramifications of this meant that the Latrobe Valley Nursing Home was put out to tender by the Department of Human Services and in the end a group called Croft Health Care Vic Pty Ltd took over the operations of that nursing home. This is the only nursing home in the town of Moe.The town of Moe is no rinky-dink little country town. It is a town which supports a population of 17,000 people. This is the only nursing home in that town. Croft Health Care Vic took over the operation of this nursing home and, as part of the deal done with the Department of Human Services, relocated and built a brand new nursing home. It did not exactly move the nursing home to another town; it moved the nursing home about two streets away from where it was. It moved it from Ollerton Avenue to another part of Moe. This does not represent an enormous move on behalf of a nursing home, yet it took this opportunity when it moved residence from this one part of Moe to another part of Moe to reclassify existing residents as new residents which allowed them, for the purposes of the legislation, to charge this additional new asset tested fee of up to $12 per day.As I mentioned, we are not talking about a large number of people, but the number of people we are talking about is almost irrelevant. If it happens to one person, it is a problem. In the case of the Latrobe Valley, it happened to at least 12, 13 or 14 people, but I am not sure of the exact figure. These people who were relocated from this publicly run nursing home in Moe to this new privately run facility just up the road were charged this additional new fee. An extra $12 a day to people who do not have much money is a significant amount to be expected to pay. About half a dozen families approached me and said, `Christian, you've got to help us out with this situation because, basically, we have now become desperate as a result of this additional new fee.' People were very concerned that the tiny amount of money which a lot of families and estates have been able to save up in the course of their working lives stood to be eaten up in the course of the imposition of this additional new fee.It is worth mentioning in this chamber the type of work which we do in the Latrobe Valley. Quite a few members would under stand that the Latrobe Valley region is one which supports the power industry. It is very hard work which these men and women who work in that sector do. I mention this only to paint a picture to this House, because I think it is important to understand the level of commitment which the people who are in this particular nursing home have made.These men and women who are in this nursing home have often worked their whole lives in the power industry, in a hard industry often with very few occupational health and safety standards and long hours expected of them. They have struggled their whole lives and have tried to achieve the best for their children through their struggle and sacrifice. In their moment of greatest need in aged care and after paying taxes their whole lives, these people get shunted off into this private nursing home and have this additional new fee imposed upon them. This fee stood to take away from them a significant amount of the money which they would have been able to pass on to their children.From the point of view of ordinary working people, probably amongst the most important things you can do in your life is pay for your home and hopefully have something to pass on to your children when you pass on. For these people who worked and struggled their whole lives in a really hard industry, that very special thing they had which they wanted to pass on to their children—that is, their assets—stood to be taken away from them. I consider that a very unfair thing. In the case of Narracan Gardens aged care facility, run by Croft Health Care Vic Pty Ltd, headed by Graeme Croft, this company made a decision that they would reclassify these relocated existing residents in the new nursing home and call them new residents. I consider this to be a most improper decision on their part. I think it reflects why we need to be so cautious in aged care when we consider the role of the private sector.The nature of the private sector in aged care is perhaps understandably to make a dollar. My view is that in aged care we need to put in place structures which maximise the care ahead of the profit. Certainly this was not the case. It contrasts, I think, quite well with the situation which occurred in Bendigo. The Bendigo Health Care Group found itself in a very similar situation where it had relocated residents from its community run nursing home into another new facility which it had built and found that it was perhaps legally possible for it to charge this additional new fee.The Bendigo Health Care Group, which is a public health care group, took a decision that it would not impose this additional new fee. I applaud the Bendigo Health Care Group for making that decision. I think it reflects its commitment to the community and I think it reflects the right attitude to aged care—that is, we are not here to make a buck out of these people; we are here to respect these people. The spirit of the legislation did not really allow for those people who were existing residents to be charged this fee; it was supposed to be for new residents. I think the Bendigo Health Care Group did the right thing.Given that it has done the right thing—and in my view Croft Health Care in the Latrobe Valley did the wrong thing—I think it is important for me to point out to this chamber that Croft Health Care Vic, which charged a dozen people in the Latrobe Valley this additional new fee, which equates to about $3,500 each, will be able to hang on to the money that it has collected and the money will be repaid to the residents. So the Bendigo Health Care Group, which has done the right thing and not charged that fee, will now miss out on around $35,000 or thereabouts from the Commonwealth government.So you have this obscene situation where the Bendigo Health Care Group has done the right thing and the Croft Health Care in the Latrobe Valley run by Graham Croft has done the greedy private sector thing and has not respected the residents, and it will be allowed to get away with it. It will get an extra $35,000 from the Commonwealth, which I do not think it should get. I think that is an important point to make and often in politics and public life these obscene situations can be thrown up, but I think it is important for this House to recognise that the government's failings with regard to aged care have thrown up this particular, I think, quite obscene situation.There remains a number of unresolved issues with regard to this bill. I raise them on behalf of my constituents because I am sure that the half a dozen or so families who have approached me about this issue will ask that they be addressed by this parliament. Quite simply, people want to know when they will receive the $3,500 which they are owed from the Commonwealth. People want to know a date when they are going to get that money back from the Commonwealth. Given the history and behaviour of Graham Croft and Croft Health Care Vic Pty Ltd in the Latrobe Valley, I have to tell you that there is not a whole lot of goodwill towards Mr Croft and they do not particularly trust him. So I think it is important that the minister at some point clarifies exactly when that money should be paid to them. They simply do not trust the advice which they are given by Graham Croft in this case, and I think it is important that the Commonwealth set out exactly when that money should be repaid.There is also a question as to whether any interest will be paid on the money which is outstanding. There has been around $3,500, I think quite clearly, unfairly collected. I think these people could well argue that interest should be paid on the $3,500 that has been held for a period of 12 or 14 months or however long it has been.There is a more complicated issue as well, which I will not try to address in the short period of time I have available tonight. The issue is: what about those people who have actually passed away since this has all happened? The nature of nursing homes now in 1999 is that when you are admitted to a nursing home today you are at the high end of the need scale—that is, quite typically, you do not see people living in nursing homes for many years on end as perhaps you once did five or 10 years ago. My question is: for those people whose estates are owed money—that is, those people's families who are owed money because of this mistake which has been made by the federal government—when will those families be approached, how will they be approached and when will they receive their money which is owed to them? I think these are significant issues which the government needs to address.I would also like to mention briefly here tonight my views about the role of the private sector in aged care. I think it is terribly important that we be cautious about the role of the private sector in aged care. I am certainly not someone who would blindly pursue a zero private sector approach in the aged care sector. However, in those circumstances where we are talking seriously about alternative modes of delivery of aged care services and looking to the private sector or perhaps other groups—other non-government groups—to deliver those services, we need to be cautious always of the role of the private sector, given that its very intuitive decision making is all about making a dollar. Certainly in the case of Croft Health Care Vic Pty Ltd and the nursing home in Moe, I have had several complaints from residents concerning the standard of care. I should point out that they have nothing to do with the hardworking and committed staff there, but rather the resource levels which have been made available by the manager of Croft Health Care Vic.I think this is a substantial issue. It is probably very important for my generation of public office holders because, as has been pointed out by the member for Bradfield in particular, this is going to be an extremely significant issue for people in public life over the next 15, 20, 25 years. I hope I will still be representing the seat of McMillan all those years from now.In my experience in the aged care sector in my electorate of McMillan—I have probably been to most of the aged care hostels and nursing homes in my electorate—I have been impressed time and time again by the high level of commitment of the dedicated staff. I think they really are the unsung heroes of that sector in that, given the amount of funding which has been cut and the amount of pressure which has been placed on them, in particular by accreditation, they keep delivering day in day out to people who are amongst the most disadvantaged group within that community, and by that I mean the frail elderly.The accreditation process is something that is also worth mentioning in this place. Accreditation is, I think, broadly supported by people on both sides of politics in Australia. My concern is quite simply that not enough resources are being given to the community sector in particular to allow them to get through the accreditation exercise. I have come across a number of nursing homes in my electorate in which people in roles within those nursing homes are being expected to contribute to the accreditation process, to the detriment of other work which they are doing. As all honourable members in this House would understand, if the work does not get done it simply does not get done—there are no little fairies in nursing homes who go around and do the work for you.My concern is that we have set the high jump bar higher now for nursing homes, including community run nursing homes, without really providing them with the resourcing and support which they need to meet the new standards. I am very conscious of that because I think the privately run nursing homes often have considerable resources, as the honourable member for Bradfield mentioned in his remarks. He mentioned some of the fine things which they have in life, such as Bentleys and a few other extravagances. That tells me that he fundamentally agrees with our view that these people have significant resources and that they can afford to invest heavily in the accreditation process.On 1 January 2001, no-one will receive a dollar of Commonwealth subsidy for aged care facilities unless they are accredited. What this really means is that those community run nursing homes will be at a disadvantage because they do not have the resources up-front to be able to get on with the accreditation exercise. We need to make sure that those community run facilities are not left behind. It would be a very sad thing indeed if we ended up with a quickening of the privatisation process in aged care as a result simply of community run facilities not being given adequate resources to meet the accreditation standards.In conclusion, this debate most importantly needs to be about ensuring public confidence in the aged care system in Australia. There must be public confidence in Australia's aged care system, and it must be accountable, because over the next 25 to 30 years more and more of our relatives, our friends, our workmates, their parents, our cousins—all the people we know and mix with in our community—will be accessing support from an aged care facility. Families will not access support, and they will not access that support comfortably, unless they believe that the aged care facilities that their loved ones are going into are quality facilities where they will get the support which they deserve.We provide around $30,000 worth of Commonwealth subsidy per nursing home bed, depending on the particular nursing home bed, and we really need to make sure that we put some caveats on that funding. We cannot just give money out without knowing exactly what people are doing with those funds. It is extremely important that we make sure that that money is spent in accordance with the high standards which Labor had when we were in government last, when we put in place a more stringent set of criteria for nursing homes and the funding which we provided to them. I conclude by simply stating my commitment to the aged care sector and to making sure that we have high quality community run facilities where possible—privately run, but controlled and properly checked by appropriate government mechanisms as well—and that the high standard of aged care facilities in Australia is maintained and improved so that everyone in this country can put their loved ones there with confidence. (Time expired)22:12:007057Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—I am very pleased to speak to the Aged Care Amendment (Omnibus) Bill 1999 tonight because it reflects the Howard government's commitment to older Australians. When the Howard government came into office in March 1996, we inherited an aged care legislation regime that had very little regard for maintaining and ensuring the quality of service delivered to older Australians. Addressing these shortcomings was one of the major priorities of this government. The bill before the House today builds on many of the reforms that were introduced in the 38th parliament by implementing a number of finetuning measures and by resolving a few administrative and procedural issues that have emerged following the commencement of the reform process in October 1997. Significantly, for the benefit of members opposite, the bill also meets an election commitment—something that the Labor Party has never been terribly adept at. It is implementing a 1999 budget initiative.Responsible government is about ensuring that all citizens, both young and old, can have security and a really decent standard of living. Through responsible economic management practices, this government has delivered an economic environment not seen since the end of the 1960s: strong economic growth, low inflation and strong consumer and business confidence. That environment has been good for average Australians as well as older Australians. Low interest rates have made the Australian dream much more affordable and within the reach of many Australians. That is of course the exact opposite of the experience of many battling Australian families while the economy was under the combined stewardship of the former member for Blaxland and the member for Brand. Australians can still recall the abysmal policy prescription of the Australian Labor Party in the late 1980s and early to mid 1990s. Labor's inability to break free of the shackles of sectional interest groups was a policy and fiscal disaster for all Australians, but it was particularly so for older Australians.Labor's collective policy prescriptions, their ideological preoccupations, created an environment in which older people were effectively denied choice, and that is what the bill we are debating tonight is about: choice. This was exemplified by an underprovision of services and help to those older people—and the Labor Party may find this surprising—who actually wanted to stay in their homes. Isn't that something that we all want to do, particularly when we get older? The Prime Minister recognised this particular shortcoming in Australia's aged care policy and readdressed the situation through the government's Staying at Home package. Those measures were very well received in my electorate of Petrie. What were they really about? They were about giving older Australians choices and flexibility about how, as individuals, they wanted to live their lives.I recently attended a forum in my electorate of Petrie that discussed some of the community care packages that are available out in the community. There were representatives from local councils and state government, and I represented the federal government. There were some 150 older people at this particular community forum, and what they wanted was to stay at home as long as possible. Security and care issues were important to them, as was being able to stay in their homes and have help with home assist and with maintenance. All those sorts of things came up. But the overwhelming conclusion of that meeting was that people wanted to stay in their homes as long as possible. They felt that they should have that freedom and that particular choice. This is what this government's community care packages are about.Also, a recent government initiative that I want to highlight is the $7 million that will be spent on a very important program to eliminate danger in the home for older Australians. Older Australians have a huge predisposition to falls in the home. This program will certainly be very welcome in the community and will help ensure the safety of older Australians and promote a greater awareness of the sorts of accidents that older people have.Given the Labor Party's policies, I think it is fair to say that the ALP actually forgot about older Australians as individuals and that they had a right to exercise their choice. The coalition is committed to choice for all Australians, whether it is how they receive their health care or whether they want to join a union. The same applies to aged care. Ensuring that Australians have a choice means ensuring that the expectation of the community of the highest possible standards is maintained. Within the area of aged care the coalition has ensured that many older Austral ians have a choice between home and community based care and that offered by residential aged care service providers. As I said in my opening remarks, this bill before the House this evening addresses the second option that older Australians have when it comes to aged care services.Just as the Australian Labor Party chose to ignore home based care when they were in government, they also let the standard of residential aged care services decline to a level where some nursing homes were struggling to provide safe living environments for older Australians. One of the unfortunate things that happened to me when I became the member for Petrie was having to deal with one such facility, and I must say that it consumed most of my time. The care of the residents in a particular facility in my electorate was definitely below standard. A member earlier spoke about a more responsible allocation of resources by the previous government to ensure that nursing homes spent their funding wisely. Unfortunately, there was also a lack of adequate standards and care in these nursing homes, particularly in the care of the elderly. This was something that was abhorrent to me in this particular nursing home. Clearly that situation has been rectified, but it did not come without a price and it did not come without upsetting a number of residents. A number of aged care assessment teams have visited this particular facility, and I commend them on the work that they do. Aged care assessment teams have done a terrific job in this particular sector.When the health of older Australians is on the line, it is absolutely vital that the older and more frail members of the community have this sort of protection and that their families are confident that they are safe and very well looked after. The Howard government has been very determined to address the situation and we have done a number of things. Firstly, there is the fact that, as the Minister for Aged Care pointed out, there have been increased outlays on residential care during successive Howard governments. Secondly, there is the fact that there has been a growth in care places. It is very important to highlight those things.As the federal representative of some 17,250 people who are over the age of 65, I can personally say that I am acutely aware and respectful of the needs of older Australians. We are living longer; we are living healthier lives. We have a number of active community groups in Petrie that I have had the personal pleasure of getting very well acquainted with. One is the cardiac rehab group. I must say that when I was invited to go along on their walk again this year I had to put myself in training. Some of these older Australians are fitter than I am because of the wonderful walks that they go on and their commitment to health and maintaining a healthy lifestyle. It certainly gives me a run for my money every year when I join the cardiac rehab walk and I have a hard time keeping up with them. That is a terrific spin-off of all this because it tells me a number of things: older Australians are taking greater care of their health, they are living longer, they are eating better and they are exercising. They are mindful of a number of these factors. We are an ageing community and we have to look to the future to make sure that we do plan for our older Australians.I am very proud to be a member of a government which has the courage, the conviction and the tenacity to fix the problems that Labor let fester through their lack of political acumen. Not only have the Labor Party got a solid record of bad policy based on political expediency in government but also they seem to have maintained this in opposition—so much so that, as I am advised, they are opposing some of the measures contained in this particular bill tonight. Perhaps the most bizarre thing about the position taken by the Labor Party is that they are now opposing a number of these very positive and progressive measures that will create new protection for residents of aged care facilities.It is important to ensure that the standards of care and service that nursing home residents receive are not only maintained but improved. The government has introduced accommodation charges so that people who can afford to make a contribution are able to improve the quality of care in nursing homes. This bill does not change the nature and level of these charges but, instead, formalises them in principal legislation, with the aim of making sure that a range of protective measures for accommodation charges for residents are in line with those that apply to accommodation bonds. For instance, in cases where a person has a concessional status vis-a-vis an accommodation bond, this bill ensures that the concessional status will apply with respect to the accommodation charge. At the moment, concessional status is guaranteed only for a person who it is deemed would suffer financial hardship when it comes to the payment of an accommodation bond. This bill will address that situation.The bill expands the definition of a concessional resident so many more older Australians will not have to pay an accommodation charge or bond. I know that there has been considerable mention of accommodation bonds by the members opposite. The system of accommodation bonds has existed for a very long time and was actually introduced by the former government. It dealt with hostels, and the hostel sector was working perfectly. One day I visited a particular hostel in my electorate and was shown the books of the previous five years. I was quite pleased to see that they showed that when the residents left the hostel they got back all the accommodation bond they had put in. The hostel was able to use that bond for capital expansion and for capital processes. All this scaremongering about accommodation bonds was absolutely uncalled for. It was working in the hostel sector and it was working well. Those on the other side brought that particular measure in. With this in mind, I think it is fair to say that one would consider it somewhat odd that the members opposite would oppose such a measure.The same can be said for a measure which will exempt current nursing home residents from accommodation charges if they were in care at the time of the act's assent and may wish to move to another nursing home. What is more, residents who move from one home to another will be refunded the accommodation charges they have already paid. This is another aspect of the bill which one would have thought the Labor Party would have supported. What would be fairer than a refund of the accommodation charges that residents have already paid, if they move from one facility to the next? The measure also excludes rental income from the pension income test and removes the value of property from the assets test. That is a very positive measure.All of these measures are positive measures that restore the equity and responsibility considerations by ensuring that those who cannot afford to contribute do not and those who can afford it do contribute. What can be fairer than that? They are the solid foundations upon which to build an aged care system that will deliver quality to all older Australians. I am passionate about older Australians. I feel that they have contributed much to society and that we should care for them. When I first heard the Labor Party were not supporting these measures I was totally stunned. After my initial shock I realised that they have conducted an irresponsible campaign all the way through this. They have achieved nothing but scared older members of the community. They continue to scare the frailest older members of the community. They also have caused concern to adult children and grandchildren. They continue to scare members of the entire family.But, as with their position on tax reform, the Labor Party have consistently argued for the maintenance of a very mediocre system that has always failed the Australian public. Many of these nursing home facilities were substandard and needed a great deal of upgrading and attention. I am not going to apologise for the accreditation process. It is long overdue. It will bring a greater standard of health care for all people. Restructuring grants are available. A member spoke earlier about community based nursing homes which did not have the money to contribute to the accreditation process. Many homes out there can apply for these restructuring grants. They are available to help nursing homes that are in those predicaments. Accreditation is the way we have to go. I am fully supportive of it. If it means a better quality of life and a greater standard of health for our older Australians, it is to be supported consistently. The Labor Party seem content for Australians to have a substandard tax system and also a substandard aged care system.IK6LLOYDMr Lloyd—It is a substandard Labor Party.9K6Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO—Absolutely right, Member for Robertson. The Labor Party, it would seem, are the main proponents of keeping an inadequate aged care facility system. They want older Australians to live in nursing homes that are below standard. It is just not acceptable. I will continue to do all I can in the Petrie electorate to make sure that we have high standards of nursing home facilities. I would like to urge the Labor Party to rethink their position, to support this bill and be seen as a caring party interested in helping Australians rise above mediocrity. Mediocrity is what the Labor Party have always been about. How about putting some new standards into aged care facilities? How about raising those standards and making sure that we look after the people who need it the most?Debate (on motion by Mr Andren) adjourned.Adjournment7061Motion (by Mr Anthony) proposed:That the House do now adjourn.706122:29:007061McFarlane, Jann, MPMs JANN McFARLANE83CStirlingALP00—Members, I stand here tonight to protest about this government's destruction by stealth of the social security safety net. I understand better than most people the role the social security safety net plays in people's lives. Having grown up in rural Australia my family, like many others, felt the effects of poverty, especially when flood, bushfire or other natural disaster devastated the area and the local economy. When work stopped, income also stopped. There was little in the way of social security to assist my family and other families during these difficult times.For the last 25 years I have worked in the community and welfare sector, assisting people who are struggling to find their feet when affected by accident, illness or other unexpected circumstance. At these times, people need to call on the social security safety net, a safety net that Labor governments worked to ensure was relevant, responsive and comprehensive. People now are battling a system which is renowned for being complex and unforgiving. It is getting worse.As the member for Stirling in Western Australia I see daily the impact that this government's miserly and unsympathetic approach to income support is having on ordinary people trying to live a life with some dignity. The problem for these people is that the cutbacks are being made in lots of small areas—just a nick here, or a shave there. It is subtle, it is unfair and it is targeting those least able, or likely, to stand up for themselves. This government, which tried to hand massive tax cuts to its mates on high incomes under their version of a regressive and unfair GST, is doing nothing but taking from the real battlers in our society.I would like to highlight some of the cuts which are affecting people in my electorate. There is the efficiency dividend. Since this government came to power, they have systematically downgraded the social security system. The government's economic rationalist knife will cut 5,000 staff positions from Centrelink over a three-year period; 2,400 staff positions alone were lost last year. What does this mean for people and for staff? Constituents tell me tales of queues at the offices, long waits on the so-called phone help lines, being told things will take a few days and then ending up taking weeks to be fixed. There is also the issue of the overpayments because of staff error. It leaves clients feeling frustrated and powerless—victims of a system, instead of participants.I have tried to ring the Centrelink teleservice phone numbers and have experienced long waits to get through to a staff member. I have visited my local Centrelink offices and seen first-hand the stress that staff are experiencing in trying to provide a timely and efficient service to the people waiting in the queues. Let me make it clear that I think Centrelink staff are