1999-06-243913REPS736501999-06-24Mr SPEAKER(Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Bills7365r8547365Bill presented by Mr Williams, and read a first time.736509:30:007365Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.It is with great pleasure that I introduce the Federal Magistrates Bill 1999. The bill will establish the Federal Magistrates Court, also to be known as the Federal Magistrates Service, as a court under Chapter III of the Constitution. The government is committed to providing all Australians with user-friendly, affordable options for resolving their disputes. The Federal Magistrates Service is an important step towards realising that goal. As members would be aware, the High Court of Australia was established by the Constitution in 1901. Since then, the federal parliament has established a number of superior courts, including the Family Court and the Federal Court, but it has never created a lower level court.While the Commonwealth judicial structure has served Australia well, the changes that have occurred in Australian society over recent years have lead to an increased range of matters coming before the Commonwealth courts. Many of these matters are not complex and do not need to be dealt with by superior court judges. Federal and Family Court judges are increasingly tied up dealing with matters that could be dealt with more efficiently at a lower level. The need for a court which can handle less complex federal matters more efficiently and effectively is now pressing. It is appropriate that, on the cusp of the new millennium, this parliament takes the next step of establishing a new, lower level, Commonwealth court.The Federal Magistrates Service will comprise federal magistrates, who will be justices as required under the Constitution. The federal magistrates will be selected for their expertise in federal matters, including family law, and will deal with a range of matters of a less complex nature that are currently dealt with by the Federal and Family Courts. The Federal Magistrates Service is intended to provide a quicker, cheaper option for litigants and to ease the workload of both the Federal Court and the Family Court. When fully established, it will free up the Federal and Family Courts to focus on the more complex matters that require the attention of a superior court judge.The government proposes that the federal magistrates develop a new culture, with an emphasis on user-friendly, streamlined procedures. This will be especially important for litigants who do not have legal representation. The Federal Magistrates Service will be as informal as possible, while remaining consistent with the discharge of judicial functions. This change of culture could not be achieved by appointing more judges to the existing courts. Nor would simply appointing more judges solve the problem of the waste of judicial resources which occurs as a result of superior court judges dealing with less complex matters that could be dealt with efficiently at a lower level.The appointment of more registrars to hear more lower level matters in the Family and Federal Courts has been suggested as a solution to the delays in the courts, and has been adopted as a limited stop-gap measure in the Family Court. However, there are significant limits on the matters which such non-judicial officers of the courts can handle without running into constitutional problems. In addition, any review of a registrar's decision must involve a full rehearing of the case before a judge. This significantly adds to the costs for parties and does not promote an efficient use of the court's time. Unlike registrars, federal magistrates will be able to make final decisions in all matters within their jurisdiction and appeals against their decisions will not require a full rehearing, but rather will focus on questions of law.The government is keen to ensure that the procedures of the new Federal Magistrates Service are as streamlined and informal as practicable. Obviously, it will be up to the Federal Magistrates Service itself to make its own rules, which will largely determine issues of practice and procedure. However, the legislation will include provisions designed to assist the Federal Magistrates Service to develop procedures that are as simple and efficient as possible. Under the provisions of this bill:. the court will have the power to set time limits for witnesses and to limit the length of both written and oral submissions;. discovery and interrogatories will be permitted only if the court considers that they are appropriate in the interests of the administration of justice;. the court will be able to make a decision without an oral hearing with consent of both parties;. there will be more emphasis on delivering decisions orally in appropriate cases, rather than parties having to wait for reserved judgments; and. the court will have the power to make rules to allow federal magistrates to give reasons in a shortened form in appropriate cases.The government wishes the Federal Magistrates Service to have the flexibility to tailor its practice and procedures to the particular circumstances before it. Some federal magistrates will be permanently located in regional areas. In addition, federal magistrates will be able to travel to hear cases in centres other than those in which federal magistrates are permanently based, and will have the ability to sit anywhere in Australia. This need not necessarily be in a formal court room. The Federal Magistrates Service will be able to use video and audio conferencing facilities for remote witnesses and parties, and will be able to adapt its procedures to suit the parties and the individual case.There are often cases where parties live in different towns or even different states. Use of video links will alleviate the problem of parties having to travel long distances to attend directions hearings or final hearings of their cases. This will save individuals significant time and money.The government is concerned