dedicated, hardworking people who are currently being expected to work miracles.Battling the Centrelink system wears people down. Let me tell a particularly tragic story. A very bright young man came to my office and wanted to tell me his story. He had decided to change his life, to study as a mature age student in the area of health care. He was eligible for a study benefit, but it was not enough to live on. So he organised to study full time and found part-time work. His benefit was cut off several times because the review letters were sent to the wrong address. He got overpaid and then had to reorganise his budget to allow for repayments to Centrelink. He then got a bit of extra work, but that changed his entitlement so the money did not make up for the loss of entitlement. Every time there was a problem he was asked to fill in forms, attend the Centrelink office to speak to his case officer and make phone calls. These cost time and effort.Being constantly broke, never being sure whether his benefit would arrive, preparing arguments and appeals, and hanging on the end of a phone trying to discover why his benefit had been cut yet again finally got too much. When he last called my office he was about to give up studying, despite good marks. As a result, we have probably lost from our health system a very fine young man who would have made a caring and compassionate nurse and who had special cultural understandings that would have enabled him to make a valuable contribution in the health arena.There are other cuts. A special telephone service for the hearing impaired was launched. Again, I tried the line and there were long waits to get through. My colleague in the other chamber, Senator Evans, also found it was almost impossible to get through on the line. Senator Evans revealed that during 1998 a majority of calls to help lines were going unanswered—in the vicinity of 81 per cent of callers.There are stories I hear every day. The reliable paper of record, the West Australian, ran a story about the professor who took his passport to his Centrelink office and got papers back but not the passport—that turned up five weeks later in a phone box in Fremantle. That one story led to a flood of calls to the paper, until finally the paper said, `No more Centrelink stories.' (Time expired)706222:34:007062Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON6K6FordeLP10—I have always been a firm believer that all members of this place have a responsibility to do far more than just come to Canberra and express the views of the people who live in our electorates. I believe our most intrinsic responsibility is to help make the local communities we live in and represent even better places. That is not just about securing funding for our local services, although that is a very important part of our job; it is about helping build stronger, more close-knit communities. It is about promoting values we all share, and fostering the sort of community spirit that binds us together and makes people feel very secure.The truly Australian quality that we have seen so often in times of crisis where we all pull together to help each other—that is the sort of thing I want to encourage in the daily lives of people in the local communities in my electorate of Forde. One way I am seeking to do this is through the Forde Community Contribution Awards. I established the awards in 1996 as a way for local residents to say thank you to the many voluntary workers who are the backbone of our community. These very special people give tirelessly to help others and never ask for anything in return. It is a terrific quality that as a community we should encourage and acknowledge.Earlier this year I presented the 1999 Forde Community Contribution Awards to 20 very special people. In the forum of this House, the people's House, I want to thank them and recognise them again. Time does not permit me to list all of the many voluntary organisations that these individuals have helped—some for over 30 years—but the people of Forde are very grateful to each of them. They are Jennifer Carpenter of Beenleigh, Jan Vear of Waterford West, Jenni Gibson of Bethania, Seth Brook of Beaudesert, Dorrie Greive of Beaudesert, Frank Hampson of Boonah, Frank Reid of Boonah, Mollie Leonards of Mount Tamborine, Josephine Needham of Jimboomba, Betty Milne-Ward of Buccan, Peter Marples of Loganholme, Reverend Dan Grundy of Beenleigh, Shantelle Cantly of Bethania, Maxine Platell of Rathdowney, Lyn Richter of Rathdowney, David Robbins of Jimboomba, Marie Smith of Bethania, Nikolaas Van't Hof of Beaudesert, and Ronald Venz of Beaudesert.I am sure these recipients will not mind me singling out just one person: 16-year-old Shantelle Cantly. Shantelle has a remarkable record of voluntary work, helping fundraising for Red Cross, RSPCA, Queensland Cancer Fund and a number of other charitable organisations. She is a shining example for people of all ages. I look forward to helping foster the spirit of voluntary contributions in the next generation by recognising more of our young local achievers in future years.I was also very pleased recently to recognise another special group of our local residents. The Beenleigh and Beaudesert State Emergency Services team do tremendous and vital work all year round in our local community, but their generosity extends even further than that. I am proud to say that, when so many Sydney residents were affected by the horrendous hailstorms earlier this year, these special people travelled down to Sydney to help them out. To thank them for their efforts above and beyond the call of duty, I was pleased to present them, also, with a special Forde Community Contribution Award. I would like to mention them tonight, and thank Mike Drewett, Yoke Drewett, Dean Wardell, Rebecca Northey, George Winter, Danni-Marie Dean, Karen Troost, Ken Andersen, Christine Machielsen, Cliff Hodgson, Andrew Knaggs, Daniel Power, Chris Thomas and Craig Middleton.Finally, there is a local business that I also want to recognise and thank. Driza-Bone Pty Ltd are a wonderful and well-known Australian coat company who truly embody the Australian spirit I referred to earlier. During a visit to one of my local Green Corps teams at Tamborine Mountain, I was impressed by how the team kept working hard through all kinds of weather conditions. These young people do a terrific job in restoring the very unique local environment of Tamborine. The Green Corps is a very successful Howard government program giving young people real work experience and opportunities and reap ing rewards for our local community. When I was discussing their terrific work with Driza-Bone manager, Katherine Retter, she was quick to offer one of their quality jackets to each and every team member to help make their work a little more pleasant, especially now it is winter.It is a wonderful example of the social coalition the Prime Minister is promoting, where businesses work with government and community organisations to do social good and make a real difference in our community. Driza-Bone has set a terrific example for local businesses. Knowing the generous nature of our local businesses and communities throughout Forde, I am sure there will be many other local companies inspired by this act of thoughtfulness. I thank them in advance and again thank the wonderful recipients of the 1999 Community Awards. Our local area is a better place to live because of the efforts of each and every one of them.706322:39:007063Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—Last week I visited the Blacktown campus of the University of Western Sydney at Nirimba, which is in my electorate of Greenway. My purpose in visiting this campus was to see at first hand the service provided for the benefit of students of this university by the Hawkesbury Student Union.I was escorted around the campus by Heath McInnes, the president of the student union, who is a boarder at the Richmond campus of UWS and whose home town is Coonamble; and also by Mr Gordon Cormack, the general manager of the Hawkesbury Student Union. This organisation is non-political. It provides a range of sporting, recreational and social activities that significantly improves the quality of life for all students, particularly country or overseas residents. Services provided by this student organisation also have a major economic and cultural impact on the local community. This applies at the Blacktown campus whose sporting and other facilities are shared with two on-site high schools and a TAFE college.I also understand that this economic and cultural impact applies nationally, with stu dent organisations providing more than $160 million worth of recreational infrastructure on campuses across the nation. I am advised in correspondence from the Hawkesbury union of the major contribution that this organisation provides at a local level. I quote:Student contributions are currently responsible for the management and maintenance of our rugby ovals, soccer ovals, basketball stadium, sport and recreation complex, tennis court, swimming pools, function rooms and so forth. In the last 12 months alone these facilities have been utilised by over eight local high schools, scout groups, district basketball, soccer and rugby league clubs, model aeroplane associations, local bands, christian groups and children's gymnastics as well as many university based clubs and societies such as rugby, basketball, netball, volleyball and other similar sporting associations.One can see that UWS facilities are being used extensively by the community and so contribute a very cost-effective means of providing sporting facilities for all members of the community.The possibility of a reduction in the income stream of this student organisation will undermine current and future plans for development of sporting and recreational facilities at both the Richmond and Blacktown campuses. At a national level, university sport, as a major university-based sporting group, is a major employer. This organisation employs 3,270 staff which includes 530 full-time, 222 part-time and 2,518 casual staff. Over 60 per cent of staff wages are spent on full-time staff. Any reduction in funding the university sporting organisation will have an immediate impact on employment levels, particularly in regional centres such as Western Sydney, as well as affecting Australia's reputation as a sporting nation.Sport contributes greatly to the cultural expansion of our nation and universities collectively contribute greatly to our sporting reputation both locally and internationally. Australia's sporting prowess and opportunities in the sporting world are an important selling point for our nation and our community. Quality student based sporting recreational services are part of the showcase of services available to prospective international students. This aspect of university life plays an important role in the efforts of Australian universi ties to promote themselves overseas. The international student market contributes an estimated $3.4 billion to the Australian economy. Australia is on the eve of the Olympic Games and, as we bask in the World Cup success of our cricket team, we should be developing Australian sport, not undermining it.I referred earlier to the range of services provided by the Hawkesbury Union. I would like to expand on this point and refer to a wider range of services provided to university students by student organisations across the nation. I refer to a survey conducted by the Australian Campus Union Managers Association. This survey was conducted across 46 separate campuses and showed 30 different student activities ranging from counselling services to subsidised medical, dental and catering services, all of which would be affected if there was to be any curtailment of the income stream for student unions.706422:44:007064Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—This evening I would like to speak on two topics. The first is the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the second is the challenge. On 17 June 1999, the Liberal Federal Electorate Committee of Makin held its annual general meeting. We were greatly honoured to have our esteemed Speaker of the House of Representatives and member for Wakefield, the Hon. Neil Andrew MP, as our guest speaker to talk on his role in the parliament. Mr Speaker, all of the feedback that I have received since that evening indicates that the members found your speech most entertaining and educative. I remind you of it tonight only to place on the public record what I said on that occasion, that I believe that history will come to judge the honourable member for Wakefield, Neil Andrew, as one of the best Speakers this parliament has seen.I am sure all members would agree that you have discharged your responsibilities with fairness, consistency and good humour. You have been firm where necessary, but more often than not you have commanded the respect of the House through your own example of dignity, patience and respect for the institution of parliament. I would also like to point out to the House that, at the time of Federation, the Speaker of the House was the honourable member for Wakefield, Sir Frederick Holder. It will be tremendous that, as we celebrate the centenary of Federation, we will have the member for Wakefield as the Speaker of the House of Representatives.On another subject, members may be interested to know that the member for Makin last week issued a challenge to the member for Banks and opposition spokesman for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs to a five-kilometre footrace to take place in the proposed final sitting week of this calendar year, on 8 December 1999. The member for the Northern Territory, the Hon. Warren Snowdon MP, was witness to the challenge and the acceptance of it. He has agreed to officiate at the race and to map out the course over which we will run. I congratulate the member for Banks for accepting the challenge, which will cap off a year highlighted by the healthy eating and fitness regime which he has undertaken. It is my intention to gain corporate sponsorship for this race and perhaps even to invite other members of the parliament to participate in the race or, if not, to become sponsors for a very worthy cause.Recently I was approached by the Chief Executive Officer of the National Asthma Campaign, Ms Kristine Whorlow, who, in my capacity as the secretary of the government health and aged care backbench policy committee, sought my assistance in establishing a National Asthma Campaign parliamentary group among interested senators and members of parliament. I have since written to all members and senators and received an extremely positive response. I look forward to the next step of forming the group. Thus, I feel it would be appropriate for any corporate sponsorship that I am able to raise from the race with the member for Banks to go to benefit asthma education and research.In order to prepare myself for this ordeal, I have chosen to stop smoking and to more than match Mr Melham's fitness and healthy eating program. I have been aided in this endeavour by other members of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, especially the member for Franklin, Mr Harry Quick MP, who confiscated my cigarettes last week and has rationed them back to me on a very strict basis. Others who have been very cruel to be kind in order to assist me to stop smoking include the honourable member for Grey, Mr Barry Wakelin, and the honourable member for Indi, Mr Lou Lieberman. Mr Barry Haase has also indicated to me that he would like to give up smoking and endeavour to commence a fitness program.I invite all members of the House to become involved in this worthwhile initiative to raise some money for a very worthy cause and improve their health along the way. The honourable member for the Northern Territory is putting together a few initiatives to get as many members involved as possible. After all, we have six months to prepare. Hopefully, next week we will have enough details to put to the members of the House to get everyone involved. I encourage you all to watch this space.706522:48:007065Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—I was very interested to hear of the pledge of the member for Banks to undertake a footrace. I have been trying for some time to get him to come to the gym with me, so I am rather surprised to hear that he is prepared to participate in this footrace. I am sure that it is for a very good cause and there will be many more of us who will come to the party.Last night the proposal to sell off a further 16.6 per cent of Telstra was endorsed by the Senate. It is a decision that is going to have an enormous effect on telecommunications and the service Australians get from Telstra. Already the third sale of Telstra has hit regional Australia very hard, and it has caused lots of delays, disruption and very poor customer service and customer relations. Telstra is now motivated purely by profit. It has no commitment whatsoever to service, customers or workers. I am constantly receiving complaints about service difficulties, delays in connecting new services and ump teen problems that the customers of Telstra are having. The complaints are not restricted to problems experienced by individuals or private services; they also extend to business, even to the extent where businesses are making arrangements for connections some months in advance. When it comes to the time for their service to be connected, it is not connected, and this is causing massive losses.Today in question time the government made a great deal about the sale of Telstra and how it was going to benefit Australia. There was one answer to a question in question time today that suggested that the sale of Telstra would increase Internet access. I find this very strange. How can it increase the access to the Internet when already there is a massive shortage of lines? People are unable to get telephone lines just to connect an ordinary telephone service, let alone the Internet. In the Hunter, customers are waiting months to be able to access Telstra. We have even been approached by customers who have been given mobile phones for months until the lines become available. It is a real problem in the Hunter. It may not be a problem in Sydney, Melbourne or areas like that, although I suspect it is, but there is a shortage of lines.Staff have been slashed at Telstra. They are having their holidays cancelled. They are working seven days a week. They come home from work and they are called back in again. Telstra is bringing staff from Queensland to work in the Hunter. There have been a number of cases where we have received complaints about a disruption to service and then further complaints from the constituent asking why it is that Telstra is using people from Queensland—there are vehicles with Queensland numberplates—when it is putting staff off in the Hunter. This brings me to a problem that a number of workers who have been retrenched by Telstra are having.We were contacted last week by a constituent who had been retrenched in late May and who had still received no money whatsoever. Over six weeks had gone by. They were told that there were hundreds of people who had taken redundancies and that they were just going to have to wait. They had no money and no job. We managed to organise an urgent payment, after two weeks. It is just not good enough. And these sorts of problems are going to continue with further privatisation.Senator Harradine is doing Australia a disservice. He was worried about what kind of legacy the GST would leave to Australia. He has certainly left a legacy to Australia with the sale of Telstra. Australia is losing a valuable asset. It provides an ongoing return to the country. It is like selling your house to pay your Bankcard; that is just not good business. The government stands condemned over the sale of Telstra. I can assure the House that the constituents of Shortland do not support the sale. (Time expired)706622:53:007066Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—The House would be only too aware of the plight of the two Australian aid workers, Steve Pratt and Peter Wallace, convicted and imprisoned most unjustly in Yugoslavia. It has now been some 83 days since they were first taken into custody. Many people have been kindly and supportive towards the Wallaces, Peter's family, who live in my electorate of Dawson, including the Prime Minister, CARE Australia, Malcolm Fraser, Nelson Mandela, Kofi Annan, Mary Robinson and Jesse Jackson—to name a few—but none more so than Mr Downer, who has left no avenue unexplored, no option untouched and who has been, with his office and department, unceasingly kind, showing commonsense and being supportive towards the families. Because of the sensitivities involved, he has had to leave much of his efforts unheralded and unsung, but that does not diminish the efforts and the endeavours he has made.The Mackay community and Wallace family have been very much aware and appreciative of the efforts of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Downer. Therefore, it was with disbelief that I heard the mean-spirited comments by the Leader of the Opposition and read the covers and editorials of what I had thought were two of the more responsible national newspapers. I would like to share these with the House now. On the front page of today's Australian is the headline, `How a Belgrade mercy dash led to Lord's'. The editorial states:It was, however, less clever that his next public appearance should be at Lord's for the World Cup final.The Sydney Morning Herald carries a headline, `Caught out at Lords', with a photograph of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and an editorial to match. The truth of this matter is that Mr Downer last week believed, as we all did, that there was a very good opportunity to meet Mr Milosevic and secure the freedom of the two Australian aid workers. He gave up an opportunity to attend a significant personal family event to fly to Yugoslavia and work on behalf of our Australian aid workers. In a country torn by war, which is led by someone who is supposedly a war criminal, events move quickly and unpredictably, and the meeting could not take place. What are the Sydney Morning Herald and the Australian suggesting—that on the way home, Mr Downer should adopt a hairshirt and not take the opportunity, having done his duty, to visit the World Cup cricket?The family of Peter Wallace take every opportunity to mix in the community. They take a great effort to lead a normal life—to mix with friends, to play golf, to take strength from enjoying the pleasures of every day life. No less should be allowed the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Downer. So it was a mean-spirited comment by newspapers which I had thought would behave in a more responsible manner.The second concern I have is more serious. At least the Sydney Morning Herald had, I guess, the good grace to mention it. It says here:. . . in Belgrade by allowing the impression, false though it no doubt is, that the Belgrade leg of his journey was not necessarily the most important for him. In a delicate case like this, perceptions can count as much as reality.That is only too true. Who would have created these perceptions—the newspapers and, regrettably, the most ill thought out comments by the Leader of the Opposition. It is the responsibility not only of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the government but of all Australians of goodwill to behave with sensitivity and compassion and to pray for the freedom of our two aid workers. It is not a time for ill thought out, mean-spirited and unhelpful comments. I hope that the newspapers and all of those in Australia of goodwill will work towards the freedom of our aid workers.Question resolved in the affirmative.22:58:007067House adjourned at 10.58 p.m.Notices7067The following notices were given:Mr Danby to move:That the House:(1) notes with sadness that 4 June 1999 was the tenth anniversary of the date of the Tiananmen Square massacre;(2) expresses its sympathy to the families of those who died as a result of their participation in the democracy protests of 1989 in the People's Republic of China as well as those who have suffered for their efforts to advance human rights and democratic expression during the past decade;(3) commends citizens of the People's Republic of China who peacefully advocate democracy and human rights; and(4) deplores ongoing human rights abuses in the People's Republic of China and calls on the Government of that country to:(a) re-evaluate the official verdict on 4 June 1989 Tiananmen pro-democracy activities and initiate open investigations on the 4 June event with the goal of providing a complete and accurate account of those events;(b) treat fairly Chinese students who elected to stay in Australia after 4 June 1989 under special temporary visas and who have since returned to their homeland;(c) release all prisoners of conscience, including those still in prison as a result of their participation in the pro-democracy protests of May and June 1989, provide just compensation to the families of those killed in those protests and allow those exiled on account of their activities in 1989 to return and live in freedom in the People's Republic of China;(d) put an end to harassment, detention and imprisonment of Chinese citizens exercising their internationally recognised rights to the freedom of expression, freedom of association and freedom of religion; and(e) proceed quickly to ratify and implement the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which it signed on 5 October 1998. Jackie Kelly to present a bill for an act to amend the Australian Tourist Commission Act 1987.Mr Slipper to present a bill for an act to amend the Ministers of State Act 1952.1999-06-22Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Nehl) took the chair at 4.30 p.m.Bills7069r8077069Consideration resumed from 21 June.Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and ForestryProposed expenditure, $394,718,000.Department of the Environment and HeritageProposed expenditure, $593,270,000.16:30:007069Zahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA84HMcMillanALP00—I want to address my remarks today, during this consideration in detail stage, to the Regional Forest Agreement process and, in particular, to the forest and forest products sector, which is an extremely important employer in my electorate and in the region of Gippsland generally.`Closure of mill'; `Another blow for Tambo Valley'. The headline from the East Gippsland News tells the story of failure on behalf of this government to guarantee resource security and generate job security for the people employed in the forest and forest products sector. The article reads:The embattled Tambo Valley has been delivered another tragic blow with Neville Smith Timber Industries (NSTI) yesterday announcing the temporary closure of the district's last sawmill.I should point out that at this stage—and this article was published in the newspaper on Wednesday, 10 February 1999—it was anticipated that it was to be a temporary closure. However, I regret to inform the parliament that it is now confirmed as being a permanent closure. That means that 22 workers in a community of 150 people living in the Tambo Valley in East Gippsland now have no future. Those people living in that town now have nothing to look forward to. The article continues:Revealed at noon, the decision to close the mill not only stunned the community, but has left 22 employees contemplating an uncertain future.Unfortunately, that is all that they have to look forward to whilst we have a government which refuses to engage the industry sector in committing to value adding and to adding that value in Australia, so that we keep these jobs in Australia and in regional areas like the Tambo Valley in East Gippsland.I think it reflects badly on this government that people have not taken enough interest in what is happening in East Gippsland to actually intervene and try to save that community. Governments are there to step in and help communities when they get into trouble. Certainly, the community of Swifts Creek is in strife and they need all the help that they can get.For my own part, I have approached the Minister for Forestry and Conservation, Mr Wilson Tuckey, to implore him to help on behalf of the people of Swifts Creek. It seems a shame to me that there has not been more advocacy on the part of the local member, the member for Gippsland, Mr Peter McGauran, in trying to help his constituents. In particular, I can well remember attending a meeting in Swifts Creek at which there were 150 people in attendance, which I think represents the entire community of Swifts Creek, but of all the local representatives, be they state or federal, there was only one person in attendance, and that was the state member for Gippsland East, Mr David Treasure. So the member for Gippsland Province, Peter Hall, and the other member for Gippsland Province, Phil Davis, were not in attendance. It was not important enough for them to break their schedule and go to this meeting which was deciding the future of the town.This conservative view of the role of government in relation to the forest and forest products sector is not just reflected in the federal government; it is reflected in the state government of Victoria. I refer to a letter which I received from Marie Tehan, the Minister for Conservation and Land Management in Victoria. She wrote:Dear Mr ZahraClosure of Swifts Creek SawmillThank you for your letter . . .As you would be aware, the Government has worked closely with the Swifts Creek Community over the last two years to provide support during the period of drought and the subsequent flood events, which devastated parts of the Tambo Valley. The recent events leading up to the closure of the sawmill at Swifts Creek are, like the devastating flood event, outside the control of Government.Why on earth do we have governments if not to intervene and try to help communities when they are in strife? This is not an act of God; this is a commercial decision. These people are getting this resource, to which we as a community in Victoria allow them access, and they should sign up to their end of the bargain as well. If we are granting them access to our community resource, there should be community benefit which is drawn from their accessing of this resource. The minister continued:NSTI is free to act commercially regarding where it processes any timber that it has rights to.It continues:The action by NSTI is not related to the Regional Forest Agreement process.This is where I think she is all wrong. It has everything to do with the Regional Forest Agreement process, which the Labor Party put in place. An important part of the Regional Forest Agreement process was to guarantee resource security so that those people in those small communities that rely on the forest and forest products sector could have job security. In the Labor Party, we see the two as being inextricably linked. We will not be interested in entering into a debate about resource security until companies start to talk seriously about job security. (Time expired)16:36:007070Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTrade10—I thank the House for the opportunity to make some comments on the budget outcomes with regard to my portfolio responsibility of agriculture, fisheries and forestry, and also representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, the Hon. Senator Robert Hill.I will respond to some comments made last night during the consideration in detail debate by the member for Corio, the shadow minister in this portfolio. Firstly, I draw the attention of the House to the support that he gave to the extra funding to a number of programs announced in this year's budget, particularly the Great Artesian Basin Program, the ovine Johne's disease program and the $15.8 million for the increased patrols in the Southern Ocean for Australia's fishing industry.I welcome that bipartisan support from the member for Corio on what are good outcomes, good programs that the government announced and is funding in the interests of regional and rural Australia. But I take him to task with regard to some critical comments he made about the macro-economic settings under which our government has operated. I remind the member and the House of the level of interest rates that were in place when we were first elected in 1996 and which we have been vigorously working on to get down ever since we came into office, over four successive budgets, one of which we are debating here. The measures that we have put in place have seen interest rates reduced to the lowest—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The level of conversation on my left is just a smidgin too high. Please control the volume a little more. The minister has the call.SU5Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILE—I agree with you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The members opposite should listen to this because, since we have been in office since 1996, we have reduced interest rates in this country to the lowest level in 30 years and that is worth $540 million to the farm sector every year. That was something that the Labor Party in 13 years in office could never achieve and never had a mind to achieve. All the constituents in the electorate of the member for Paterson wanted lower interest rates. In his first term in this parliament, he could not deliver them and he is not in a position to deliver them now. In four years we have delivered that to the rural sector in Australia. That is what we are doing for rural Australia as well as putting in place programs that deliver outcomes that rural Australia wants. We are underpinning and facilitating a much stronger structure in rural Australia so that our farmers, our primary producers, can better compete with the rest of the world.A number of programs have been announced in this budget and we are very proud of programs such as the $17½ million over two years to establish a biotechnology office and a regulator for the advancement of biotechnology within Australia and particularly within the agrifoods industries in Australia.They are programs that are going to continue to build on consumer confidence that we have in this country. Unlike other countries around the world where this technology is being used to improve the use of biotechnology and the development of new crops in agriculture and new foodstuffs, we are not calling the changes we are getting into place genetically modified organisms or genetically modified foods. They are genetically improved foods. They are foods that are going to be produced with far less use of chemicals, and that is what the world's consumers are looking for.You will be aware that we have also announced the extension of the funding for the Supermarket to Asia strategy, which has been extremely successful in the last three years of our government. We are announcing the extension of that funding for the Supermarket to Asia strategy as well as new programs within the context of the Supermarket to Asia program. Just this year, in the March quarter of 1999, we received some statistics that were quite compelling and underpinned the fact that the Supermarket to Asia strategy has been extremely successful. Food and agricultural product exports to South-East Asia in the March quarter of this year increased by 14 per cent in the face of economic downturn in South-East Asia, where the knockers of the Australian economy—mostly within the Labor Party in this parliament—were saying that we were not doing enough, that we were not safeguarding our situation. (Extension of time granted)At a time when all the negative commentators in Australia were saying that we were not going to be able to quarantine Australia's economy and safeguard our exporters against the economic downturn in Asia, we achieved just that. All those macro-economic settings that I spoke about before—lower interest rates, reducing the country's debt, getting the budget back into surplus and the work through the Supermarket to Asia strategy that we put into place—were working towards maintaining our market access and finding new markets in South-East Asia. We have done that, and the statistics underpin that in that we have increased our exports of food and agricultural products to South-East Asia by 14 per cent in the March quarter.Last night the member for Corio congratulated the government—and we accept those congratulations—for announcing the $32 million for the bore-capping program in the Great Artesian Basin. The member for Corio recognises that the Great Artesian Basin covers in excess of 20 per cent of Australia's land mass. There are thousands of uncapped bores that are reducing the pressure in the Great Artesian Basin, a water aquifer that holds the equivalent of at least 17,000 Sydney harbours and is a very valuable resource for a lot of inland pastoralists in Queensland, New South Wales and South Australia. We are allocating $32 million over five years to assist the community in capping those free-flowing bores so that we can maintain a sustainable water resource that is going to be invaluable in the future for those pastoralists in that area. It is a very important program that we have undertaken and one that the government remains wholly committed to.While I have time, I might just go to some comments that were made by the member for Reid last night and some made just a few moments ago by the member for McMillan. Just listening to the member for McMillan—R36ALBANESEMr Albanese—You waited for him to go.SU5Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILE—No, he did not want to hang around. On the comments made by the member for McMillan, if I were not here at the opening of his remarks, I would have sworn that he was talking about the Carr Labor government in New South Wales and what they have done to the forestry industry in that state. In the electorate of the member for Paterson they have closed down the timber industry. In my electorate next door and south of your electorate, Mr Deputy Speaker Nehl, they have closed down the timber industry with no regard for the consequences. They are not prepared to commit to any long-term strategy for the timber industry and the workers involved in that timber industry in New South Wales. There were in excess of 30 mills in my electorate, one of the great timber electorates in New South Wales, but there are only two mills remaining. The New South Wales Labor government have done that. They have turned their backs on those workers. The representatives of the CFMEU in my electorate are not welcome on the site of any mill in my electorate—not by management, but by the workers—because they have done nothing to help the Commonwealth government try to establish a properly structured RFA process in that area that recognises what was set out in the reports commissioned into how we can sustainably manage our timber industry.It is no good the Labor Party coming in here and complaining about the management of this nation's forests when their colleagues in New South Wales will not discuss with the Commonwealth, will not progress the RFA process and have unilaterally closed down forestry in New South Wales, costing thousands of jobs.UU5HORNEMr Horne—I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am not sure of the relevance of the statements being made by the minister. He is aware that the RFA process in New South Wales was supported by the National Party, the Liberal Party and the Labor Party.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—There is no point of order.10000Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILE—Mr Deputy Speaker, our government, through our Minister for Forestry and Conservation is continuing to try to negotiate with the New South Wales government to establish an RFA. We have allocated money for that process in this year's budget that we are debating right now. But the New South Wales state Labor government has made unilateral decisions to close down forests right outside of this process, not in consultation with anybody let alone the industry. We are being asked by industry and the workers in the industry to get this framework established. We have allocated funding in this budget to do just that, but we cannot get any sense at all out of the Carr Labor government in New South Wales.In closing, Mr Deputy Speaker, let me say that we will hear a lot of rhetoric from the Labor Party during this debate as far as the budget is concerned, but it remains a fact that our government over the last four years and particularly in this year has got the economy of this country back into shape. We have got an economy that is fireproofed from what has been going on around us and we have put this economy into an incredibly strong position as we go into the new century. We see the activity in the marketplace kicking along and we will be in a position to move with our industries and help strengthen the structure of our primary industries. (Time expired)16:47:007073Zahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA84HMcMillanALP00—It is with a lot of regret that I note that the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry did not have the guts to actually make some statements while I was still in this chamber. But it is interesting that he wants to talk about the Regional Forest Agreement process. I am very happy to have a debate about the Regional Forest Agreement any place, any time with you, Minister, or with anyone else.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—This is not the place, nor the time.84HZahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA—Whilst we regularly hear shrill rantings from the Minister for Forestry and Conservation, Mr Wilson Tuckey, at the dispatch box in the other chamber, I have to tell you there is not a lot of commonsense which comes out of it. Consider the plight of the people in East Gippsland in the Tambo Valley and the fact that they have now, with an existing RFA in place, had their mill closed—the mill which employed 22 workers in a town of only 150 people. That mill closure means the death of that town. The bloke who runs the pub there says he can no longer operate that pub. The communities there, which are tremendously resilient local communities, banded together and established a secondary college. It seems unlikely now that those people who established that college will be able to see it continue because, simply put, with 22 people leaving the town, some $750,000 in income will not be there for them. That is $750,000, which constitutes an enormous amount of income in a small community of 150 people, will no longer be there to sustain the town.This has happened, Minister, even though there is a Regional Forestry Agreement in place for that community. Whilst the Minister for Conservation and Land Management in Victoria may well advise that it has nothing to do with the Regional Forest Agreement process and may make remarks along the lines of `There is nothing that the government can do to intervene in this process', she is wrong because the spirit of the Regional Forest Agreement process was all about resource security and job security, not just resource security for the purpose of allowing a few companies access to the forestry resource so that they could make enormous profits. That was never what the Regional Forest Agreement process was about. It was about securing resource security so that workers in the communities which relied upon that sector would have access to job security. This was always the spirit and intention of that legislation.It seems a shame that all we get out of the Minister for Forestry and Conservation nowadays are attempts to politicise this process. Every time he gets a question in question time he stands up there and belts the Labor Party over the head for some sin that we are supposed to have committed, but never says anything constructive, never offers any solution to the crises faced by communities like Swifts Creek in the Tambo Valley in East Gippsland, never any makes suggestions as to how we are going to value add, never makes any suggestions as to how we are going to continue the good work of the wood and paper industry strategy which was established by the Labor government when we were last in office.It seems a shame to me that, whilst the rhetoric of the federal Liberal-National Party government is strong, they are short on action. This is a hard industry. As people understand, it is an industry that needs government support and attention if it is going to achieve its full potential. People do not want shrill rantings at the dispatch box; they want government activity and action. They want this government to have the vision and the intelligence to look at this sector and its enormous potential and say, `Let's not politicise this process. Let's not just continue to try to make political mileage out of this issue. Let's work collaboratively with the Labor Party and with other stakeholders to try to make sure that we can guarantee resource security so we can deliver job security to the workers and their families who depend on this sector in order to draw an income.'I keep on coming back to the situation in Swifts Creek, and I reiterate, for the minister's information, that this has happened despite the existence of a Regional Forest Agreement in the region. So whilst it is all well and good to put the process in place, what we have to always bear in mind is that companies have obligations as well. We cannot just say, `Have access to our resource.' It is owned by every taxpayer and every person who lives in the community of Victoria. We cannot just say to companies, `Go for your life; take what you want from there; you are under no obligation.' It is our resource, and we have every right to expect that, in turn for companies having access to that resource, there will be some community benefit which will be drawn from it.I would urge the minister, and he is the senior minister for this department, to take an active interest in what is going on in the Tambo Valley. I would urge the minister to involve himself directly in the plight of the workers at Swifts Creek. In the best of bipartisan traditions of this place, I have approached the Minister for Forestry and Conservation, and I would hope that he will take that approach sincerely—as I hope the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry does—and, hopefully, something can be done for the workers at Swifts Creek.This is a very serious situation. It exists with a Regional Forest Agreement in place. We need to get past the rhetoric and get on with helping these communities when they need our assistance. In this parliament we owe them that.16:52:007074Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—I welcome the opportunity to speak on fisheries in this consideration in detail stage, because I have a profound concern about the future of the trawl fishery in Queensland, in particular what is known as the southern Queensland trawl fishery. This is not irrelevant, of course, because there are federal implications for this tied up with the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.Contrary to popular opinion, only 44 per cent of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, which is 350,000 square kilometres, is available for fishing. Of that 44 per cent, 12 per cent is never fished at all; 22 per cent is only fished with one sweep per year. Of the remaining 10 per cent only one per cent is trawled intensively 13 times a year. Yet the impression we are given when we watch television—and we see these beautiful little yellow-and-blue fish and some nice soft corals—concerning fishing in the marine park is that somehow these dreadful trawlers are running up against this beautiful reef. They are nowhere near the reef and never have been anywhere near the reef. I think a lot of dishonesty goes on.Another point I want to make today is about the bycatch that is scooped up. The amount of bycatch that is actually trawled per hectare of trawling in the marine park is two kilos: what you can hold in your hand, like that.I spoke in private members business on this, and I am profoundly concerned about the condition of the fishermen in my area. The QFMA management plan, which has been put out for comment over the last couple of weeks, has suggested that in that part of the park the southern trawl fishery should be closed down for six weeks. I object to that because it is not necessary anymore. The time of the closure will come right up to the cyclone season. What we will have is the closure, and then we will have a period when the small trawlers cannot even go out to sea. Imagine what that will do to the fishery.What will happen at the end of that period is that small trawlermen, desperate for cash flow, will then go out and you get a circumstance—because they are all out there together—called pulse fishing where they totally denude an area. Far from enhancing the environment, they actually cause greater damage. This can now be avoided with the vessel monitoring system, VMS, which can position any vessel anywhere in Australian waters—the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry would be aware of it because I understand that he has put it into the Torres Strait fishery—which means that, if anyone goes into a closure area, they will immediately be identified and subjected to any state or federal penalties for fishing in nursery grounds or in areas where some protection is needed.The CSIRO report, upon which a lot of this is based, concluded that there was a case for sustainable management of the prawn trawling resource. I do not think there is a case for fishermen being treated in this way. I have been attending their meetings for many years, and they brought up the idea of having smaller chains when they go trawling, having smaller boards which skim along the surface when they are trawling and not, as some of the cowboys have done in the past, using very powerful vessels that virtually plough up the bottom of the resource.Fishermen are no different from farmers: they want to hand on their boats to their children and grandchildren. Frequently, sons and daughters work in the industry, and they want the resource to be there, so to speak, for the long haul. Most of the fishermen I know are avid conservationists and readily embrace new scientific measures to protect the environment and sustainability. I call on all governments for a more measured approach which balances the imperatives of the environment, on the one hand, with the legitimate expectations of the fishermen and the communities they serve, on the other. Australia is recognised as having better managed fisheries than any of the countries against which we compete in the international markets. Any ambit or unrealistic demands which threaten our seafood exports reward those in other countries who show no regard for the environment. (Time expired)Proposed expenditures agreed to.16:57:007075Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—It has been suggested to me that I suggest that the order for the consideration of the proposed expenditures agreed to by the Main Committee on 21 June be varied by considering together the proposed expenditures for the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Finance and Administration.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—I understand that this suggestion has been agreed to by both sides of the parliament. Is the suggestion of the minister agreed to? There being no objection, that course will be followed.Department of Transport and Regional ServicesProposed expenditure $374,483,000.17:24:007076Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOTXW4DicksonALP00—One of the keys to understanding the allocation of moneys in this budget for regional Australia is to look very carefully at the distinction between regional services and regional development. This government has successfully, in a publicly rhetorical way, shifted the emphasis from regional development to regional services. This has meant a move away from investment in regional infrastructure and from any strategy designed to reduce regional inequality. We have heard so much in question time today about services for regional Australia as a result of the sale of the next 16 per cent of Telstra, but let us not forget what this government did in its first three years in government; let us not forget the money that was cut out of regional services; let us not forget, for example, legal aid.The government has pointed to the restoration of $3.7 million over three years to five new community centres in regional areas, but it hopes that we will conveniently forget that it has further cut an already strapped legal aid budget by around $3.3 million in real terms. That is one example of the way in which we are supposed to forget past history and we are supposed to say on behalf of regional Australians, `Gee, thanks very much for the social bonus. We will take no notice of the damage you did to the social fabric of regions in this country in your very first budget and in the ensuing couple of years.'If you really look at the money that has been spent on new measures in this budget, you will see that there are nine new measures in the Transport and Regional Services portfolio for 1999-2000, which total $450.5 million. Of that money, road funding programs comprise $295 million. That leaves $155 million over four years for other new measures. That is a heap of money from somebody genuinely committed to regional development and services! Of that $155 million, $84 million is going to the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme, with which we do not quibble. We do not say, `Don't restore these services.' We just say, `Don't try and con Australians by pretending that you are giving them something new when you are trying to gloss over the damage that has been done in the cutting of these services in the first years of this government, in positions to make a difference.'On the services dependent on the sale of Telstra, we heard much false crowing today in question time, because this government was not genuinely committed to the provision of these services. It tied these services to the sale of Telstra. Any government which puts a commitment to services first cannot then turn around and say to Australians who live in the bush, `Yes, they are really important. We genuinely believe they are really important but, unfortunately, you can't have them unless you let us sell Telstra.' No matter what those who asked the questions and gave the answers might have said in question time today, we know very clearly that country Australians still believe in public ownership. They still want Telstra to be owned by Australians. All this phoney rhetoric about making Telstra accessible now to Australians who can buy shares conveniently overlooks the reality that Australians already own Telstra. How dishonest it is to take something which is owned by all Australians and sell it back to those who can afford to buy shares—and to sell it back at an undervalued price.There is a great difference between debt and net assets, and Telstra has always been a net asset for this nation. So the government turns around and says, `We believe in the environment and conservation, and you can have $250 million if you let us sell Telstra. And we think regional telecommunications are really important, but you can only have $120 million if you let us sell Telstra. And we believe it is really important to provide untimed local calls, but you can only have that money if you let us sell Telstra. And, yes, it is really important to extend Internet access, but you can only have it if you let us sell Telstra. And rural transaction centres are exactly what we need to look at the failure of banks to provide and deliver on necessary services, but you can only have them if you let us sell Telstra.' (Extension of time granted)The point I was making, Mr Deputy Speaker, is that it is not good enough to say, `Yes, these services are really important.' Labor does not begrudge them. We think a lot of them are very important. We think the restoration of health services is very important; it is urgent. We are not sure whether all the measures will work but we think they are worth a go, and we support the government in these measures. But that money has come from the health budget, not from regional development and regional services.It is pretty cheap to say to regional Australians, `We're behind you. This is as good as it gets,'—as Deputy Prime Minister Tim Fischer often says about the delivery through this portfolio to regional Australia. It is pretty cheap to say, `These are really important. We acknowledge that. But you can only have them if you let us have a little bit of a bribe along the way.' If you were genuine, Minister, the government would find the money for these services.I was very interested to see what the NFF had to say about privatisation and the provision of infrastructure. This is particularly relevant to the Telstra debate. The NFF says that the privatisation of infrastructure facilities that have already been paid for by past taxes represents an abrogation of the government's responsibility with regard to the equitable provision of these services to all Australians, regardless of location.Why do you think most Australians who live in rural and regional Australia are nervous about the privatisation of Telstra? They are nervous because what they have seen before is the failure of market forces to actually provide for basic services for them. They have seen the withdrawal of banks; they have seen the removal of any leverage at all from government to say to private providers, `You must provide this quality of service to the bush.' Why are they cynical? Why are they sceptical?4K4ANDERSONMr Anderson—Why didn't Labor make the banks stay in the bush, Cheryl?XW4Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOT—That is not my responsibility, Minister.UU5HORNEMr Horne—It has accelerated under you.XW4Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOT—It has accelerated under the government. Who was it who proposed the kind of rural transaction centres that you have now introduced? We certainly all realised the failure of market forces with regard to provision of those services.4K4ANDERSONMr Anderson—You demonstrate the solution by legislating that the banks must stay in country towns, if that is the solution.XW4Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOT—The point I am making, Minister, is that there is a very clear failure of provision of services here. If you walk away from it too early, before there are alternatives in place, it is an abrogation of your responsibilities of equitable access for all Australians. You should not be dependent upon the sale of a publicly owned asset. That is the point. Country Australians do not support you in your sale of Telstra. Sure, they will be grateful for the provision of these services in the short term because they have been begging for ages. They will be grateful. But, in the long run, they know what happens as a result of the loss of the dividend stream. They know that alternative provisions could have been made for these services.For example, as Labor said in the last election campaign, you could dedicate a fixed proportion of the Telstra income stream to the provision of regional infrastructure. That way, you do not lose ownership of the asset, you maintain access to an ongoing income stream, and you achieve the same kinds of things that you say are very important. At the end of the process, you still have an opportunity to use your ministerial powers of direction to ensure that universal access and high quality services are delivered.It is no wonder that country Australians are caught between a rock and a hard place. Yes, they want the services, but they want public ownership of Telstra as well because they know from very bitter experience what government failure in this area has meant for them. What a bitter disappointment it is to say to people in Australia, `You can have all these things, but there is a long-term cost to this nation in the loss of the dividend stream and in the loss of the continuing provision of high quality services.' Minister, I think that you and Mr Fischer do know this. (Time expired)17:09:007078Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—I welcome the opportunity to talk on regional services today, as one who has lived in the bush and seen services denuded, especially in my first term here during the last three years of the Labor government. The shadow minister says that we should not be selling infrastructure; that is her basic premise. She is talking about Telstra. I say to you that there is nothing wrong with selling infrastructure if, when selling it, you invest in new infrastructure or you retire debt.You said before, `Why don't we keep the income stream?' The income stream is only minute compared with what is saved when you start apportioning the sale of Telstra against the debt that the Labor Party racked up in its years of office—$80 million in its last five years here, on which we are paying $9 billion a year in interest. That is many times the income stream of Telstra.XW4KERNOTMs Kernot—And what have you got at the end of it? Nothing!KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLE—If you are so concerned about the people in the bush, I wonder what they thought about the Commonwealth Bank being privatised.XW4KERNOTMs Kernot—They didn't like it. People didn't like it.KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLE—I wonder what they thought about the branches of the Commonwealth Bank being withdrawn from their country towns. After all, it was the Labor Party in government which deregulated banking in this way.XW4KERNOTMs Kernot—With your support!KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLE—You started off this process, and what is even worse, having sold off the Commonwealth Bank you did not put the proceeds into new infrastructure. You did not put it into retiring debt. You spent it. You put it into recurrent expenditure, the worst sin of economics. All of you know that that is the worst sin of economics.I wonder what the people in the bush thought about their dear Qantas, their Qantas that was founded out at Longreach and Winton in western Queensland. I wonder what you thought about that. You had no problem selling that. Again, did you put the proceeds into reducing debt or into new infrastructure for western Queensland? No, you used it for recurrent expenditure.I wonder what people thought about the sale of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, an organisation that provided such a great service to the medical profession over the years, and to the veterinary profession that is so important in western and rural Queensland. I wonder what the people of regional Australia thought about the selling of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. Again, did you put that into retiring debt? Did you put it into new medical infrastructure? No, you did not. You spent it on recurrent expenditure.83TRUDDMr Rudd—Are they celebrating the sale of Telstra in Bundy, mate?KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLE—I make no apology for insisting on 49 per cent being made a benchmark point.83TRUDDMr Rudd—What happened?KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLE—I make no apology for asking for that so that Telstra could then be subjected to a rigorous inquiry and benchmarking.83TRUDDMr Rudd—What happened?KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLE—We did not say we were going to do it until after we sold the 49 per cent.83TRUDDMr Rudd—That is the best excuse I have—KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLE—It is good to see such effervescence on the part of the opposition. I have not seen them so good for