that Australians from all walks of life should be able to access the court system when their circumstances require it. Measures such as these should help to facilitate this, particularly for those in regional Australia.In addition to providing greater access to the court for regional Australians, the Federal Magistrates Service will complement the government's initiatives aimed at encouraging people to resolve disputes through primary dispute resolution, rather than through litigation.The Federal Magistrates Service will be able to call on a range of means to resolve disputes. There will be no automatic assumption that every matter will end in a contested hearing, and the use of conciliation, counselling and mediation will be strongly encouraged in appropriate cases. Parties will be encouraged to take responsibility for resolving their dispute themselves, where this is practical. This approach is more likely to result in an enduring resolution of a dispute because the parties are more likely to accept agreed outcomes.The Federal Magistrates Service will be able to use community based counselling and mediation services as well as the existing counselling and mediation services of the Family Court, providing as wide as possible a choice for clients of the service.Information about a range of dispute resolution options will be available from the Federal Magistrates Service. Parties to a dispute will be able to obtain information about or referral to primary dispute resolution services even before filing an application with the Federal Magistrates Service. It is hoped that this will enable parties to avoid the need for the court to resolve the dispute. The federal magistrates will also encourage parties who have filed applications to attempt to resolve their dispute using appropriate dispute resolution processes.The National Alternative Dispute Resolution Advisory Committee has provided me with advice on use of alternative dispute resolution in the Federal Magistrates Service. Its recommendations have been taken into account in the drafting of the legislation and will be very helpful in assisting the Federal Magistrates Service to develop procedures to make optimum use of primary dispute resolution.As I have said, the government is concerned to ensure that all Australians have appropriate access to the court system. As well as the measures I have already mentioned, such as video links, the Federal Magistrates Service will improve access through its;. user-friendly procedures and less formal judicial culture and. lower fees.These measures should help to reduce legal costs and expenses and result in litigants saving both time and money.As I have already indicated, the Federal Magistrates Service is intended to help ease the existing workload of the Family Court and Federal Court. It is not intended to take away federal work currently performed by state and territory courts.The Federal Magistrates (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1999 , which I will be introducing shortly, will give the Federal Magistrates Service its jurisdiction. The jurisdiction will be concurrent with that of the Family Court and the Federal Court—there will not be any jurisdiction which is solely that of the Federal Magistrates Service. Where more complex matters are filed in the Federal Magistrates Service, there will be provisions for enabling them to be transferred to either the Federal Court or the Family Court, whichever has jurisdiction. Similarly, there will be provisions for transfer from the superior courts to the Federal Magistrates Service of less complex matters within the jurisdiction of the Federal Magistrates Service.It is intended that the Federal Magistrates Service will use the infrastructure of the existing courts to the extent practical in order to minimise costs. This may include accommodation, court rooms, some administrative staff, video conferencing equipment, library and other facilities. It is also planned that the Federal Magistrates Service will use the registry services of Family and Federal Courts whenever practical. This will ensure the most efficient use of resources. The registrars of the existing courts are also likely to be used by the Federal Magistrates Service to perform similar functions to those they presently carry out for the Federal Court and Family Court.The establishment of the Federal Magistrates Service is an exciting new development which will provide a cost-effective means of helping to ease current delays and enable more effective use of expensive judicial resources. It will provide a more userfriendly option for parties in less complex matters and will allow the Federal Court and the Family Court to concentrate on more complex cases.It is intended that the Federal Magistrates Service place an emphasis on assisting parties to take responsibility for resolving their owns disputes, when this is practicable, using alternative dispute resolution methods such as conciliation, mediation and counselling. Where this is not possible, the Federal Magistrates Service will be able to deal with matters before it with a less formal and more streamlined manner, to ensure that matters are dealt with as expeditiously and cheaply as possible.The government is keen to ensure that ordinary Australians are provided with suitable access to the justice system according to their needs and within their means. The establishment of the new Federal Magistrates Service is an important step towards achieving that goal. I present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Ms Macklin) adjourned.Bills7367r8537367Bill presented by Mr Williams, and read a first time.736709:43:007367Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill is part of a package with the Federal Magistrates Bill 1999 , which I have just introduced, which will establish the Federal Magistrates Court, also to be known as the Federal Magistrates Service. The Federal Magistrates (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1999 provides the Federal