a long time.Let me go back to Telstra. We have a circumstance in Australia with telecommunications quite different from any other country on earth. In fact, in many countries around the world, as honourable members opposite would know, the telecommunications industry is run by private industry. However, Australia, with its vast spaces, had a much more difficult circumstance. Government had to be involved right from the early days of the transcontinental cable, the wire from Adelaide to Darwin. Back as far as those days governments had to be involved.But when we come to a point in Australia's history where there are a number of competent private players like Optus, Vodafone, and these new ones like AAPT that are coming on the market now—and you acknowledged this by allowing them to come into the market—the necessity for government to own the infrastructure no longer exists.My final point is this question: what is wrong with the shareholding of Telstra being in the hands of private Australian shareholders? I ask the question. (Time expired)17:14:007079Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—I rise in the debate on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1999-2000 to raise specifically the issue of the evaluation mechanisms used in the Department of Transport and Regional Services in relation to airports, particularly the Aviation Operations Division of the minister's department, and in particular again its evaluation of draft master plans and draft major development plans.What I wish to probe is how the department and its operational divisions formulate the advice they provide to the minister, and how they tailor that advice to the provisions contained within the Airports Act 1996. I wish to probe how objective that advice is and the extent to which that advice, consciously or unconsciously, is weighted to airport owners, airport operators, and to the major airlines themselves. Local communities around the nation affected by airports legitimately believe that the dice are loaded against them. I do not offer my remarks today in some sort of partisan polemic against the minister simply because he is from the other side of politics. I offer my remarks in a genuine spirit, seeking to explain something of the concerns of my local community in relation to how these decisions are taken given the enormous impact which those decisions have on individuals who are affected by the Brisbane airport.In doing so, I would like to raise three specific examples of real problems my local community has in accepting the overall integrity of the decision making process, its overall impartiality and detachment. Example No. 1 relates to what information should be contained in a draft master plan when that master plan is put to a community in the first instance for consideration and before it goes to the minister for a decision.Prior to the Brisbane Airport Corporation releasing its draft master plan last year, the First Assistant Secretary for Aviation Operations, Mr Paul Merner, of the minister's department, wrote to the Chief Executive of the Brisbane Airport Corporation and said:I understand that the Brisbane Airport Corporation (BACL) is about to release a draft Master Plan for Brisbane airport and commence a formal consultation process on that plan. In the light of the recent focus on aircraft noise I thought it may be useful to write to you on this matter.As you know there is considerable community interest in possible infrastructure improvements and the resulting impact on aircraft noise. The draft Master Plan will be the first formal exposure of proposed future infrastructure developments and can therefore be expected to become a focus for these concerns.As you know, aircraft noise and the way in which airport owners and regulators deal with it has become a major issue at a number of airports around the world, including in Australia. Brisbane has an opportunity to manage this issue in a way that minimises the extent to which it becomes a constraint on commercial airport development.Under the Airports Act arrangements this issue needs to be given full exposure before approvals are given for specific developments. We envisage that Major Development Plans proposed for the Minister's approval which include new or extended runways, for instance, will be subject to a comprehensive environmental impact assessment—Mr Merner continues—I understand that the BACL plans to provide Australian Noise Exposure Forecast (ANEF)information to assist the community in understanding the draft Master Plan. As you may be aware, the 1995 Report of the Senate Select Committee on Aircraft Noise in Sydney, `Falling on Deaf Ears', indicated that while the ANEF system may be adequate for land-use planning purposes, it is not adequate for assessing the impact of changes in noise exposure.We recognise that it is not possible to provide information on future flight paths with certainty, and that any additional information about noise exposure is necessarily indicative. However, in the interests of informing the local community about the potential impact of the proposals in your draft Master Plan, you should consider providing information additional to the simple ANEFs.I have attached some options for you to consider which have been used for Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport and conceptually for the Badgerys Creek site—and he includes the indicative flight paths and a range of other matters contained in the correspondence which would reside within the minister's own department. (Extension of time granted)That was sent to the Brisbane Airport Corporation in March of last year, prior to the Brisbane Airport Corporation actually releasing its draft master plan. The problem that we in our community have is that the Brisbane Airport Corporation actually ignored the letter. It did not contain within its draft master plan a single shred of information on where the draft flight paths were to go. As a consequence, when it came to a community consultation process, people were left completely in the dark in terms of how this proposed new parallel runway contained in the draft master plan provided for Brisbane airport would affect their suburbs. There was not even a broad indicative map about where runways would go. Our particular concern arises from the fact that this correspondence from the FAS in your own department, Minister, asking for that information to be included in that master plan, was just ignored.This small ask was ignored by the BACL but it was a very large concern for local communities in trying to provide an informed response in the community consultation process to this proposal for the parallel runway. My first question, Minister, in that respect is: how can the BACL just ignore such a request from the FAS of the relevant division of your own department?The second example I wish to raise relates to the minister's subsequent endorsement of the draft master plan in February of this year. The minister issued a press statement on 12 February, conveying his decision to endorse that master plan. He said:I have further told the airport corporation that any runway proposal must explore fully the alternatives to a parallel runway, and provide the community with detailed information on the proposed flight paths and their likely environmental impacts.Well, that is a fair enough request but, on 2 March, barely two or three weeks later, Mr Rooijmans, the chief executive of the Brisbane Airport Corporation, is quoted in the Courier-Mail as saying:I think it would be an economic disaster in economic development in this area (not to act)—That is, in relation to the construction of the parallel runway. The article continues:Mr Rooijmans said extending the cross-runway was not an option as it could not be used as a second runway and therefore would not increase capacity.The problem which our community has, Minister, is this: your press statement says that the Brisbane Airport Corporation in developing its major development plan should not only look at providing additional information on indicative flight paths but should also examine other runway options including a cross-runway.The minister has asked the Brisbane Airport Corporation to do that, yet their chief executive two or three weeks later comes out, bold in print, and says that other option that you canvassed in your own press release—that is, the cross-runway option—is simply not on the table. It is unacceptable for the corporation's interests. That impacts on our community. How can we have confidence in a process when the CEO of the company with whom you have placed this request says, `Well, the option you have asked us to look at is simply not on the table'?The third example, which I will touch on quite briefly, goes to the heart of the provisions of the Airports Act 1996. Section 94(5) of that act, in the approval of a major development plan by the minister, says:If a final master plan is in force for the airport, the Minister must not approve the draft major development plan unless it is consistent with the final master plan.Again, our community has concern with the provisions of that act as it affects the decision which the minister has already made in relation to endorsing the draft master plan. The act says that you cannot have a major development plan for an airport which is inconsistent with an approved master plan. The master plan which has been approved contains within it a recommendation for a parallel runway. In the major development plan stage, how can you come up with a proposal which contains within it a runway option which is contrary to that contained in the draft master plan? You run into a basic conflict between the individual instruments.In conclusion, Minister, these are not polemical observations. I am trying to give to you, through the chair, a sense of why our community is concerned about the decision making process and how it appears to be weighted against the community which I, on the south side of Brisbane, represent. We therefore request you to give consideration to these views when we get to the next stage of this process and a major development plan comes to you for further consideration and approval.17:24:007082Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOTXW4DicksonALP00—The member for Hinkler adopted the same approach that the Minister for Transport and Regional Services and others have adopted for so long, saying that because Labor began the processes of privatisation we should forever hold our tongue on expressing a view on that matter ever again. He cited Qantas and he cited the Commonwealth Bank and he cited the Commonwealth Serum Laboratory.KV5NEVILLEMr Neville—Just be consistent.XW4Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOT—I am totally consistent, Mr Deputy Speaker. This is some baggage that I do not actually carry on this one: I voted against all of those things. And, unlike the member for Hinkler and the minister at the table, I clearly recall the Liberal Party in particular, with the National Party following along obediently behind, saying to the Labor Party at the time, `Do it all now and do it more quickly. In fact, privatise, sell anything that is not bolted down, right down to the forests.' No amount of posturing about who began the process can hide two things. It cannot hide the opportunity for a revision of the effects of that process. We should all review the consequences of public policy decisions. Secondly, it cannot hide the reality, shown by the votes in the parliament, that the Liberal and National parties supported every one of these measures.What is interesting in this debate has been the position of the National Party, particularly the Queensland Nationals, and I also add Mr Hendy Cowan from Western Australia and Mr Rob Borbidge, Leader of the Opposition in Queensland. When the member for Hinkler says, `We insisted on 49 per cent being a benchmark and there would be a rigorous independent inquiry,' the reality is that at the beginning of the election campaign the Queensland Nationals were saying, `No more of Telstra to be sold.' In the end they were coerced because it was embarrassing to the Liberal Party to have members of the coalition actually standing up for their constituents, who were very fearful of the effects of privatisation on the long-term provision of services in their areas.I would say—through you, Mr Deputy Speaker—to the member for Hinkler: what makes you have any faith at all in the promise of a so-called independent inquiry? We know what the agenda is. The agenda is to sell all of Telstra. The reality is that by voting for the next 16 per cent you have made that reality all the more inevitable because, as everybody will tell you, once you reach the 49/51 per cent combination, you then give people the opportunity to say, `Oh dear, this entity has some kind of schizophrenic personality—it doesn't know whether it is public or private. It can't do its best for the private shareholders and it can't do its best for the public owners; therefore, we will have to sell the rest of it.' That is the reality in voting for what seems like a mere extra 16 per cent. So the National Party is not absolved from responsibility in going against what I believe are the clear wishes of the majority of Australians who live in rural and regional areas in this country.The other thing I would say about the general move towards privatisation is this: the emphasis on individualism in this country, the way in which the Prime Minister crows about individual share ownership—and nobody begrudges people the right to buy shares—is working against the collectivist ethos which I think people who live in the bush value. We see that ethos in the proliferation of cooperatives, in mutual societies. We see the way in which country Australians band together for solutions. But under this government, from industrial relations across the board to pork barrelling for the provision of infrastructure, we are seeing that collective ethos seriously undermined—and country Australians do not like it. They like to be able to depend on each other. They like to think that there is an important role for government that they can rely on in the provision of basic infrastructure, for example. (Time expired)17:29:007083Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—I found that a fascinating little tirade. Let me say this to you: when talking about regional services in the context of this consideration in detail, we have never said that we are against privatisation. There was a distinct difference. The difference was this: we went to an election clearly spelling out what we wanted to do. We at no time misled the Australian public on what our intentions were and we mandated that two-thirds of the shares would always be in Australian hands; that no individual would ever own more than five per cent; that there would be two directors from country Australia; that the majority of directors would always be Australian; that the chairman would always have to be an Australian; and that the headquarters would always have to be in Australia. Therefore, every conceivable sandbagging of the security of Telstra was put in place.In addition to that, not only did we tell the public what we were going to do, but, when you were in a similar situation, you told the public that you would never sell Qantas—and you did—and that you would never sell the Commonwealth Bank, which you did.4K4ANDERSONMr Anderson—But they would never, ever, ever sell the second half.Ms Kernot interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. D.H. Adams)—Order!KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLE—I am talking about private ownership and never once did you honour any of those promises. There was never a condition put on the bush that we had to sell Telstra to do these things. What we did say, however, was that, in the selling of Telstra, it is only appropriate that some of the new infrastructure goes into regional Australia. For example, $120 million is going into SBS and into black spots in the television network. We did not treat the bush like Labor did. If you were so concerned about the bush, when you put SBS in place, why did you put the SBS in such a long drawn out tortuous mode? If we followed your timetable, some parts of regional Australia would not have SBS for another four or five years. We put $120 million in to expedite that.84HZAHRAMr Zahra—What about Triple J?KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLE—We are not talking about Triple J; we are talking about SBS. What is more, in my electorate of Hinkler I have parts that through 13 years of Labor virtually had no television. I take great pride in the fact that I negotiated with Minister Alston and that we are now going to fill not only SBS black spots, but some of the commercial ones so that people between Bundaberg and Gladstone might be able to watch commercial channels as well as the ABC and the SBS—a right that all Australians have had for years. That did not happen during those 13 years of Labor. And I repeat: you sold off Qantas, the Commonwealth Bank, the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories and other things that you have had to buy back.XW4KERNOTMs Kernot—It does not make it right to sell Telstra.KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLE—Let us get down to basics, and the basics are these: there is nothing wrong with selling infrastructure provided you invest that sell-off either in new infrastructure or the retirement of debt. In the retirement of debt you get back into your recurrent expenditure an amount that you can spend many times over. If we did not have your $80 million of debt, what could we do with $9 billion a year, every year, in perpetuity for the bush and, for that matter, for all the rest of Australia?The trouble with your time in parliament was that you not only ran up debt but did nothing for the bush. We well remember Paul Keating having to be dragged into country Australia during the drought. My successor, the previous member for Hinkler, Brian Courtice, was going around saying that there was no rural crisis. There is nothing wrong with selling infrastructure if you invest it in new infrastructure, and that is precisely what we have done for the bush.You sold infrastructure time and time again. You did not put any of it back into new infrastructure and you did not put any of it into retiring debt. You misled the public in the selling of those items and, worse than that, when you got the money in your hands and you could have done something good for regional Australia, you spent it on recurrent expenditure. How can you get up and hypocritically criticise us?17:34:007084Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOTXW4DicksonALP00—The honourable member for Hinkler says that there is nothing wrong with selling an asset if you spend some of the money investing in infrastructure, as distinct from failing to retire debt as well. But the thing that nobody has been willing to address in the coalition in recent times is: what happens when you have nothing left to sell and a government which has no intention of showing a national leadership role in finding real money to invest in a long-term way in regional infrastructure? A lot of the funding in this budget is for two years. What happens when you have sold the rest of Telstra and you have nothing else to fall back on? We have seen that mistake made in many other countries around the world.There is also a point about the benefits you claim in selling the asset in order to retire debt. There is a cross-over point about the year 2002 where the difference between the money you save on the interest being paid and what you lose in the income stream makes a big difference to the money the government will have to use in retiring debt in the long run. You have always failed to acknowledge that in debates about this issue.The problem for the National Party, in particular, is that country Australians know this. They know about the long term; they live with the cycles; they live with the seasons. They know about the commonsense of maintaining your most valuable asset. That is why they are instinctively sceptical about this privatisation. I wonder if any of you noticed the poll in today's Herald Sun in Melbourne. I did not bring it with me, but I recall it says that a very high percentage of Australians are sick to death of the economic trinity of privatisation, deregulation and user pays. They have lost faith in privatisation as having the capacity to deliver improved services. Why? Because they have seen water failures in Adelaide. They have seen electricity privatisation. They have seen hospital privatisation. Now we are supposed to stand back and blithely accept that, in privatising Telstra, we will find a provider go against the normal instinct of wanting to make a profit and willingly roll out its network in areas which cost a lot of money.That is why it has always been important to have a role for government where the market fails. Simply saying, `We'll take this bit of money and in the short term create this bit of alternative infrastructure,' is no long-term solution. Unfortunately, while I think a lot of the money will be spent on exciting and necessary initiatives, I want to point out to you that the equivalent minister in the New South Wales government had the government pay for the connection to the Internet for every small business person in country New South Wales. He did not say, `This is an important thing to do and you can only have it if you let us sell an asset.' He said, `This is an important thing to do and the government will find the money to make it happen.'All the things that this government has said about electronic commerce opening up the potential of regions and giving people who live in regions the opportunity to remain in regions for lifestyle choices and communicate and trade with the rest of the world are very important, but where the money comes from is also important and, if you were genuine, you would make that money available without this being tied to the sale of an asset. It has been a particular failure of policy in this country that the future of regional Australia is always tied in some kind of ad hoc way to some big pork barrel. (Time expired)17:39:007085Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—Mr Deputy Speaker, I thought at this point it might be appropriate to respond to some of the very interesting exchanges that we have had here. Let me firstly come to the member for Griffith. He raised a series of concerns that he has in relation to the administration of public policy and he tied that to his perspectives in relation to the Brisbane airport in particular.I would just like to indicate that I have a regard for his knowledge in this area. I believe that the questions he raised here again today have been answered, but I will go back and have a look at them and undertake to respond in detail to the concerns that he has raised. However, I would again point out that the approval of a master plan for Brisbane airport or any other airport does not allow them then to assume that they can ignore their responsibilities to consult completely, properly and thoroughly with local communities and affected stakeholders, as well as with interested stakeholders, in the future development of their airport, and that any final approval for development must meet the predetermined hurdles, including final approval from me.Let me come to some broader issues. I think it is worth keeping in mind where we have come from in the last 3½ years. When we got into government the reality was that we found that the real nature of the nation's books had been well and truly hidden from us and from the Australian people. That is not a matter of conjecture; it is not a matter that involves any legitimacy and catcalling across the chamber or anything like that; it is a fact.We were told the place was in balance. We were told that the red ink that the country had been awash with in the years prior to that had come to an end and that we were not going to face the ongoing problems of exploding Commonwealth, read taxpayers, debt, but in reality we found that we were. The truth of the matter is that the Australian taxpayers' responsibilities for Commonwealth debt had seen that responsibility grow from the order of $16 billion to over $90 billion in just five years, the years that the man who had once been described as the world's greatest Treasurer had in fact been Prime Minister.Even during the years that the current Leader of the Opposition had been Minister for Finance, that process had continued. Whilst he clearly sought to lead the Australian people to believe that there was no deficit for the coming financial year, the reality is that it was blowing out $10 billion, $11 billion or $12 billion every year, and the graph was continuing to head north.We got into government and found that, before we could achieve all these desirable social objectives and so forth—our own policy objectives included amongst them—we had to find $9 billion or $10 billion just to service the interest on the taxpayers' debt in this country. That situation had to be addressed.XW4KERNOTMs Kernot—You didn't leave the 1996 budget as it was.4K4Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON—Here we go, Mr Deputy Speaker. The minute you start to refer to the realities of the mess they left us, they start to catcall.XW4KERNOTMs Kernot—It is your perception of reality.4K4Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON—They wanted to keep on adding.XW4KERNOTMs Kernot—I know you have on the GST.4K4Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON—As the Treasurer said the other day, the one area where the Labor Party has magnificently changed its attitude in the last little while is that they now believe in surpluses. They say that if they were in our situation the one thing they could say with certainty is that they would have bigger surpluses. They do not know that their ministers are out there saying, for example—Mr Snowdon interjecting—4K4Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON—I wonder whether the Leader of the Opposition is aware that his shadow ministers are out there saying that we plainly ought to be spending another billion in this area while he is saying we should be having bigger surpluses and it ought to be done without resorting to the proceeds from privatisation.This really comes to the issue that I do feel is necessary to touch upon here. It is really a question of integrity, openness and honesty. The difference between you and us on privatisation is that we have told the Australian people what we believe in and what we intend doing.XW4KERNOTMs Kernot—They didn't want it. Sixty per cent said no.4K4Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON—You people continually try to pretend you were not going to do it. That is the fundamental difference. We had a debate about forests earlier. The speaker on the opposite side took credit for regional forest agreements. The reality is that they never got any up. You were never able to make them work. (Time expired)17:44:007086Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—I would like to touch on some of the transport issues that the Minister for Transport and Regional Services was on about, having regard to his areas of responsibility. Before I do so, I have to answer a few things, because if we are going to have a debate, even in the Main Committee, let us have a factual debate. Let us look at history and talk about the $25 billion that was left when the Labor government took over in 1983. Let us talk about the debt of the Fraser government when Mr Howard was Treasurer, and the wonderful deficit that we had then, and then move forward. As my capable friend interjected: who brought in the first postwar surplus that had ever been experienced in this area? That occurred under the Keating government in the 1990s. So let us bring the facts into the debate.I would like to raise, as part of our examination of transport matters, my very favourite subject—Badgerys Creek airport and what has been happening to it. I have objected to it, as the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, who is at the table, knows, since 1985, when it was first decided under a Labor administration. I will continue to object to it. However, I would like to see a little more honesty as to where we are going now.Since this government came to office in 1996, we have experienced three—or is it four?—transport ministers. I well remember the then member for Hume, John Sharp, before he lost his area of responsibility, telling us we would have an airport up and running before the Olympics. I remember the next minister coming in and saying, `We're not going to have an airport up and running before the Olympics; we're going to have Holsworthy.' Then we had an investigation into Holsworthy, and that was wiped. We then went back to the $12 million EIS into Badgerys Creek. What do we see now? Under the current minister, we actually see nothing at all.Before I came here tonight, I started to go through some of the press clippings from the last couple of months. I do not want to go back 12 months, which is ancient history, because then I would have to refer to all the core and non-core promises which this government seems adept at applying when people are starting to question what they are doing in administration. I would like to go back to as recently as 16 April. I am sure the minister will remember these statements. He promised, `Read my lips: it's going to be Badgerys Creek.' I refer to statements by the member for Lindsay, the Minister for Sport and Tourism, when she said that you, as a minister, were being run by your department, who seem to be gung-ho on Badgerys Creek without having an investigation. On 19 April, in the Canberra Times, the Prime Minister said he had spoken to his minister for tourism. He said, `I've had a few short words to her; I've had a discussion; therefore she'd better watch it.' I ask the question—and pose it to the minister at the table—as to how she got to administer a portfolio when she cannot even open her mouth on matters to do with her electorate.It is important that those of us living in Western Sydney know where we are going. Time and again, we have had the government procrastinate on whether a decision is about to be made or not going to be made. We were told in April that it was imminent. We were told in May that it was definitely going to be coming through. Of course, we heard these same stories last year. Before the last election, a decision was going to come down before October, and then we had an election in October. Then we were going to have a decision from the government in March. That did not come forward. It must have been because there was an election in New South Wales and the government here was worrying about what would happen there, having regard to the rebound that would occur if they had made that decision.Badgerys Creek should not be on. The people of Western Sydney do not want it. The people of Western Sydney do not need it. We believe that the whole of New South Wales neither needs it nor requires it. We also believe that not enough investigation has gone on, with current technology and current experiences, as to what the actual need of the transport system in New South Wales will be in the years 2008-10, which is when Badgerys Creek would be up and running if a decision was made now. We have already seen in the last 12 months the very fast train proposal come in. We have not yet seen an economic study which is going to tell us that, if the very fast train project gets up and running between Sydney and Canberra in the next couple of years, it could interfere with 10 per cent of the passenger services going out of Sydney airport.We have not seen the evaluation of what the costing was going to be and how people would be affected by that. We have not seen an economic costing of what would happen if a $4 billion airport were to come into being and people in Australia were not using it, let alone the people coming in from overseas. Minister Fahey has said, `I think maybe we should have a smaller airport,' yet at the same time that he was saying that, Airport Economics, which is exposing the myths of Badgerys Creek and Sydney KSA, put together by Leon Warren, was launched by the Minister for Finance and Administration. John Fahey, the member for Macarthur, launched that in budget week, saying, `What a great document this man has put together for one of my constituents, and I am launching that on his behalf, and also representing the Campbelltown Anti-Airport Group Inc.'What I am really saying to the minister is that we just cannot have government decision run by editorials. I do not believe that the people of Western Sydney are getting the correct information coming out to them. I was quite surprised, as recently as June, when the Sydney Morning Herald ran an editorial—and we do not often see an editorial in favour of us—saying that Badgerys Creek airport is really up the creek; that neither this government nor the minister know what they are doing; that Badgerys Creek is not an appropriate site for a second airport; nor is it clear that a second airport for Sydney is even needed. That editorial was quite extraordinary. (Time expired)17:49:007088Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I will continue briefly with my remarks. I was talking about integrity and about being open about government policy. As a former spokesman for the environment on our side told the green groups in relation to forestry, the difference between us and Labor is that we have been open and honest about what we intended to do with the forests. We have been able to get RFAs up and running in government, and the community is, to a degree that we have not seen for a very long time in this country, at ease about what is happening in our forests.84HZAHRAMr Zahra—Except for the workers at Swifts Creek.4K4Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON—When you talk about workers, have a look at what the Labor Party governments in New South Wales and Queensland are doing with regional forests. Go through the Queensland forest workers—7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I would like to have a little more relevance in the debate. Through you, I question the minister as to what relevance the forests have got to do with Badgerys Creek, which was the last point I raised here. There are no forests at Badgerys Creek. Obviously, the minister has not been out there to have a look at it.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. D.H. Adams)—Order! There is no point of order.4K4Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON—There certainly is not. I am responding to matters that have been raised here before. If the member for Prospect is so interested in this debate, she should attend for a decent amount of time. I may respond to some of the issues she has raised when I have time under the extraordinary arrangements that obtain in this chamber. And, incidentally, I have been out there to have a look.I return briefly to the matters at hand. In relation to privatisation, I think that the point can be well summed up by saying, for example, that, despite the denials by the Labor Party when they were in power that they were going to privatise Qantas, they did privatise it and gained $1.4 billion. Not a cent of it went to debt reduction. They borrowed another $10 billion over and above that $1.4 billion that year just to try to make their books balance for the year.We have been able to put in a far better performance than that. We have paid off a significant amount of debt, we are back in surplus—in fact, to the tune of $5.4 billion this year—our interest rates are at the lowest rate since man walked on the moon and inflation is at the lowest since 1963. That is a sound economic record that is being recorded in praiseworthy terms right around the world today. Of course, we have broken the economic growth barrier that Labor had. The minute the place started to grow and inflation would start to surge again, they would jack interest rates up and the whole thing would fall in a heap. That was the cycle. Australia has broken that cycle. We have faced the worst external shock since the end of the Second World War, and Australians have not been thrown out of work. They have not been in a situation where they have been massively dislocated by their mortgage rates going through the roof and so forth. The Australian economy has matured to a point not previously seen or understood for many years.A division having been called in the House of Representatives—Sitting suspended from 5.55 p.m. to 6.05 p.m.4K4Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON—There have been some very useful points here. I am sorry that the member for Prospect wants to be sarcastic about it, but I would like to respond to some of the points that have been made.I would like to go back to some of the issues that my opposite number, the member for Dickson, raised. She raised the issue of the distinction between the old approach of regional development and the one of regional services that we now seek to adopt. There is a reason for that: we have come to the conclusion that, when it comes to doing what we can in Australia's hard-pressed regional areas to regenerate economic growth and the job opportunities that go with it, particularly for young people, the appropriate federal role is to provide the right environment where that can happen.Obviously economic parameters are first and foremost about those. Unless you have actually operated a farm or a small business, I do not think anyone can appreciate how important interest rates, inflation, the currency values and so forth that pertain are to that sector of our economy. But over and above that the most useful thing that government can do is to ensure that across government it is delivering, where it humanly can, adequate levels of services—whether it is education, health, telecommunications, transport and so forth. That is what we have sought to do. Often the level of resources devoted is less relevant than the way in which policies are put together. A simple little initiative in the area of regional health, that I am very proud of, does not amount to very much in money terms in here, but the scholarships costing $4 million—$1 million a year for the next few years—to get country kids through medical school are undoubtedly one of the great keys to turning around that critical shortage in regional areas.18:07:007089Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—It is with regret that I must alert this House to one of the most flagrant abuses of ministerial power in our recent times in the gross mismanagement of Sydney airport and the servicing of airport facilities for Sydney. I raise the issue of the gross mismanagement of Sydney airport and the overwhelming environmental impact on Sydney. I refer specifically to the announcement by the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, Mr Anderson, of the precision radar monitor system being submitted to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage for an environmental impact statement, EIS. This is so, whilst the minister for transport ignores the unanimous and repeated objections of the Sydney Airport Community Forum, without the full implementation of the long-term operating plan for Sydney airport. The PRM is a vain attempt to push Sydney airport beyond its ecologically sustainable limit and exceed the maximum legal permissible movements pursuant to the Sydney Airport Curfew Act 1995 of 80 movements per hour.Sydney airport is full. Like London's Heathrow airport, Sydney airport has been pushed beyond its capacity. Sydney airport has violated its pareto optimum; it has passed its use-by date. Sydney airport cannot be allowed to be further expanded. The impact of implementing the PRM will have immediate and devastating environmental effects on the entire Sydney community. As the testing of the PRM has conclusively proven, planes will now fly some 1,000 feet lower than at present. The planes will be required to make more circuits around Sydney skies. The planes are going to fly low, slow and dirty over our schools, our homes and our hospitals. For 14 years, progressive governments have toyed with the idea of the second airport for Sydney. I recall vividly the debacle of the Howard government's Holsworthy-Badgerys Creek EIS process.The Holsworthy-Badgerys Creek EIS will go down in the history of the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 as one of the most dishonest, disgraceful and discredited exhibitions of political bastardry in Australia. The Howard government continues to procrastinate and flounder in light of the fact that Sydney desperately requires a second airport: an airport with sufficient carrying capacity and expansion potential to meet industry requirements and consumer demand now and in the future.The Howard government has demonstrated its total contempt for Sydney residents in failing to make any scientific and prohibitive decision in the site selection process for a second airport for Sydney airport. The situation has now reached such a crisis point that significant sectors of government are calling for a lifting of the curfew at Sydney airport. However, I warn all members of this House that implementing any such ideas will cause an environmental disaster for Sydney and especially in my electorate of Lowe. I guarantee that any attempt to lift the curfew will spark a revolt the likes of which no government in Australia has ever seen. The curfew restrictions under the Sydney Airport Curfew Act 1995 simply cannot be lifted under any circumstances.That leaves just two options: either build a second airport or continue expanding Sydney airport. We cannot expand Sydney airport. The only realistic option to take the pressure off Sydney airport is to build a second airport. Whilst we hear calls for the lifting of the curfew on Sydney airport, the PRM system is being sent to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage for consideration of whether to conduct an EIS on the matter. It is the worst of both worlds. We, the Sydney airport affected residents, are expected to take all the adverse environmental impacts. Like hell we will!It is the same tired old tactics of this government, backed by their corporate masters, to divide a community. Whilst holding out all sorts of promises, making all sorts of manoeuvres designed to mislead the public that something is being done, nothing changes—with one exception: Sydney airport continues to expand. That is the only truth; the only constant in this timeless debate.Just like the third runway debacle, this PRM will continue inexorably to full implementation unless a second Sydney airport is built and relieves the crushing burden on Sydney airport to continue expanding without end. I say this in light of the history of proposals, subject to an EIS under the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act, in which almost every proposal has gone through to completion.I urge this House to press the government to cease punishing the Sydney airport affected residents of Sydney with their litany of lies, deceptions and trickery. I further urge this House to press the government to decide once and for all on the selection and construction of a second airport for Sydney. It will take many years for a second airport to be built. It will take even longer for Sydney airport affected residents to enjoy the anticipated benefits from a second airport. In the meantime, I hear nothing but despair and dismay from my electorate of Lowe, one of the worst aircraft noise affected parts of Sydney. I call upon the Howard government, for once in its life, to demonstrate some leadership and make the decision necessary for us to benefit, and to stop pandering to vested interests. (Time expired)18:12:007091Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—I also wish to speak about Sydney airport and specifically the insulation program around that airport. In the budget there was some welcome news for some residents around the airport, with 216 homes and nine public buildings north of Stanmore Road being offered insulation. Those public buildings include the Harold Hawkins Nursing Home and All Souls Church in Norton Street, St Gerassimos Church in Henry Street, Wesley Uniting Church in Wetherill Street and St Fiacres Church in Catherine Street. All are in Leichhardt. In Stanmore, buildings include St Michaels Church in Clarendon Street, the Seventh Day Adventist Church in Cannon Street and the Buddhist Temple on Stanmore Road. The Jehovah's Witness Kingdom Hall in Enmore Road will also be insulated.That is a recognition that the government gave commitments with regard to the long-term operating plan that somehow residents north of Stanmore Road would be better off but the fact is that they are not. Whilst at the moment the figures with regard to movements to the north of Sydney airport have approached the target figures which were set, that is a product more of the weather rather than any good management at Sydney airport. It is quite clear that, as the number of movements at that airport increase, there is no alternative but to use parallel runway operations off the main north-south runway and the new third runway. The third runway was built in order to increase the capacity at the airport. We see concerns that the member for Lowe has raised about the PRM, the precision radar monitor system, are all about increasing the capacity at that airport. Residents to the north of Sydney airport, whom I represent, deserve to have commitments by the government honoured.In 1996, the current Prime Minister launched the Liberal Party policy `Putting people first' in the electorate of Lowe. Standing next to him at that time was a fellow called Paul Zammit, who was the then Liberal candidate for Lowe. Of course, due to the betrayal of the residents of Lowe by the Howard government, Paul Zammit has since resigned and betrayed the government that betrayed the residents of Lowe. Also at that time, commitments were given that the previous Labor government's commitments would be implemented. Residents living north of Stanmore Road—good working-class people in places like Stanmore and Petersham—received letters from the then Department of Administrative Services saying that their homes would be insulated. I believe that those commitments should be honoured.I am pleased to say that the Sydney Airport Community Forum has also carried resolutions unanimously calling for those homes to be insulated and those commitments met. I am also pleased to acknowledge the fact that the minister met with Brendan Nelson, the Chairman of the Sydney Airport Community Forum, and me and gave us a fair hearing. I thank the minister for that.I think that this issue should go beyond politics. One of the issues about Sydney airport is that, whilst governments come and go, the Sydney Airport Corporation and Airservices Australia stay the same. Their agenda is profits. Their agenda is moving as many people in and out of that airport as possible, regardless of what happens to the residents underneath the flight paths.I would also like to say that the offer of $15,000 extra for insulation for weatherboards, when combined with the slight increase in the cap on the works from $49,000 to $50,000, is inadequate. The fact is that weatherboards cannot be insulated properly. I invite the minister to come to my electorate and have a look at some of the weatherboards in places like St Peters and Sydenham—places where housing prices are amongst the lowest in Sydney because no-one wants to live there. They have no choice: they cannot sell their houses; they cannot move out. They are trapped in a hell because of Sydney airport and because of the expansion in capacity.As the National Institute of Economic Industry Research showed in its report into the need for a second Sydney airport, unless something occurs as in the building of a second Sydney airport, the number of people affected by increased aircraft noise will grow exponentially. That is why there is a need for the commitments which have been given to be honoured, in accordance with the wishes of the Sydney Airport Community Forum, in a bipartisan way. It is up to the government to take that on board and to fulfil those commitments.18:17:007092Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—At this juncture I would like to touch on local government because it does come under this area of responsibility that we are now dealing with in Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1999-2000 . If one takes into account the 700-odd local government councils around Australia and looks at their budgets, something like $14 billion is spent or 2.4 per cent of the GDP. Those councils employ about 142,000 people or three per cent of our national work force. Yet they are all now unanimous in the fact that they do not support the GST.Why don't local governments support it? Well, in 1997, this government cut over $15 million out of their budget. In the area that I represent, the two councils have already seen all the flood mitigation programs being stopped. Of course, the Commonwealth's answer to that is that it does not believe that flooding and flood mitigation is a Commonwealth responsibility; it should fall on the states. That does not help my councils, which still have $30 million worth of flood mitigation work to be done. Yet the Commonwealth is no longer funding any flood mitigation works.On top of that, local government is now going to be faced with the Howard government and Democrat amendments. Local governments will now have a GST, but they are being told it will not apply to rates. Local government provides a lot more services than just collecting rates. I would like to put on the record some of the local government activities that are now likely to be subject to a GST. Under regulation and licensing, there is advertising, air pollution, animals, boarding houses, building inspections, building regulations, cemeteries, crematoriums, eating places, fairs, amusements, incinerators, sewerage, water pollution, zoning and planning. Community service activities are aerodromes, aged and disabled housing, caravan/camping grounds, cemeteries, morgues, child-care centres, community halls, dental clinics, dump incinerators, festivals, health centres, home help/nursing, household garbage, immunisation, libraries, mapping, Meals on Wheels, museums, art galleries, parking meters, parks and gardens, preschools, preservation of historic places, public housing, public transport, recyling, refuges, school holiday programs, senior citizen centres, swimming pools and tourist information, just to name a few.And yet local government, which has always been recognised as a third tier of government throughout Australia, is being told by the Howard government that it will not really be affected by the GST. Little wonder that local government is now concerned, given some of those areas I have just read out that are going to have the GST. Another point that councils, particularly the ones I represent, have raised with me on numerous occasions is that they are not only unhappy with the GST—and they join all the other local governments around Australia in that—but also most concerned that before the last election an election promise, which originally came out of Liberal Party headquarters representing Mr Howard, was made that local government councils would not come under the GST. Of course that was subsequently denied. It must have been one of those non-core promises. Councils have also asked on more than one occasion who is going to pay them for upgrading their accounting systems once a GST becomes fact. Who is going to pay them—other than the ratepayers—to have accounting systems in place to collect the GST on every fee and charge and to then have another system in place to look at the claims and back the GST on inputs? In other words, they have got to take it in; they have got to take it out; they have got to do exactly what small businesses are going to do. As local government councils say, they are a service industry, yet they are going to be hobbled by what this government is trying to do with the GST.The government, in saying that they would not put the GST on rates, thereby making local government councils exempt from rates, were not honest enough to come forward and say, `Rates are really a tax, so you cannot put the GST, as a tax, on another tax.' I believe that is one of the reasons, if the government want to be honest, why the GST was never introduced onto the rates. Councils are saying that most of the services they are now providing are being subsidised by the rates they collect, but at the same time they have still got no answers to all of the questions in all of the meetings they have had with the government. All they are being told is, `This is what is going to happen; this is what is going to go.'I believe the people of Australia are going to wake up to that and, when the GST does come in, councils of all political persuasions will stand united. Some councils are non-political, but others certainly have political representatives elected as endorsed candidates. Yet they are all united in this one cause: they do not believe that this GST should be coming into services which they, as another tier of government, provide to the people of Australia. Again, I speak on behalf of my own councils, but I know I also speak on behalf of others with their local government areas throughout the state and throughout this nation. They say, `Enough is enough. You can't expect us to be a tier of government with money being taken out of the overall funding for local government time and time again by this budget and by the previous budget and expect us to exercise or implement a GST and collect this GST for the government.' They are not going to be recompensed for it, so who is going to pick up the tab if not the ratepayers? Their rates are high enough now as it is, yet that extra fee is going to be placed on them as another burden which this government has bestowed on the people. (Time expired)18:22:007093Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOTXW4DicksonALP00—I wanted to return to the appropriations debate on the sale of Telstra and the way in which the government's restoration of services and delivery of some new telecommunications services have been totally dependent on the sale of Telstra. The minister made much in previous comments of the integrity of this current government. He talked about the openness and the transparency of the sale of Telstra policy. As I recall it—and I took a very keen interest in this debate—in 1996 and in 1998 the Sydney Morning Herald conducted ongoing polls into public opinion on the sale of Telstra. As I recall it, 60 per cent of those polled consistently said that they did not believe Telstra should be privatised, and within that 60 per cent a very high proportion of country Australians felt that very passionately.That was the case in 1996 and it was again the case in 1998. Yet with a victory of a mere 3,500 votes out of 12 million votes cast, this government arrogantly goes ahead and claims a mandate for the total sale of Telstra, having managed to placate a few National Party members along the way with the temporary ruse of saying, `We will only go to 49 per cent at this stage, and we will have this wonderful independent inquiry.'I do not think it is fair or honest of this government to talk about integrity, about being open and honest, and then say, `We can ignore what people say about what they really think about our policy.' Australians do not want Telstra sold. They are lamenting the fact that 16 per cent has now been sold to take it to 49 per cent, which sounds a bit of a death knell for the rest of Telstra.On the matter of being open and transparent, I wonder if the minister would apply that description to the government's support for—or lack of support for, or lack of clarification of—its own code of conduct, a code of conduct which does not seem to have any circumstances which fit it. I wonder if the government now applies the description of `open and transparent' to its own Charter of Budget Honesty whereby it now fails to include forward projections. The government is not as full of integrity in action as it has been in rhetoric because the actions show that when the pressure is on the openness and the transparency are usually sacrificed in the name of expediency.Apart from challenging the notion of integrity, I think that it becomes clear that when the government says, `We are going to sell Telstra, no matter what you all think,' you are entitled to ask, `What will the government do with the proceeds?' So I want to look very briefly at what was happening with the Regional Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund, because I think it is really important to point out that even after the first third of Telstra was privatised there were reports about the decline in service levels in rural and regional Australia. Now we are supposed to feel entirely comfortable that this decline will be arrested because we have sold 16 per cent more!We have also been told that we are putting in place some other infrastructure. While I have said that we certainly look with interest at the kinds of projects—many of which are pilots and trials—which have been funded through this infrastructure fund, the reality is that most of them are temporary projects and most of them have limited one-off funds. So the replacement of infrastructure—which the minister is claiming—is in fact a very temporary thing. It is undermined by the loss of income stream which comes from the sale of the rest of Telstra.The really important point about governments having choices about what to do with the proceeds of privatisation is this: from the sale of the first one-third of Telstra, bankers and brokers received over $260 million in fees. That is more than the $250 million which the government initially allocated to the Regional Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund. What a contrast! What a way of showing the government's choices in this matter! (Time expired) Sitting suspended from 6.28 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.20:00:007094Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—I have a number of questions that I would like to put to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. I have taken the opportunity to hand them to him before the debate resumed. I will read them out and if the minister could respond now, well and good, but if he responds to them at a later time I would be happy, because they are very important for my electorate and also for the people of Sydney.Will the minister promise to ensure the full implementation of the long-term operating plan for Sydney airport? Is the minister prepared to implement a project schedule for the implementation of a long-term operating plan for Sydney airport? Will the minister honour the unanimous resolution of the Sydney Airport Community Forum and abandon the installation of the precision radar monitor system? Will the minister announce the EIS for Sydney's second airport? If so, when? Will the minister release the master plan for Sydney, Bankstown, Hoxton Park and Camden airports? These questions are very important for my electorate of Lowe and I would be grateful, with the minister present here in the chamber tonight, if he would take the opportunity to respond to those questions.20:01:007095Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOTXW4DicksonALP00—I only want to speak briefly on one other element in this appropriation debate, and that is the government's failure to show national leadership and invest in rail infrastructure in this country. I think that it was disappointing that Minister Anderson walked away from the establishment of a national land transport commission. While the Smorgon report was interesting in the way in which it reinforces the coalition government's ideology, in terms that the private sector should take the upper hand in providing infrastructure, in fact, what the Smorgon report told us was that the major barrier to improving private sector investment in rail is the lack of an integrated national transport strategy. This report actually says that the Commonwealth should take the lead in developing an economically driven national transport strategy.The government is spending $55 million in the coming financial year on upgrading the interstate track. The very excellent report, Tracking Australia, by the member for Hinkler, recommended an additional $750 million—not $55 million—over three years to be invested in the national track. The Smorgon task force to which I am referring recommended bringing forward the $250 million already committed—and fudged a bit by this government in pretending that it is new money, as announced several times. The Smorgon report said that $250 million already committed by the Commonwealth should be brought forward and an additional $470 million should be found by June 2002.The report also says that the Commonwealth should establish and fund a national rail authority. There is no leadership action of this kind in this budget. The Deputy Prime Minister on Face to Face at the weekend referred to the diesel fuel excise and talked about extending it to rail. `We were going to reduce it from 36c to 18c in the small print,' he said, and then he went on to try and claim it as a great victory for himself and the National Party when the Democrats actually forced the government to extend that excise to rail.Smorgon makes the point that competitive neutrality between road and rail is very important, and I agree with that. As welcome as the extension of the excise reduction is, the fact is that the greatest impediment to the future of rail in this country and to a totally integrated land transport plan is the failure of this government to invest in the track.The report recommends, as I say, an additional $470 million to bring the national track to a standard where it can provide a competitive and sustainable alternative to road transport. We do not see it as direct competition; we see it as a complementary land transport program. We really regret the failure of this government to take investment in rail seriously. If we are to unlock the potential of the regions, and if you ask people who live in the regions, they want us to be more serious about providing them with alternative transport infrastructure to roads and heavy trucks, and they see rail as providing that opportunity.In the remaining one minute I have I will sum up what I see as the biggest problem with this government's approach to regional Australia. Unfortunately, it is too much talk. We have had the bush summit from the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. We have had Dr Peter Brain's state of the regions report. We have had three years of discussion focused on One Nation's policy failures. We know a great deal about what is wrong with the bush. We know about the stress. We know about the insufficient services. We know about the depressing level of mental health care for rural young Australians. We know about the inequities in income, how Sydney gets richer and the bush gets poorer. We know these things. We do not need more and more and more talk and more forums. We need leadership. We need greater partnerships. We need action. We need a strategy. We need vision. Unfortunately, this budget is lacking in that combination of elements.20:06:007096Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I recognise that some issues of real concern and interest to people have been raised in this place. May I very briefly cover some of those. Firstly, the member for Grayndler has approached me in very good faith in relation to his concerns about airport noise and insulation and he has raised a number of issues with me. I am actively pursuing them and will be coming back to