Magistrates Service with its jurisdiction and makes other minor consequential amendments to a number of acts.As I mentioned in the second reading speech on the Federal Magistrates Bill 1999 , as the lower level of Commonwealth court, the Federal Magistrates Service will take on a range of less complex matters which are currently heard by the Federal and Family Courts. It is not intended that the Federal Magistrates Service will take away federal work currently performed by state and territory courts.Its jurisdiction will be concurrent with that of the Family Court and the Federal Court—there will not be any jurisdiction which is solely that of the Federal Magistrates Service. Where more complex matters are filed in the Federal Magistrates Service, there will be provisions for enabling them to be transferred to either the Federal or Family Court, whichever has jurisdiction. Similarly, there will be provisions for transfer from the superior courts to the Federal Magistrates Service of less complex matters within the Federal Magistrates Service's jurisdiction.Looking first at jurisdiction in matters currently dealt with by the Federal Court, the Federal Magistrates Service will have jurisdiction to hear:. applications under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977;. appeals from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal which are transferred by the Federal Court to the Federal Magistrates Service;. matters arising under the Bankruptcy Act 1966;. applications under the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986, if and when the Human Rights Amendment Bill 1998 (No. 1) is enacted;. maters arising under divisions 1 and 1A of part V of the Trade Practices Act 1974, being the consumer protection provisions of that act; and. matters under section 127 and part XA of the Workplace Relations Act 1996.The main areas of family law in which the Federal Magistrates Service will have jurisdiction are:. applications for nullity and dissolution of marriage;. family law property disputes where the property in dispute is worth less than $300,000, or where the property in dispute is worth more than this and both parties consent to the matter being heard by a Federal Magistrate; . parenting orders providing for the residence of a child, again, where the parties consent to a Federal Magistrate hearing the matter; and. parenting orders providing for other matters such as contact, maintenance and specific issues, whether or not the parties consent to a Federal Magistrate hearing the matter.The Federal Magistrates Service will also have jurisdiction under the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 and the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988.The establishment of the Federal Magistrates Service will provide a more user-friendly option for parties to the matters within its jurisdiction and will also allow the Federal Court and the Family Court to concentrate on more complex cases.The establishment of this new, lower level Commonwealth court with concurrent jurisdiction with the Federal Court and Family Court will provide the Australian community with an affordable and accessible option for resolving disputes and will continue the government's commitment to encouraging people, where possible, to resolve disputes themselves and without resort to costly litigation. I commend the bill to the House and I present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Ms Macklin) adjourned. Bills7369r8517369Bill presented by Mr Williams, and read a first time.736909:47:007369Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999, which is now before the House, contains a number of amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1995. Most of the amendments have been previously tabled in this House as customs tariff proposals. Accordingly, I will only outline the major amendments here.Schedule 3 of this bill is operative from 1 July 1998. These amendments to the customs tariff remove the customs duty from inputs to the manufacture of information industries equipment, implementing the commitment the government made in its `Investing for Growth' industry statement of December 1997.Most fully assembled information industries equipment is imported duty free. However, many inputs used in local production of the same equipment attract either the five per cent general manufacturing tariff rate or a three per cent tariff rate under a tariff concession order.Following consultation with industry, the government has taken action to address this problem on two fronts. The first and central element of the government's approach is an acceleration of duty reductions already scheduled under the information technology agreement. With the exception of a small range of finished goods, the government has brought forward by 18 months the tariff reductions to which Australia is committed under that agreement. Accordingly, a free rate of duty has operated since 1 July 1998.The second element of the approach has been the creation of a new schedule 4 item in the customs tariff for those inputs not covered by the information technology agreement. This allows duty-free entry for other inputs that are currently the subject of a tariff concession order.The new item, No. 65, covers inputs to the manufacture of information industries equipment. This equipment is defined in terms of a series of tariff subheadings listed in by-laws written to the new item.Under these changes, Australian information technology manufacturers will benefit from duty-free access to key inputs which will strengthen their competitive position. The cost to government is estimated at $80 million over the 18 months to the year 2000 and this should translate into reduced costs for industry and lower prices for consumers.Schedule 4 of this bill is operative on and from 1 September 1998. The former Minister for Industry, Science and Tourism, the Hon. John Moore, announced on 24 July 1998 the government's decisions on tariffs and other matters relating to