him on them.Secondly, the member for Lowe has raised five specific questions with me. I will undertake to respond to those. The government remains committed to the long-term operating plan, although it has to be acknowledged that that has to be consistent with the safe operation of the airport. BASI and CASA have had things to say about that in the past, but I was delighted that members of the Sydney airport community consultative forum recently felt able to say to me that they had noticed a distinct improvement in performance in that regard. There are a number of other issues here which I will follow up and come back to you on.In relation to the question of Sydney's airport needs, I can say that I will honour the broad commitments given in terms of releasing for public digestion the EIS, and the government will move to a decision making process in accordance with a reasonable timetable after that document is released. I would add that I am really conscious and the government is conscious of how difficult these issues are. There are real lifestyle issues, very genuinely held beliefs about lifestyle issues in the inner city areas. There are real concerns in the western suburbs. There are, of course, the competing interests of the economic future of Sydney and New South Wales, the need to build Sydney's reputation as one of the world's great destinations, with all that that implies in terms of jobs and prosperity. We will do this as sensitively and as appropriately and in as balanced a way as we possibly can.Let me come briefly to the comments made by my opposite number, the honourable member for Dickson. Can I say that I believe that we are developing an appropriate strategy for rail in this country. We inherited a railway network that was, I think by any standards, in a genuine mess. We have committed very substantial resources to bailing out—if I can use that term—parts of that rail infrastructure that were financially devastated, and NR is now in a much better resourced position to be able to go ahead.In terms of the interstate track and our commitments to a single point of access, we are making progress. I note the member's interest in the proposal for an NLTC—a national land transport commission. The Australian Transport Council, including the original major proponent of such a commission, decided that the ATC should be the body that should drive reform—the Australian council of ministers. I happened to support that view, and I drove it very hard. It was accepted by council. We are going to set up an advisory panel, but I believe that ministers are elected to make decisions and that that council—and I make no apologies for saying it—given that it crosses over so many jurisdictions, must make firmer decisions, because I share your view—I take it, your underlying view—that we really do need a national approach to rail and rail reform in this country. Unfortunately, it has been bogged down in the old problem that we get so often in this country of differences between jurisdictions. We do need to sort that out.I believe that, in terms of rural and regional Australia where the stresses and strains are well known to us all, we have made progress. I do not underestimate the challenges; they have a great deal to do with the truly tough economic circumstances facing our major commodity industries. We cannot be blamed for the international downturn in demand. I believe that the rural sector, given the economic environment it now operates in, would have been in quite good shape if we had not had that collapse in commodity prices. We as a nation do face major choices there. I think that the government has made a good start. Health alone is a number one priority for rural and regional Australians, and they believe that we have made a very substantial start in that regard.Proposed expenditure agreed to.Attorney-General's DepartmentProposed expenditure, $1,319,396,000.20:12:007097Cox, David, MPMr COX83UKingstonALP00—Lack of availability of legal aid for family law is one of the issues frequently raised by my constituents—and I am very glad that the Attorney-General is here tonight and may give them some kind of a response.I am finding that the sense of injustice that people feel when they have been inadequately represented leads to resentment that compounds the problems of coping with the economic and social difficulties resulting from divorce. Last week I invited representatives of the South Australian Legal Services Commission, the Noarlunga Community Legal Service and some non-custodial parents to a meeting in my office. Also present were some of my colleagues, including the member for Lilley, who is shadow minister for family and community services; the member for Gellibrand, who, early in her legal career, was an associate to a High Court judge; Senator McKiernan; and the members for Chifley and Shortland. They all have an interest in this area. As well, there was as an adviser from the office of the shadow Attorney-General. Together we discussed the problem of the lack of resources for legal aid.The Howard government, in its first budget, cut legal aid funding. Commonwealth dollars for legal aid have been frozen for three years, and the South Australian Legal Services Commission has been receiving the same number of dollars, regardless of inflation, increasing costs and growing demand.The Noarlunga Community Legal Service has one lawyer devoted to family law. The budget that that lawyer has to work with has also remained static for some time. The resources devoted to assisting low and lower middle income Australians with family law matters are severely limited. If one of the parties in a family law matter is working, they are probably not eligible for legal aid. Being represented in a contested matter is likely to wipe out any remaining savings and put them seriously into debt. After going a short distance down this track, they are compelled by their financial circumstances to take the decision that, if they are forced to continue with the litigation, they will do it without representation. Most would prefer to come to a settlement with their ex-partner, and that is the way that most family law matters are settled. But one of the unfortunate aspects of family law is that it takes only one party to decide that they do not wish to agree to a settlement to create a dispute that will be settled only by litigation. The result, if one party is eligible for legal aid and the other is not and must therefore go unrepresented, is extremely one-sided.The party who is properly represented will be in a position to maximise their position. The party forced to represent themselves, often in the mistaken belief that their logic and reason will prevail, finds they cannot achieve what they believe is any measure of justice. They will be lost in the procedure and process of the court. They find that what they believe to be sound and reasonable arguments have no relevance in the proceedings. They are unable in that environment to counter the arguments put on behalf of their ex-partner by counsel.Whatever the merits of their case, they are left with a profound feeling of injustice and powerlessness. This is not the small claims court. We are not talking here about small issues, where proper legal representation is unnecessary. The issues at stake are the wellbeing of children, the division of houses, superannuation and any other assets which the family have accumulated. These are the most important legal issues most people will have to deal with in their lifetime. The consequences have a dramatic effect on their lives for years to come. Where superannuation assets are affected, the consequences will extend into retirement. The Howard government's cuts to legal aid funding have compounded the problem.I am not suggesting that the Commonwealth should write an open-ended cheque to the legal services commissions around Australia to fund both sides of every vexatious family law matter. I recognise that law reform is a complex area but I would like to propose two possible solutions for examination. The first is for the Family Court to provide a legal advice service for those who will be going into court unrepresented, so that they understand a little better what they are facing. This could operate in the same way that the court requires counselling and mediation in an attempt to avert unnecessary trials. The Family Court needs to ensure that, where one party is represented at public expense, if the other is to go unrepresented they should at least receive some appropriate advice.The second possibility is more far reaching, but would not require any addition to government outlays. If only one party is to receive legal aid, the other should have the right to representation, the reasonable taxed costs of which should be a first charge against the assets of the marriage before they are divided. The extent of litigation paid for in that way would have to be strictly limited, perhaps to the representation necessary to obtain one interim and one final order. All other applications, appeals and enforcement orders would be excluded from the provision. I believe that paying for representation in this way would be a further incentive, in most cases, for both parties to agree on a settlement. It would be more likely to provide an outcome, even in difficult cases, which both parties would accept and so avoid further litigation.20:17:007098Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—I rise in this debate to discuss the problem that we confront, not just in Queensland, but right across the country in relation to the adequate provision of legal aid. My attention was drawn to this most recently in the front page coverage of the Courier-Mail of Monday 21 June 1999 reporting comments by the Chief Justice of Queensland, Paul de Jersey. Chief Justice de Jersey is quoted in the Courier-Mail as having said in relation to the provision of legal aid:The potential for miscarriages of justice has increased significantly. It must inevitably follow that miscarriages are in fact occurring.He goes on to say, as quoted in the Courier-Mail :We need to be extremely mindful now of the serious problems affecting the individual's access to justice.Chief Justice de Jersey's comments follow comments in a similar vein from the Bar Association in Queensland as well as the Law Society. None of these bodies could conceivably be regarded as general fronts for the Labor Party. These reflect, I think, the gravity of the legal aid crisis which we confront in Queensland at present.If you look at the statistics you find that the actual allocations to legal aid to Queensland by the Commonwealth in the three years between 1996 to 1999 reflect in fact an overall reduction of $4.1 million. If we look ahead, based on the numbers contained in the most recent budget papers and projections as to what the state allocation would be from 1999 and on to 2000 and 2002, we see that the reduction then would be, against the 1995-96 base, something of the order of $9.3 million. In fact, over the six years budgeted by the Howard Government, Queensland will receive $13.4 million less legal aid funding from the Commonwealth in real terms than if 1995-96 funding, the last funding under the previous Labor Government, had been maintained. That is the situation in Queensland which has led to such extraordinary comment by the Chief Justice and by other representatives of the legal fraternity in Brisbane.What we see in Brisbane and Queensland is a reflection of what we have seen across the nation. Funding provision for legal aid has collapsed under the current government right across this country and in every state. Between 1996 and 1999 we have seen a $90.5 million reduction in the legal aid funding. Projecting ahead for the upcoming triennium 1999 through to 2002, we will see a $140 million reduction in funding. Over the six years budgeted by the Howard government, the national legal aid system will receive $230.6 million less in real terms than if 1995-96 funding levels and funding commitments had been maintained.When we look at the Family Court, these problems dovetail with other difficulties which we have seen in the adequate provision of funding for the Attorney-General's portfolio. I return to Brisbane where we seem to have the most particular difficulties. Recent figures obtained by the Australian Labor Party show that the two registries of the Family Court, Brisbane and Parramatta, have shown delays that have blown out and are almost completely out of control. In Brisbane, standard track children's matters are now taking an average of more than 142 weeks, which is 2.75 years, from the date of filing to hearing; that is 99 weeks, almost two years, longer than they should and it is 52 weeks, one year, longer than they did as at 30 June 1998. Standard track financial matters have not fared much better, now taking 130 weeks, or 2.5 years, from the date of filing to hearing. That is 82 weeks longer than they should and 43 weeks longer than they did as at 30 June 1998.Taken together, these statistics, as they relate to the provision of legal aid funding and adequate funding for the overall support of the Family Court system of the country, and in Queensland, in particular, all have human casualties. The problems which we face here are not simply those of accounting and budgetary allocation in Canberra. Where the rubber hits the road is in the impact on families suffering family dispute and the requirement for family settlement through the Family Court system, and right across the board in terms of the totality of legal matters as far as provision of legal aid is concerned. What I would, therefore, most appreciate hearing from the Attorney-General is what the government plans to do to redress what has become not just a problem of basic access to judicial services and legal aid for the country at large but also a fundamental question of social justice. (Time expired)20:22:007099Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I am very interested in the comments made by both the member for Kingston and the member for Griffith. Regrettably, I think they are both speaking from a narrow perspective. I do not suggest that this is party political. I suggest that what you are looking at is legal aid in terms of the provision of public funding to legal aid commissions to engage private lawyers for private clients. That is the traditional way of looking at legal aid, but you have to see that there is a much bigger picture. I will come back to the question of what the bigger picture is.First of all, legal aid for family law has been maintained. I am not in a position, without notice, to comment on the member for Griffith's suggestion that there has been a reduction in real terms, but I can offer a partial explanation for that. In the negotiations following the termination of the 10-year-old agreements that just operated on an historical basis, new agreements were negotiated with effect from 1 July 1997. In order to cushion the effect of the confinement of Commonwealth funding to Commonwealth matters, arrangements were made which included the CPI indexing being in effect eliminated and paid out at the beginning of the process rather than through the years. So possibly there has been an appearance of a real reduction, but there has been no real reduction. It has been subject to indexing from the Commonwealth end throughout the period since 1 July 1997.A second comment that needs to be made is that, in the negotiation of the new agreements with effect from 1 July 1997, different arrangements were made with each state, but there was one common feature. That common feature was that the Commonwealth funding would be provided in accordance with Commonwealth guidelines, fixing Commonwealth priorities. One of the priorities fixed was family law and, in particular, children.In the process of the negotiation of what are in effect purchaser-provider arrangements with legal aid commissions, the legal aid commissions have said that there is far too much looseness in the provision of funding and that they need to narrow it. They have said that they need to narrow it down and say to families, `Look, if you are going to argue over where the child is going to reside we think there should be limits.' They negotiated among themselves and fixed a capping of $10,000 per partner and $15,000 per child representative. That, in aggregate terms, is $35,000 of public funding for parents to determine the arrangements under which their child will live. That, from my perspective, from a government perspective, seems to be pretty fair.We know that there are unreasonable people. There is an increase in unrepresented litigants, but a lot of those unrepresented litigants are not simply people for whom legal aid is refused and who do not have funding for their own representation; a lot of those people are people who either have not sought legal aid, or, having been refused on the basis that they have means, are not prepared to put their means into the issue.Another policy reform that we engaged in in the legal aid area was to ensure that legal aid commissions in the granting of funding would limit the funding to what an ordinarily prudent self-funding litigant would be likely to apply to their own case. I can appreciate that there is a bit of an outcry in the family law legal practitioners community because the family lawyers are not getting paid as much from legal aid as they previously were, and there is a bit of an outcry from Family Court judges because they are seeing more unrepresented litigants. But the system is working.What we have actually found is that in some jurisdictions since 1 July 1997 there are more family law cases being funded by legal aid than there previously were. A limit on the aggregate funding has meant that more people are being assisted, and I think that is a worthy objective. (Extension of time granted)I will now turn to the bigger picture. I will be brief about this because I know that there are other things to be dealt with. What the government has done is maintain funding at the 1995-96 level in real terms. It has fixed a priority for family law cases and maintained it. In addition to that, if you have a look at what other money has been provided, in recent years we have been providing additional funding to another source of legal aid assistance—the community legal centres. We have, in the last budget, funded five additional centres, and in the previous budget we funded six additional centres, all in rural and regional areas. We have increased the number of centres that are being funded and we have increased the amount of money that is available. We have substantially increased the funding to community organisations to provide mediation and counselling services in the family law area. In the last budget we provided $25 million for contact services. That is $25 million for parents to exchange children on a contact arrangement. In the last budget we applied $3 million for a family law advice hotline that operates nationwide. We provided to the family counselling and mediation dispute resolution services in the last budget an amount of $15.7 million over three years.So the bigger picture involves a bit more than just legal aid money going to private lawyers for private clients. In that respect, the government has come up with the goods. We are providing a service and we are making the provision of legal aid more efficient and effective. I am interested that there should have been seven Labor members and senators all meeting in the office of the member for Kingston. I am sure the occasion was not just about legal aid. I would be very interested to know what the rest of the story was.Proposed expenditure agreed to.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Gash)—I understand that it is the wish of this committee to bypass the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business to a further date and go on to the proposed expenditure now before the committee, the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. Do you wish to speak?7101Abbott, Tony MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPEmployment Services10—That is not my advice. If you have better advice, please let me know. I thought we were doing Employment now.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—I have been advised that they wish to bypass—20:31:007101Sercombe, Bob,MPMr SERCOMBEQK6MaribyrnongALP00—It is the preference of the opposition to revisit the item tomorrow. However, if that is not permissible under the normal arrangements, we wish to proceed to Immigration rather than deal with this matter. If it is possible to return to it tomorrow, that would be what we would wish. However, if it is not possible, we will dispense with it tonight.20:31:007101Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWSHK5MenziesLP10—Is it the request of the opposition that they have someone who wishes to speak on this, or could we just sort out the arrangements and deal with them?20:32:007101Sercombe, Bob,MPMr SERCOMBEQK6MaribyrnongALP00—There are members of the opposition who wish to speak on that, but regrettably neither is available this evening. If it were permissible within the forms of the committee to return to this matter tomorrow, that would be our desire. However, if that is not possible, we would simply move on and those members have lost that opportunity.A division having been called in the House of Representatives—Sitting suspended from 8.32 p.m. to 8.45 p.m.Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small BusinessProposed expenditure $2,126,581,000.20:45:007102Abbott, Tony MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPEmployment Services10—I will not detain the Main Committee long. I just wish to say that I think the budget was a good budget for the portfolio and that Job Network in particular and Work for the Dole are going extremely well. I look forward to these programs being part of the institutional landscape for many years to come.Proposed expenditure agreed to.Department of Immigration and Multicultural AffairsProposed expenditure $527,972,000.20:45:007102Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—I speak this evening on the issue of the Howard government's immigration policy, specifically in respect of spouse and parent visas. I condemn the government's policy rationale on parent and spouse visa applications to Australia. The government's family stream of Australia's migration program in particular shows that there is very little hope of Australian citizens being reunited with their spouses and parents. My electorate is a culturally diverse electorate containing some 23 recognised cultural groups. Lowe is located in the inner west of Sydney and contains a rich and diversified mix of people of many races, religions and cultures. It is not then surprising that Lowe is also one of the busiest electorates with regard to immigration issues. I therefore speak with some authority, as I have observed a significant growth in the volume of immigration matters since I became the member for Lowe.There is a great degree of frustration and hopelessness over the government's present policies in respect of parent and spouse visas. Some applicants must wait for up to 10 years under the present policies in order to receive their visas. The background of this appalling situation lies in statutory rule No. 285 of 1998, which deals with parent, aged parent and aged dependent relative visas. Under the previous migration regulations, it was possible for Australians to sponsor their parents to migrate to Australia. Parents who were not aged—that is, old enough to qualify for an Australian age pension—could only apply if they were living offshore. Parents of retirement age—that is, aged parents—could apply either in Australia or overseas.The Howard government has attempted to amend the migration regulations, which sought to make the following changes: (1) generally, parents can no longer apply in Australia, with the sole exception of an aged parent who has held a retirement visa for at least 10 years; (2) only aged parents can apply to migrate to Australia; (3) the bond for primary applicants would be increased from $3,500 to $4,000 and for secondary applicants from $1,500 to $2,000; and (4) an assurance of support would be given for a person generating a taxable income of at least $23,500 per annum.The rationale for these changes, contained in the new regulations, is: (1) the perceived cost to the economy of persons living in Australia over the age of 45 years—however, I point out to the House that the government's analysis is based on narrowly focused and short-term economic considerations; (2) the recommendation of a new elite visa class with the total cost of sponsoring two parents to Australia being $17,060—for the application fee, social security bond and health levy—plus air fares; (3) queue jumping and discrimination against applicants—under the new regulations, the new aged parent visa subclass will be given priority in processing even ahead of parent visa applications lodged years ago; and (4) the legitimate expectations of spouse parent visa applicants. Under these new regulations, no other reunion of parents with their adult children and their grandchildren will be possible until the parents reach retirement age. This will deprive Australian families of the direct valuable supportive role of parents and grandparents which helps to stabilise families. And families are the most precious element of our society.As we know, the Senate has successfully moved a disallowance motion on the proposed amendments to the regulations. I am informed that the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, on the advice of its minister, has responded to the Senate's disallowance motion by reducing the number of parent visas to 500 per year.The minister's decision has had a devastating effect on my electorate of Lowe and on Australia at large. It is deplorable that Australian citizens should wait so long for visas to be issued. These policies are a deliberate, discriminatory attempt to dissuade legitimate migration into Australia and may place Australia outside its international obligations under public international law. This is a matter that I intend to pursue.20:50:007103Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellALP00—The situation, with respect to what is happening to immigration policy at the moment, is that the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs continues to be dictated to by his department, and his department is very adept at misleading not only the minister but also the general Australian population. I raised two questions on notice with the minister concerning visitors visas and the discriminatory way in which the whole visitors visa program is operating. I also raised the issue before the Joint Standing Committee on Migration in its inquiry on the Olympic Games. In his second reply, the minister provided me with information, and on the basis of that information I was able to write to the minister and insist that, in fact, the department had misled not only the minister but also the Australian public in relation to the definition of non-returnees.Four categories were used for the definition of non-returnees, and of those four categories only two could be considered—by anyone—as legitimate categories in defining non-returnees. In fact, on the basis of these false figures, the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has gone about implementing a discriminatory policy against certain countries in relation to visitors visas.The policy is discriminatory in two ways. The first way is that it is institutionally discriminatory. In some countries, all you have to do to get a visa to visit Australia is go to your travel agent—who works with the so-called ETA system—and give them your name, address and passport number. They punch in a couple of details, and, within a couple of minutes, they get your approval for a visa.On the other hand, in some countries—and in my letter to the minister I referred specifically to China, Lebanon, Turkey and Vietnam—it has become the practice to subject people to very serious interrogations which sometimes last more than one hour. People are asked to provide documentation, including proof of their assets, employment and all the rest of it. This is not for permanent immigration; this is for a visitors visa to Australia for four to six weeks.In many cases, the people rejected are not simply people who are visiting friends or wanting to visit our country for tourism purposes, but they actually have relatives in Australia. Often they want to come for a legitimate reason—like a wedding, a baptism or some other event—and they are not allowed to come. The rejection of these sorts of people, especially at a time when the immigration program has been cut back in family reunion, is a disgrace. I say this to the minister: if a person's brother or sister cannot come to Australia under the normal immigration program because they have no hope, but they want to see their brother or sister once every five or 10 years, what happens? They are rejected, and they are continually rejected on the basis of a system which was put into place based on the level of risk and on the level of non-returnees.On the figures provided to me by the minister in reply to a question on a previous occasion, if you take out the legitimate categories, the situation is that the real non-return rates are much lower than was claimed by the department. The Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs are getting up to their old tricks of trying to deceive ministers in relation to policy by creating false `facts' and trying to use those false `facts' to base policy on. This is not the first time that this has happened. (Extension of time granted)Let me talk about the figures in these categories. There were four categories and, of the four categories, only two can be considered as legitimate categories. One is the category of people who overstay their visa; their visa expires and they stay in Australia. Everyone admits that category of people has misused the system. Then there is the category of people who overstay their visa and at a given moment return. We admit that one as well, even though they do return. Those are the two categories of whom I—and, I think, every Australian—would think, `They are clearly people who have in fact overstayed their visa or who have not met the conditions of the visa.'What has happened is that the department has included two other categories in the definition of non-returnees. One is the category of people who go to the department of immigration after their first visa is about to expire, get an extension and then leave legitimately before the second visa expires. These people have done everything in accordance with the law. Why are these people called non-returnees? Why are these people included in this factor? I wrote to the minister a long time ago on 29 April. It is very interesting that at 5.30 p.m. today I got a letter from the minister in reply. It has taken him all this time and he has admitted himself that he had to go through four different drafts of the letter trying to justify the situation.I have had a look at the letter very quickly and, Minister, you can state whatever you like in this letter but what you ought to be doing is getting your departmental officials in and saying, `Why have you misled me in relation to this matter?' instead of trying to justify what they are doing. As I mentioned, they include the category of people who come to Australia and get a second visa legitimately from the department. But that is not all. The other category is of people who come to Australia, apply to the department for permanent stay and are actually accepted. Can you believe that? People who are actually accepted legitimately by the department of immigration are then defined under this proposal as non-returnees and as risk factors. The department itself has approved them. This is an absurdity.Let us take these figures in a different way. For example, from China, according to the DIMA figures, 14.59 per cent are non-returnees. If you admit only the legitimate category, it is 3.24 per cent. If you take the Lebanon it is 25.5 per cent according to DIMA, but if you take only the legitimate categories it is 3.65 per cent. For Turkey, if you go by DIMA it is 17.3 per cent but if you take only the legitimate categories it is 2.87 per cent. For Vietnam, it is 19.5 per cent according to DIMA, but if you take only the legitimate category it is 3.32 per cent. Why is this an issue? Because on the basis of the false figures from the department we have an exercise of a policy which has meant the following. From Lebanon 46.5 per cent—nearly one in two applicants for a visitors visa—are rejected. This is an outrage. Are we saying that nearly one out of two Lebanese people applying are non-genuine applicants? Is this what the minister is claiming? In this letter he is trying to justify this kind of practice.From China, there were 25.5 per cent rejected for visitors visas. The government goes and signs a contract to try to increase the number of visitors from China to one million people. The tourism commission and all the other tourism bodies have criticised the minister and supported the sort of argument I presented in parliament and to the minister. The tourism commission supports what I am trying to say. We signed this agreement with China and yet we reject 25 per cent. On the basis of these intense interrogations of people, we reject the applicants for visitors visas. This matter needs an inquiry and you have rejected an inquiry. I call on you again to reconsider. (Time expired)21:01:007105Danby, Michael, MPMr DANBYWF6Melbourne PortsALP00—Last week a young Russian who had just come from his solicitor trying to get his parents into Australia came into my office. This young man formerly worked for Deloitte in New York and Moscow. Here in Australia he works for a major accounting firm which is undertaking privatisations for the state government in Victoria. He is the kind of immigrant that we should be chasing all around the world to get into Australia. He is at the beginning of his taxpayer life. He is a credit to the Russian community that he comes from. In three years his English has become perfect. He is an Australian citizen and he is making a great contribution to Australia.He explained to me that his taxes pay for eight unemployed people. He explained, just as the member for Lowe outlined in his remarks earlier, that his parents were being treated as second-class citizens and so was he. Only 500 people of the 20,000 who want to come into Australia are being allowed to do so. For this man, this is a blatant act of discrimination. Not only that—and perhaps this would appeal more to the people opposite—but it is not in the economic interests of Australia that this kind of thing happens to these kinds of immigrants. It is an absolute disgrace that this fellow is so agitated that he is seriously contemplating—and he has the capacity to do it—leaving Australia and seeking employment in the United States, where he will have a much easier time getting his parents in. I begged him not to do that, because I think it is in the interests of Australia that he not leave this country. He is having me make representations to the minister and the appropriate embassy.I would say that the situation outlined by the member for Calwell is wider than he realises. The problem with visitor visas—to change the topic slightly—is not isolated to those countries that he mentioned. It also involves the former Soviet Union and Israel.QJ4THEOPHANOUSDr Theophanous—And many others.WF6Danby, Michael, MPMr DANBY—And many other countries. A large number of people from those communities come into my electorate office and explain all kinds of ridiculous problems which eventually we are able to iron out with the immigration authorities. One thing I feel is that the current government has let itself be overawed by the anti-immigration lobby in Australia—the Paul Sheehans with their myths of anti-multiculturalism, the Kathy Bettses and other academics at Monash University who seem to have a professional anti-immigration agenda that they push all the time. We had the regrettable former member for Oxley who tried to ride the wave of this anti-immigrant public sentiment.Unfortunately, I think the government in the ensuing time has taken all of the wrong and cowardly lessons that its pollster, Mr Textor, is feeding to it. And while I am sure the current minister and most leading members of the government are not individually in favour of discrimination, they are bowing to this political agenda.It is not just within the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, as the member for Calwell said; it is in all facets of the media and in academia. They have mounted a very successful campaign to denigrate immigration and immigrants in Australia. I would like to know who organised the photos of the poor tomato workers who were captured and tied up with ropes and pictured on the front page of the Australian. I think it was disgraceful.0J4RUDDOCKMr Ruddock—I can tell you who organised it.WF6Danby, Michael, MPMr DANBY—I am sure you can.0J4RUDDOCKMr Ruddock—It was the farmer.WF6Danby, Michael, MPMr DANBY—The department of immigration officials who came and treated those people in that way should be pulled into line and the minister should change the policy. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. J.A. Crosio)—As no other member wishes to speak to these appropriations, I call the minister to close the debate.21:06:007106Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—Let me deal with the two matters that have been raised in these estimates, briefly if I can, and the first is in relation to parents. I have heard the points that were made. The Labor Party has a very simple issue that it has to deal with. Do you believe the program is the right size? Do you believe the composition is right? You tell me it is, but if you tell me it is then you cannot go out and argue that parent numbers ought to go up.I want to deal with the matter of parents in two ways, fairly briefly if I may, because they were raised by the member for Lowe and the member for Melbourne Ports. The Labor Party itself recognised when in office that something needed to be done about parents who were going to be highly welfare dependent. It brought in a balance of family test. The numbers blew out again very significantly and the issue needed to be addressed. The situation that the member for Melbourne Ports wanted to address would have been met by the 113 class that we brought in. The young man would have been able to sponsor his parents because they were prepared to accept the obligation of being supported, and that would have been possible. But your colleagues disallowed it. I understand that. Members of the Labor Party have to recognise that if you are of the view that the policy that had been applied over many years of precluding people from the age pension, and that meant that we as taxpayers generally were not going to pick up that responsibility, then you needed also to have a preclusion in relation to special benefits and a range of other benefits, otherwise you were simply bringing people in to make them welfare dependent upon the Australian community as a whole.We can address that side of the equation or we can address the numbers. I am willing to talk about how these issues can be addressed; but it is very undesirable to focus on bringing in large numbers of people that other taxpayers have to support, when the people who are going to benefit are those who want to use family members to enable them to have two people in the work force—which is very often the case—with the parents providing child minding. They are the sorts of arguments that I get as to why people want their families to come. I think the measures that we have proposed were not unreasonable but the view was that they should have been disallowed.I will deal now with the visitor visa system. I just checked because I wanted to be sure I was not slandering the member for Calwell. He was not a party to this report, but many of his colleagues were. The report actually deals with the issue of risk factors, the sort of analysis that has to be undertaken to ascertain whether or not you are going to have people coming to Australia who are going to breach visa conditions, such as overstay, working unlawfully—all the things that you rail about.The member for Bowman tells me that he is tougher than I am—he wants to deal with unlawfuls. The only way you deal with minimising the number of people who are unlawful in Australia is to be able to identify risk factors where they occur and to deal with those. These measures are not discriminatory in terms of race. It is very clear. If you come from Malaysia or Singapore you can get an ETA and we have just extended that to Hong Kong and Taiwan. These are countries that are essentially compliant markets.The issue that the honourable member for Calwell has raised about the sorts of factors that you take into account, the committee looked at. We were concerned that people who were applying for protection visas were not being included as part of a risk factor. We were concerned when we looked at the issue of visas that risk factors ought to be examined again to bring into effect the wider range of issues.It has always been a matter of policy—whether it was your government or ours—that in relation to visitor visas we wanted people who would come here for a genuine visit but not apply onshore for further visa classes. People can come in as a visitor and then apply to be a student—and this is dealt with in the letter that members might care to look at that I have circulated in response to the member for Calwell—or come in and then apply to be a spouse, or come in as a visitor and then want to be a parent applicant. The difficulty is that people are assessed for visitor visas against health criteria which do not involve any checking whether they have got tuberculosis and do not involve checking whether they meet character requirements. So we then have to try to process them here in Australia, away from the skilled staff with the special capacities to process them—that is, in the overseas posts.It is highly undesirable to have people coming to Australia and thinking that, because we have got a number of exceptions for compassionate reasons, people ought to be applying onshore in Australia for a permanent outcome. So the risk factors do take up those sorts of issues. They are properly taken into account and the sorts of risk factors that we are applying today are the same sorts of risk factors—(Time expired)Proposed expenditure agreed to.Department of Communications, Information Technology and the ArtsProposed expenditure, $1,753,131,000.21:13:007107Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON8T4ReidALP00—One matter of interest in the communications sector in this budget is the lack of assistance or the lack of progress in regard to captioning for television. Over the last decade there have been some gestures in this direction around the question of SBS and ABC but it has largely been left to the commercial stations to see what effort they would make. We have a very sorry situation in this country at the moment. In comparison with the United States, where 95 per cent of programs are now captioned, and with the United Kingdom, where it is on 50 per cent, the Australian level is still 15 per cent and that is after 16 years of allowing the industry to see what progress they can make.I want to commend the activity of a constituent in the adjacent electorate of Parramatta, Mr Nick Tayeh, who, in the last session of parliament, produced the latest 35,000 signatures on a petition now of 123,000 Australians who wish to see a greater effort by commercial television and by the government in basically putting a bit of enthusiasm into commercial television to increase captioning.This problem is very serious for a large number of Australians. A 1995 ABS analysis concluded that at that stage 1.7 million Australians were either deaf or suffered hearing impairment. One has to add to that list of those that will be assisted the large numbers of non-English speaking background Australians who, essentially, because of pronunciation problems and other difficulties, are actually assisted by captioning on TV. So it is not only for those who are directly affected by hearing impairment, but also for those people who have English as a second language.The reason we trail the United States has been the level of intervention by government. It is surprising when we look at the United States and its general image that over there it is the people making the programs who are responsible under 1996 US legislation and that after 1 January 1998 all programs have to be made fully accessible. In the United Kingdom from 1996 under their Broadcasting Act all digital terrestrial has had to caption. So there has been a significant effort in those countries. It is also interesting to note that in this country, when a commercial television station decides to go ahead of the pack and do something about it, cost is not a significant problem. In reality, Channel 7 is acknowledged as putting a bigger effort into this and preparing for a stage when the government is going to require activity.I want to emphasise the efforts on this matter of Nick Tayeh, who is an elderly person who essentially became interested because of his own son's difficulties. He has got 123,000 signatures and he has made this effort at times in pouring rain, and it has affected his health on some occasions. His latest thrust is a concern with the upcoming Olympics. We will see a lot of hoopla and hyperbole about the Olympics, but he drives home the reality that the people who cannot hear television are going to be isolated to hearing only the opening and closing ceremonies. Quite frankly, that is not a very satisfactory outcome for those people. The two things he is driving for at the moment are: that all television programs and videos in Australia be captioned for the year 2000, including the Olympic Games, for the benefit of deaf and hearing impaired people; and that from the year 2000 all television sets made in Australia must have a Teletext facility built into them.This is a matter that has not been in mainstream debate in Australia. We have allowed the commercial television stations to make their own rules, their own progress, to get around to it when they feel like it. The amount of money involved in this is nowhere near as significant as to actually stop progress. We have seen that, in other countries where there has been a degree of government pressure and there have been different means of doing that, progress has been made. So I hope that, in the next few years, governments of whatever variety ensure that there is increased access for these people, that they are not condemned to only knowing the news and a few current affairs programs and that they do get a wider opportunity to experience television.21:18:007108McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPArts and the Centenary of Federation10—I wish to acknowledge the contribution of the member for Reid on behalf of his near constituent, Mr Nick Tayeh. I undertake to pursue these matters with the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts and to provide a written response for the honourable member so that he may further communicate with Mr Tayeh.I understood that a fair bit of progress had been made in the last few years. It is nowhere near good enough, as the member for Reid has outlined, showing that only 15 per cent of Australian programming is captioned compared to—if I understood his figures correctly—95 per cent in the United States and 50 per cent in the United Kingdom. So whatever improvements may have been made are far too incremental when compared with these other countries. There is no doubting, as the member for Reid stressed, drawing on the 1995 Australian Bureau of Statistics analysis of 1.7 million Australians being deaf or hearing impaired, that this is a very serious issue. For the large majority of those people who cannot hear any of the programming other than by way of captioning, it is a very grave issue indeed.I would like to take the opportunity of thanking the member for Reid for drawing this to the parliament's attention. I am confident that the information provided by the minister for communications will show a concerted effort by the government to address this problem, as it occasionally crosses my desk, but I am not sufficiently knowledgeable to assert that the actions we have taken are going to be good enough for the member for Reid or Mr Nick Tayeh at this stage, and in any event may not be good enough for other members of parliament. It is a good issue to raise and one we must pursue vigorously.Proposed expenditure agreed to.Department of DefenceProposed expenditure, $14,277,978,000.Department of Veterans' AffairsProposed expenditure, $367,421,000.21:20:007109Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON8T4ReidALP00—In my speech on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1999-2000 on 2 June, I highlighted a number of misleading aspects of the Defence budget papers. The next day, the honourable member for Herbert, Mr Lindsay, responded to my speech on behalf of the relevant minister. But his reply did nothing to rebut either my intentions or those of earlier articles in the Financial Review . Let me first consider the question of the Defence Reform Program. On 2 June, I pointed out that cabinet had adopted a target of 50,000 personnel, not the figure of 42,500 that was proposed by the Defence Efficiency Review. I noted that this meant that up to one-third of the proposed savings had disappeared, despite the former minister, Mr McLachlan, issuing a press release on 9 December 1997 saying:Annual savings will be $900—$1,000 million—that is an additional $10 billion over a decade to spend on new equipment, better training and more exercising.The member for Herbert responded by claiming that the reform program was well on track and is in fact ahead of plan. He notably failed to repeat the former minister's undertakings in his media statement of 9 December 1997. What does the Defence portfolio budget statement for 1999-2000 say about these figures?Firstly, on the question of the 50,000 target, revised up from 42½ thousand, I draw attention to table 1.4 on page 15 of the portfolio budget statement. For the year 2001, it predicts that the amount available for reinvestment from alleged reform program savings will be $675 million. It then lists total new spending, labelled `Reinvestment Initiatives Details' totalling $866 million, of which $338 million will be to fund the higher than planned personnel numbers.So there we have in black and white that total new spending next financial year will be almost $200 million more than reported savings from the Defence Reform Program. And, just as I said, more than one-third of the new spending will be to meet the revised personnel target. Further, a footnote on page 16 of the portfolio budget statement says that the costing given for the 50,000 personnel target is `an interim measure only', being subject to further study of the required rank, profile, disposition, skill level and readiness of the force.The clear implication is that the required cost may turn out to be higher than that reported in the PBS. My point in again raising this issue is obviously not to question the 50,000 target. I certainly do not advocate further cuts in uniformed positions, and the efficiency review's targets were patently unachievable. My point is to again highlight the government's duplicity in promising service people `an additional $10 billion over a decade to spend on new equipment, better training, et cetera'. But it knows that it cannot deliver. I also point out that the government's figures, relied on by the member for Herbert quite dutifully, count as reform program savings a number of administrative cuts that were adopted in the 1996 budget, a year before the reform program began. These savings were reallocated within the Defence budget up to and including 2001. On page 15 of the Defence PBS we read:Reinvestment of the unallocated savings from 2000-01 onwards has been combined with the Defence Reform Program reinvestment for reporting purposes.In plain language, savings that predate the reform program now appear in the estimates for 2001-02 and 2002-03 to make it appear that the reform program is on track. The amounts involved are $66 million and $117 million respectively.The second aspect of the Defence budget that I highlighted in my 7 June contribution was that the government had not provided any additional resources for any of its new initiatives. Nothing in the reply by the member for Herbert really disputes this point. I repeat that these new initiatives can only be funded by moving funds away from other parts of the Defence budget, thus on page 19 of the Defence portfolio budget statement the government itself says:While the real level of Defence funding has been maintained in 1999-2000, Defence has been required to absorb within existing outlays a range of additional costs and expenditure pressures arising from Defence and Government-related initiatives. Examples include the cost of bringing a second army brigade and associated units to 28 days notice to move . . .Indeed, the Defence department makes it clear on page 16 of the portfolio budget statement that it was unable to fully cost the government's decision to place a second brigade on increased readiness by the time the official budget estimates were due. (Time expired)21:25:007110Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—I hear what the member for Reid has had to say. Why does the member for Reid not pronounce some of the good things that the Howard government has done, such as setting in place a range of wide-reaching reforms designed to improve efficiency and to free up resources for re-investment in combat capabilities and operational readiness. On maturity the Defence Reform Program will realise ongoing efficiency in excess of $900 million per annum and a one-off saving of $500 million with all these resources being redirected to capability enhancement, preparedness and personnel costs.The government has recently established a high-level DRP strategy management and reporting team to enhance the profile and maintain the momentum of the Defence Reform Program. This joint service and civilian team will facilitate the implementation of the Defence Reform Program and manage an ongoing integrated change management strategy.The Howard government has also overseen significant project approvals, negotiated major defence contracts and has taken delivery of important equipment that will enhance defence combat capability and readiness. In addition, important defence facility projects have been progressed which will provide substantially improved support to operational training and logistic components of the Defence Force. Some of the major capital facility projects include: air operational facilities at RAAF Darwin and RAAF Learmonth; development of Bradshaw Field training area, Northern Territory; redevelopment of HMAS Albatross—of course in the Gilmore electorate, providing considerable jobs and expenditure, and opportunities for small business; the Lavarack Heights Barracks stage 2 and RAAF Base redevelopment at Townsville; the RAAF Base redevelopment at Amberley; the sales of stores depots at Zetland in Sydney and Laverton airfield in Melbourne; the sale of surplus defence properties, particularly in Sydney and Melbourne; AEW&C facilities at RAAF Williamtown near Newcastle; continued development of Army facilities in Darwin; and Russell redevelopment and completion of RAAF Scherger and RAAF Tindal stage 4.It also has increased preparedness. A second army brigade size group and supporting naval and air assets are being brought to 28 days notice to move by 30 June 1999 in order to ensure that the government has options to respond at short notice to the range of demands and developments that could arise. This increased level of preparedness is to be sustained for an initial period of two years. These include the lease of the high-speed catamaran to enhance Navy's amphibious capabilities, the so-called HMAS Jervis Bay, again providing jobs for our area.In strategic policy, on a broader scale the Howard government conducted a searching review of Australia's strategic situation. In November 1997 the government endorsed the strategic review 1997: Australia's strategy policy—and this policy was the key document in the government's efforts to ensure that Australia has a modern, relevant military—gave defence policy a more outward looking focus and established a future direction for Australia's defence planning into the 21st century.Following this strategic review, the government developed a force structure priorities paper to provide a structured framework for the assessment of individual capability proposals. Also a new defence white paper is in preparation, which the government will release in the year 2000. The government has improved defence strategic policy making and increased the frequency of internal strategic assessments in response to changing international conditions. Stronger links have been built between strategic assessments and the decisions made about the kinds of military capabilities that the ADF needs. These changes have improved Defence capacity to plan military strategies and to highlight areas where new or improved defence capabilities are needed.An Office of the Revolution in Military Affairs has been established to provide a focus in Defence on these most important military, technology and intellectual developments. In addition to normal training tasks and operational readiness preparations, the Defence Force has successfully undertaken a wide range of unforeseen operational assistance tasks that have rigorously tested capabilities and readiness, and the ADF has responded to these demands efficiently and effectively, displaying the highest degree of dedication and professionalism. Indeed, I think we have done extremely well with the Defence portfolio.21:30:007111Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON8T4ReidALP00—The honourable member for Gilmore has just driven home my point. Her deep knowledge of Nowra and defence issues is in stark contrast to that of the honourable member for Herbert, who last week attempted to essentially act as a mouthpiece for the Minister for Defence. He, unfortunately without facts of the actual budget expenditures, managed to not really successfully defend the government's position.Page 16 of the defence department's portfolio budget statement says:The funding requirements of this initiative are still being identifiedand will be notified in the Additional Estimates. These requirements will affect the resources available for other initiatives . . . The fundamental conclusion we can make from all of this—and the effort from the honourable member for Herbert—is as I said on 2 June: firstly, there is no extra funding provided for any of the defence minister's new initiatives; secondly, some of these initiatives are yet to be properly costed; thirdly, the Defence Reform Program goalposts keep shifting every second day; and, fourthly, if uniformed personnel want a pay rise over 1.5 per cent, they will have to accept cuts to staff numbers or reductions in their conditions and allowances.This is hardly an outcome that would be welcomed by our service men and women in the electorate of Herbert or anywhere else. As I say, the contrast with the honourable member for Gilmore is quite pronounced. When the minister for industrial relations was telling the whole of Australia how successful the coalition was in smashing people's conditions, reducing wages and moving away from awards, the member for Herbert made the infamous pronouncement that there had never been reserve leave in any award in Australia. That is how much he knows about what the government is doing with regard to industrial relations. On the subject of the removal of the permission for people on Australian awards to get leave for reserves, he was saying, in the very week that it was being removed from Australian awards, that leave for reserves had never existed. It is unfortunate that he does come to this place professing such expertise in these matters. As was shown in his contribution on the budget, he simply has it totally wrong on the figures.7112Cox, David, MPMr COX83UKingstonALP00—(9.32 p.m.)—I am pleased to follow the honourable member for Reid. He has made some interesting comments about Defence's obvious difficulty in funding its program this year. I want to go on and talk about some of the problems it is going to face in future years because of block obsolescence.It was extremely pleasing this week to see the successful firing of the mark 48 torpedo at the decommissioned River class destroyer Torrens. It was a fairly graphic demonstration of the effectiveness of our new submarine force as the sort of deterrent that we need in this country for our defence purposes. It was so dramatic that some ignorant sceptics were unkind enough to suggest that the Navy had packed the hulk of the Torrens with explosives so that they could get a more spectacular effect.YT4SCOTTMr Bruce Scott—You don't believe that.83UCox, David, MPMr COX—I certainly do not believe that and I was pleased that Navy went to the trouble of releasing some technical information to explain how mark 48 torpedoes work. They explode under the hulls of boats. They are not a contact torpedo like the mark 1 and mark 2 torpedoes that were used during the Second World War. They explode under the ship and a gas bubble breaks the hull in half. The gas bubble contracts, the ship sags, the gas bubble expands, and a water spout breaks the ship in half and smashes the superstructure off. It is that water spout that people mistook for a second explosion caused by Navy pyrotechnics.Those submarines are the most cost-effective piece of naval capability this country is going to get. I think we should go back to the original contract which contemplated eight of them and not six, and review our naval force and our future naval force options with exactly that in mind, rather than buy a large number of fairly expensive and quite vulnerable larger surface combatants.As the member for Reid said, he is concerned about the state of budgeting within Defence at the moment. You only have to scan some of the documents to see the effect of block obsolescence that Defence is facing. If the minister were here I would welcome his comments on whether I have missed any items that are going to be obsolete in the next planning horizon. They include the F111s, the FA18s, the P3C Orions, the earlier FFGs, the Leopard tanks, the Sea King helicopters, the C130 Hercules, the M113 armoured personnel carriers, and the Fremantle class patrol boats. That is a pretty enormous capital requirement.What do we find the defence minister doing? We find him setting up a second brigade at a high rate of readiness—28 days deployment, which is a fairly expensive operation. Anybody who has a modicum of understanding of defence planning knows that readiness is very expensive and that you do it at the expense of making capital provision in the future. And as I have outlined, we have very heavy capital provision requirements in the future. I have scanned Australia's strategic policy and looked for some kind of understanding of the strategic need for a second brigade. All I could find was:Our approach to determining the preparedness and posture we need in our forces should be based on the following key judgments:(1). In the current circumstances, preparedness levels will be determined more by the requirement of regional operations and deployments in support of global interests as well as by some non-combat functions such as surveillance than by the needs of defeating attacks on Australia.If a second brigade is going to be based on those sorts of wider considerations at the expense of our long-term capital needs, that is extremely unfortunate in terms of the government's priorities. I am hoping that the minister, or one of his representatives, might be able to give us some elaboration about what the government's plans are to fund those enormous capital requirements with block obsolescence, because it certainly is not apparent from his portfolio budget statement and it is certainly not apparent from the strategic guidance that has been offered. The $1 billion that he expects to get from the Defence Reform Program is going to be wholly inadequate. (Time expired)21:37:007113Edwards, Graham, MPMr EDWARDS83RCowanALP00—Earlier this year a group of Gulf War veterans came to see me, young men who served in the Navy and who had become ill after their time in the gulf. After listening to them I became rather impressed with their story and sympathetic to the problems they have.Following the meeting, I put some questions on notice to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. On 6 June, three months after asking the questions, I received an answer which showed that 213 Gulf War veterans had submitted claims covering 490 illnesses. The minister stated, however, that each of the accepted conditions:Have been shown to be due to osteoarthritis, the effects of trauma and well known and understood diseases.The minister went on to say:Thus far, my department has found that all of the diseases have been claimed by these veterans have been covered by diagnoses that do not include Gulf War illness.Chief scientific officer and research professor, Dr Garth Nicolson, in doing American research, has found:That Gulf War illness presents as complex, multi-organ signs and symptoms that overlap with other chronic illness. These include chronic fatigue, headaches, memory loss, muscle pain, nausea, gastrointestinal problems, joint pain, lymph node pain, memory loss and other signs and symptoms. The American government established a Gulf War illness office and in its second annual report the defense department's Special Assistant for Gulf War Illness, Bernard Rostker said:When we started many at the Defence department asked, `How did we get into this mess?' The best answer that we can give is that the Department of Defence finds it very hard to deal with battlefield casualties that don't manifest themselves in traditional ways. The loss of public credibility over Gulf War illness follows similar problems with Agent Orange after the Vietnam War. In this case, as the crisis over Gulf War illness grew, we did not listen to the veterans nor did we provide them with the information they needed to alleviate their fears and answer their questions.Today, much has changed in the way the Defence Department relates to those who served in the Gulf. We are working very hard to answer the question most frequently asked—why are so many veterans sick?Despite a substantial increase in funds allocated to medical research, we still do not have answers to that basic question. While a careful review of past medical studies, now underway, may yet provide some new insights, recently funded research is not likely to provide answers either quickly or easily.Even though the cause of unexplained Gulf War illnesses remain elusive, the men and women who served in the Gulf also want and deserve to know if they were exposed to anything that could threaten their health. This question is the unique responsibility of the Department of Defence. We owe it to those veterans of the Gulf War and to those who serve today to ensure that we learn from the experiences of the war in order to better protect those who will serve in the future.The British government also takes a strongly proactive approach in support of their Gulf War veterans. In principle the government has adopted three principles: firstly, that all gulf veterans have prompt access to medical advice from a medical assessment program; secondly, that there is appropriate research into veterans' illness and factors which might have a bearing on these; thirdly, that the Ministry of Defence will make available to the public any information it possesses which is of potential relevance to this issue.The central element of the Blair government's approach is to be open and honest with the gulf veterans, to listen to what they have to say, and to engage in dialogue. A British representative sits on the US Persian Gulf Veterans Coordinating Board Research Working Group which oversees all US federal research looking at gulf veterans' illness.I do not expect that Australia should be duplicating that research but I do call on the minister to launch an immediate inquiry into the health and wellbeing of Australian Gulf War veterans. Such an inquiry should include a thorough survey of those veterans to ascertain their status. All Gulf War veterans should be given the opportunity of a thorough medical examination carried out by Department of Veterans' Affairs. Any veteran requiring ongoing treatment which can in any way be related to Gulf War illness should receive that treatment at DVA expense.We were advised today that this government has allocated $180,000 to do research into share ownership in Australia. If this government has that sort of money to throw around one would have thought that a priority in expenditure may well be these Gulf War veterans, our youngest veterans, who are suffering an illness that is, while difficult to diagnose, recognised as a problem in the United Kingdom and the United States of America.I want to ask the minister to stop turning his back on these young veterans, to give them a bit of support and find out what it is that is making them sick. Do not tell me they have claims on the department. He knows and I know and the veteran community knows that you do not get claims accepted on the department unless you can relate those claims to service conditions. (Time expired)21:42:007114Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—Only six weeks ago the federal government brought down its fourth budget. Whilst there is still much to be done—we recognise that—this is a good budget because it consolidates the gains made by the veteran community in this government's first term.One of the most popular measures was the extension of the gold card to World War II veterans and mariners over the age of 70 who have served in the Australian defence forces and who have qualifying service from that war. So far, under this initiative, it was announced that 34,000 veterans have successfully applied for a gold card, which brings the total of veterans and their dependants who have a gold card to 290,000 people, including, might I say, many from my electorate of Gilmore. At the same time, about 20,000 additional veterans, including self-funded retirees, became eligible to receive the Commonwealth seniors health card which gives them access to cheaper medicines.In the area of compensation, we carried through our initiative to link the service pension and the war widows and widowers pensions to 25 per cent of male total average weekly earnings. Importantly, this year's budget delivers on the commitment we gave to Australia's veterans before the last election.However we do not intend to rest on this record. We have increased spending in the Veterans' Affairs portfolio once again and the budget for the next financial year is $7.6 billion. DVA's health budget for 1999-2000 will increase by over $240 million and over the next four years it will grow by over $710 million, ensuring that we provide the best possible health care for our ageing veteran community. The number of veterans eligible for assistance under the Home Front initiative has been extended. The aim of this program is to prevent falls and accidents in the home. As part of our commitment to the International Year of the Older Person, all veterans aged 75 years and over will be eligible for free voluntary health assessment annually. This measure is designed to identify health problems early and to try and prevent them.The DVA's services for veterans in rural and remote areas will be improved and extended through partnerships with Commonwealth, state and local agencies. Currently, more than 70 such agreements are in place. Both Defence and DVA are part of a wider portfolio, but we believe that they can work more closely together than they have in the past. To that end, a joint review by both departments has been initiated to see if there are better ways of delivering services to Australian Defence Force members, both during and after discharge. This government has always recognised the service and sacrifice made by Australia's service men and women in times of conflict, and the contribution they have made to Australia and the world we live in today.In 1996 a government initiative allocated $10.4 million over the ensuing four years to the commemorative program `Their Service—Our Heritage' to raise awareness of the contribution made by Australia's defence forces over the past century. The program has provided a focus both here and overseas for commemorative activities. The budget brought down some weeks ago includes a total of $12.6 million for new commemorative projects which fulfil election commitments. Over the next four years $4.4 million will be used to compile rolls of honour and complete databases of all who have served in Australia's defence forces this century.In the budget the government allocated additional funding of $500,000 each to the Australian Service Nurses Memorial and the Australian National Korean War Memorial to be established on Anzac Parade. The budget also contains funding of more than $1 million to continue the regional war memorials project, part of the `Their Service—Our Heritage' program, which assists communities to restore, update or create new war memorials as the focus for local commemorative activities. By the centenary of Federation in 2001, the entire Australian community will have been given the opportunity to reflect upon the key role of all service men and women during the past 100 years. The government is assisting in that process through initiatives such as the Anzac education kits for schools. Whilst there is still much more to be done, this government can feel a sense of achievement in the Veterans' Affairs portfolio since gaining office.21:46:007116Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—I thank those who have contributed to the debate here tonight. Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1999-2000 which is before the Main Committee contains important appropriations. I have appreciated those in the Labor Party making their contributions, although I will have some comments in relation to some of their comments and will perhaps outline some of their record in the area of defence in the 13 years that they had in government.The government has committed to maintain the defence funding base in the 1999-2000 budget and the 2000-03 forward estimates at current real levels. The $14,277,978,000 is sought for 1999-2000 in the appropriation bill before the committee today. Some of the results of our Defence Reform Program are real gains for defence capability and give those in our Defence Force the tools with which to do the things that they trained for.The comment from the other side of the chamber in relation to block obsolescence is quite a remarkable statement because, if we look at the Labor Party record in defence funding over their 13 years, whether it was in relation to defence numbers or defence spending, all they ever delivered were cuts. So to come into this chamber and start to attack the government for delivering real gains in equipment, in preparedness, with an extra brigade in Darwin which will be on 28 days notice by the end of this month, is really gross hypocrisy.I noticed the member for Kingston talked of the Collins class submarine—I think he has left the chamber at the moment—and he highlighted some of the ill-considered reporting that sometimes goes with articles in the newspaper. Members of both sides of the House would acknowledge that perhaps from time to time the media do not always get it right, nor do they do their research. The real problem with what the member for Kingston was saying was that he suggested that we should be having another two Collins class submarines. Yet none of them are really up to the contract status that the Labor Party themselves set. They did say before the last election that they would order another two. Their original contract was for six, and in their policy prior to the last election they said that they would provide for another two. But there is no funding, no source from where the funds would come for those two extra submarines. They never said how they were going to fund it. We are all waiting for the McIntosh report, due very shortly, and I think we should look at that and just see what future there is for the submarine and where there are deficiencies in it. We have got to make sure that we can clean up the Labor mess in relation to the Collins submarine project.In relation to the issue of Gulf War veterans, I acknowledge that the member for Cowan has some very genuine interest in this subject, but I have got to say that there is still no international medical or scientific recognition of a Gulf War syndrome. We do take this issue very seriously, as we have with all issues relating to our veterans throughout the last 80 years of the Department of Veterans' Affairs. I would say that there were 1,650 ADF personnel who served in the gulf during the Gulf War. There have been claims made against the Department of Veterans' Affairs and those claims—140 of them—have been successful.All those veterans who went to the Gulf War did have and still remain eligible for veterans' entitlements, just as the HMAS Melbourne crew, which is deployed at the moment in a Maritime Interception Force in the gulf, also have a veterans' entitlement. (Extension of time granted) I was in the House when the motion was debated in the parliament and with the unanimous support of both sides of the House a force was sent to the Gulf War, so we do take seriously that entitlement, which was given in good faith—83REDWARDSMr Edwards—Minister, you are not taking it as seriously as the United Kingdom or the United States, who are going out—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. J.A. Crosio)—Order!GK6KELLYMiss Jackie Kelly—Shut up!10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—I beg your pardon. I do not need help from the assistant minister. I will chair the committee. Order! The honourable member for Cowan has the right to reply. The minister is on his feet in reply. If I need your direction, I will ask for it. Thank you. I will call both sides of the House and I now will give the call again to the minister in reply.YT4Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTT—Madam Deputy Speaker, can I just say that the Department of Defence and the Department of Veterans' Affairs are in touch with the United States. They are in touch with Britain, which had many more personnel involved in the Gulf War than we did. I repeat: there is still no medical or international scientific research that identifies a syndrome as a medical condition. Can I just say that, as part of the better dialogue between the two departments which results from the DVA links project which we put into policy and position after our re-election last year, we at the moment between the two departments are confirming the at-risk population by detailed analysis of personnel records held by both departments, because records are held by both departments. That is why it is important that we have this link between both departments.The nominal roll of ADF personnel who served during the Gulf War is being validated by Defence and also the Department of Veterans' Affairs. That will be a valuable guide for ongoing monitoring of the health of these veterans. The nominal roll program is part of a budget commitment in this year's budget, in fact, to establish a nominal roll of all those who have served in this century. We want that complete by the centenary of Federation. The nominal roll is not just about the Gulf War veterans. It is about all who have served in other wars and conflicts throughout this century. But this nominal roll is an extremely valuable tool for the ongoing monitoring of the health of the veterans who served in the Gulf War.Madam Deputy Speaker, thorough epidemiological analysis is being conducted on all the conditions claimed by Gulf War veterans to date—I repeat, all the conditions that have been claimed by Gulf War veterans to date—so that is certainly another thing that is happening as we speak.The underlying principle of the entitlement of the veterans is that, as the government, we—and I think it has come from both sides of the House—have always acknowledged that those who serve our country in times of war have this entitlement. It is there as a safety net, as it has been since Gallipoli right through to today, and it remains perhaps the best repatriation system in the world.I know that the member has concerns about the Gulf War veterans. We have concerns and we are doing something about it. I do want to repeat the message that I gave to the House: it is important that, when people speak about this issue, they have a background knowledge of what is happening. There is an entitlement for those who have served. My real concern is that, as we have seen with the Collins class submarine issue in relation to the recent sinking of the HMAS Torrens, sometimes the media can get it wrong. There are currently Defence personnel on board HMAS Melbourne in the gulf as a part of a Maritime Interception Force who have veteran entitlements. I feel for the families of the loved ones—those who wait for the sailors to return to Australia. If they see misinformation in the paper whilst they wait for their loved ones to complete that mission overseas—they are prepared to serve our country—it does nothing to comfort them. I ask those who talk about this issue to make sure that they have done their research and speak in the full knowledge of the facts. I thank members for their contribution.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. J.A. Crosio)—I call the honourable member for Cowan.YT4Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTT—I have closed the debate.10000Scott, Bruce, MPMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—The minister can get up on many occasions and speak. He does not have to close the debate. I have been advised by the clerk that the member for Cowan does have a right to speak.21:52:007118Edwards, Graham, MPMr EDWARDS83RCowanALP00—Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to speak. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs suggested indirectly that people who speak on these issues should do their research and homework. Madam Deputy Speaker, I can assure the minister that I have done my research and homework. We are in a position in this country where we are not giving the same degree of concern or care to our veterans that is being given to veterans of the same war in the United Kingdom or in the United States of America.I asked the minister some time ago some questions relating to Gulf War illness. It took him three months to answer those questions. It does not seem to me that the minister is on top of the problem in his department nor does it seem to me that his department is on top of the problem. If the minister had done this research and had monitored the health of Gulf War veterans he should have been able to answer that question within a week or two at the most. I just want to say through the chair that—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—I am delighted to hear you are going to start speaking through the chair. It is about time.83REdwards, Graham, MPMr EDWARDS—those in America have gone out of their way to recognise that Gulf War illness is not something that is easily diagnosed. They have established the Office of Gulf War Illness in order to engage in dialogue with veterans in that country. One of the things that we should have learnt following the Vietnam war is the fact that people with illnesses following war do not always present with the traditional injuries that the minister talks about, going back as far as Gallipoli. They have recognised there is a problem in the United States of America and a problem in the United Kingdom.I want to reiterate what they have done in Britain. The British government takes a strongly proactive approach to the Gulf War veterans. In Britain, the government has adopted three specific policies. These are, firstly, that all Gulf War veterans have prompt access to medical advice from a medical assessment program. I hope that the minister's advisers and staff are listening. In the United Kingdom, all Gulf War veterans have prompt access to medical advice from a medical assessment program. Secondly, there is appropriate research into veterans' illnesses and factors which might have a bearing on these. Thirdly, the Ministry of Defence will make available to the public any information it possesses which is of potential relevance to this issue. A central element of the Blair government's approach is to be open and honest with the Gulf War veterans, to listen to what they have to say and to engage in dialogue.How can this department or this minister monitor the health of these veterans unless they call them in and give them access to a medical program, unless they assess whatever symptoms these veterans have, and unless they document these symptoms? This department—and I am sorry to say this, because I have a high regard for this department—under this government and under this minister is turning its back on these, our youngest veterans.This situation, this Gulf War illness, requires the government and the department to go out and to take a proactive response to this issue of Gulf War veterans. They should call these veterans in, assess them, document any medical symptoms they have and treat them. If they do not do that, how can they possibly monitor the health of these veterans?I received today an email from a bloke who served in the Gulf War. He said:Dear Graham,Given the announcement of the Department of Defence that we all got the jabs the Yanks and the Brits did, I am alarmed about the articles relating to the anthrax shot that appears on this site. If you get time to have a look at it, it is quite scary stuff. I also found out US veterans have lodged some sort of complaint with the United Nations. Could you ask Parliament if the ministers of Defence and Veterans' Affairs are prepared to take the stuff we did and will they do it in the chamber for all of us to watch.I am happy to table this document because it might induce the minister and his department to check out this web site. They might come to understand the difficulty and the illness these people are facing. I seek leave to table this document.Leave not granted.(Time expired)Proposed expenditures agreed to.Department of Industry, Science and ResourcesProposed expenditure, $1,714,042,000.22:03:007119McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—In the debate tonight on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1999-2000 I want to speak about something which I have raised on a number of occasions and about which I cannot get a response from this government. It is a matter which the Leader of the Opposition correctly described as a national emergency—the collapse in business investment in research and development in this country. It has been illustrated in many articles, in many analyses and in the budget papers, which I will refer to in a moment, but let me just choose one example in the time available.In the Age on 5 June 1999, after the budget, the article on page 4 says:Australia no longer the clever country. Cuts to research and development are taking their toll.I will make a few quotes from that before I go on to look at the statistics and the case. It says:Business spending on research and development plunged another six per cent in 1997-98 reflecting the deepening fallout from the federal government's drastic cuts to research and development support.It goes on:. . . R&D has gone sharply into reverse since 1996, the year the Government cut its support for business R&D by half. In the next paragraph, it says:. . . Australian business employed 10 per cent fewer researchers than when the coalition took office—What a scandal: 10 per cent fewer people out there generating the new knowledge that is the basis of the next generation of high income jobs in this country. It continues:Projections point to an even steeper fall this year, with business predictions even in current dollars—without taking into account the price effects—running 6 per cent below the levels of a year ago.In another paragraph, it highlights the area, a potentially vital area of industrial potential for this country. It says:In food processing, R&D spending has slumped from $291 million to $179 million . . . and is projected to fall to $163 million—It continues:The bureau's figures—on which this article is based:show Australia's experiences is in sharp contrast to other Western countries, which not only had higher R&D levels to begin with but are increasing them as we cut back.The article continues:Between 1985 and 1996, Australia's business spending on R&D escalated from 0.34 per cent of Gross Domestic Product to 0.86 per cent.It has fallen back since 1996 to 0.72 per cent. In those same two years, 1996 to 1998, in which our business investment in R&D fell from 0.86 to 0.2 per cent, in the United States it went up from 1.88 per cent to 1.96 per cent. The article says:. . . more than two-and-a half times the level here.And the government wonders why people are concerned about where the next generation of intelligent jobs might come from. The government would not release the science and technology budget statement on budget night. When that came out a couple of days later, the myth of increased spending on R&D was exposed by the government's own documents which showed again as a percentage of GDP and in real terms continuing decline in government support for research and development, even taking into account the changes that have been made for medical research. Why should we be surprised? The Prime Minister has got form on this.The historical data has only been reliably collected by the ABS since 1974. You can go back earlier, but it is very unreliable. The ABS has been doing it for 25 years. When the Fraser government took office, you had 0.34 per cent of GDP for business expenditure on R&D and in every year of the Fraser government it fell. It never increased and it fell continuously to 0.25 per cent by the time John Howard had finished as Treasurer. From that time until the coalition took office, it increased every year. It never fell one year; it was flat at 0.49; it never fell again. Over that 13-year-period, it got up to 0.88 per cent of GDP, which is not actually very good—it is still below the average in the OECD—but we were starting to get there. As soon as this lot got into office, down it went again. What I want to know is: when is the government going to stop hiding behind the Ralph committee and actually take some action about this matter? (Time expired)22:08:007121Griffin, Alan, MPMr GRIFFINVU5BruceALP00—I will be brief in my comments tonight because I am happy to assist in the operation of the chamber in order to ensure this matter can be resolved before stumps. I would like to apprise the Main Committee of an issue that I have raised once or twice before in the last couple of weeks regarding the budget, and that is a group called the Pharmaceutical Industry Working Group that was established in June last year. In fact, it had its first meeting a year ago tomorrow, 23 June 1998. So we can say `Happy anniversary' to the Pharmaceutical Industry Working Group. However, that is its one and only meeting. It is due to meet again in a week, just after its anniversary. I think this says something about this government's commitment to industry development in an industry as crucial as pharmaceuticals. I would like to quote from a couple of documents on this matter. The annual report of 1997-98 of the Department of Industry, Science and Tourism says:In June 1998, the Department established a new Government-Industry forum, the Pharmaceutical Industry Working Group, which was welcomed by the pharmaceutical industry. With a focus on investment and growth in the industry, the working group is a joint initiative of the Minister for Industry, Science and Tourism, the Hon.John Moore, MP, and the Minister for Health, the Hon. Dr Michael Wooldridge, MP.The Australian Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association annual report of the same year says, regarding this particular initiative:This group met for the first time on 23 June 1998 at Parliament House, Canberra. Chaired by the Governments Strategic Investment Coordinator Bob Mansfield, the Working Group reports directly to the Minister for Industry, Science and Tourism, the Hon John Moore, and the Minister for Health and Family Services, the Hon Dr Michael Wooldridge.It does report—well, that is what it is supposed to do—but it really has not reported much at all. When this matter was raised in Senate estimates a few days ago it was said by departmental representatives that this committee was considered to be very important. But when the issue of when it met and how often it had met was raised, the point was made that it is only supposed to meet about twice a year but, of course, there was an election. There was an election in October last year, about three to four months after the first meeting of this committee. There has not been an election since then that I am aware of, but still there has been no meeting.In the discussion on the merits of this particular initiative, it was said by the department representative that in fact some important work had been done—there had been a report produced on the question of investment opportunities, and that report was as a result, if you like, of the work of the PIWG. However, with a bit of checking what we found was this: the actual report that was being talked about, which was produced by the APMA and which was entitled Pharmaceuticals and Australia's knowledge economy; Australia's pharmaceutical industry—a report—a very sound, very detailed and very good report—was in fact commissioned in May 1998, and that is an important date. It was in fact commissioned a month before the Pharmaceutical Industry Working Group ever met. So if it was as a result of the PIWG, that is pretty amazing. An enormous amount of foresight was shown there to be able to decide to achieve something prior to the first meeting of the group that was supposed to have ordered it.I will leave it at that, other than to say that this particular initiative and its follow-up meeting, now some 12 months and one week after its first and only meeting, will hopefully be a very important development in the ongoing work of developing this industry as an important part of the pharmaceutical developments that can occur in this country. I commend that issue to the government and urge their action on it.22:12:007122Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss JACKIE KELLYGK6LindsayLPSport and Tourism; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Sydney 2000 Games10—I would like to thank the speakers for their contributions to the debate. The members for Fraser and Bruce raised some very important issues which the government always takes seriously. I will bring them to the attention of the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources so that he can reply if he feels the need to, given the extensive material already available on this subject.Proposed expenditure agreed to.Debate (on motion by Mr Hawker) adjourned.Main Committee adjourned at 10.14 p.m.