the Industry Commission's inquiry into the medical and scientific equipment industries. The government accepted the general thrust of the commission's recommendations and addressed these recommendations both in its decisions on tariffs and other recent initiatives, particularly those announced in the `Investing for Growth' industry statement. The government's decision in relation to tariffs was to remove customs duty for goods under tariff headings 9013 to 9033, inclusive, with the exception of goods which are included in the passenger motor vehicle manufacturing plan, such as speed indicators and revolution counters.In respect of tariffs, the Industry Commission noted that around 85 per cent of medical and scientific equipment was entered under headings 9013 to 9033 of the customs tariff. About 75 per cent of medical and scientific equipment entering Australia attracts a free rate of duty. The remaining goods are subject to a nominal tariff of five per cent. However, most of these goods enter the country using the tariff concession system at a rate of duty of three per cent. As these goods do not compete with locally manufactured goods, there is little justification to retain these nominal tariffs.Schedule 6 of this bill implements the government's decisions in relation to customs tariff rates of duty and by-law arrangements following the Industry Commission's inquiry into machine tools and robots. These changes have operated from 1 April 1999.The first of the changes involves the reduction of import duty to free for parts of machine tools classified to heading 8466 of the customs tariff. These subheadings cover parts for machine tools for working metals which were dutiable at five per cent. This action will overcome the present anomaly where, in some instances, the importation of the complete machines incorporating these parts does not incur import duty.It is the government's policy to reduce the impact of tariffs on inputs to industry. The Australian machine tools industry exports in excess of 90 per cent of its production, and much of that production incorporates goods imported as parts on which customs duty was paid. The removal of the customs duty on parts for machine tools and robots is expected to make the Australian produced goods more internationally competitive. Based on current data and predicted trade, the anticipated cost to the government in forgone revenue as a result of the removal of this duty is estimated to be between $5 million and $5.6 million per annum.The government has also decided to delete items 48, 49 and 55 of schedule 4 to the Customs Tariff Act 1995. These items provide a free rate of duty on goods which satisfy certain criteria, principally that there would be no substitutable goods made in Australia.Item 48 covers parts and accessories for machine tools for the working of metals. As the duty on these parts and accessories is being reduced to free in this schedule, the duty-free concession accorded by item 48 is no longer required and is being repealed. The impact on industry is expected to be negligible because of the offsetting arrangements of tariff reductions.Item 49 provides a concession to importers for certain parts for machines which incorporate a computer controller, for example, electric lasers and electromagnetic soldering machines. Trade statistics reveal that this item has had little use and its cancellation will have little impact on industry.Item 55 was created in 1992 to provide an import duty concession for machine tools and parts thereof for the working of advanced materials such as carbon fibres and exotic metals. Trade figures indicate that this particular item has not been used by industry in the past five years or so. The cost to industry through its revocation is expected to be minimal.The amendments contained in the other schedules of this bill are of an administrative or technical nature. They have no affect on rates of customs duty and have no revenue implications.I commend the bill to the House. I present the explanatory memorandum to the bill.Debate (on motion by Ms Macklin) adjourned.Bills7370r8597370Bill presented by Mr Entsch, and read a first time.737009:54:007370Entsch, Warren, MPMr ENTSCH7K6LeichhardtLP10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill, along with the Tradex Duty Imposition Bill 1999 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (Tradex) Bill 1999 , will implement the government's new Tradex scheme.The purpose of these bills is to implement a new tariff export concession scheme to be called Tradex. The Tradex scheme was a key initiative in the government's `Investing for Growth' industry statement.`Investing for Growth' highlighted that a key driving force behind the growth of world trade in manufactures is an increasing globalisation of corporate production strategies. As a result, various components of final goods tend to be traded several times, with value adding occurring in a number of different locations around the world. This phenomenon is fostering investment in `hub' activities. Our proximity to the Asia-Pacific region and other advantages such as low outbound cargo costs makes Australia well placed to attract this type of investment and to become a regional base for distribution and manufacturing operations.The government's industry statement recognised that the competitiveness of Australia's customs regime is an important factor in fostering hub activities. In relation to this, it is necessary to take account of the internationally recognised principle that goods should be taxed only in the country in which they are consumed. There is also a need to ensure that compliance costs incurred by companies in importing and exporting goods are minimised.The objective of Tradex is to streamline and improve those programs aimed at providing relief to businesses that currently pay customs duty and sales tax on imported products which are re-exported or used as inputs to exports. It will replace the previous Tariff Export Concession Scheme (TEXCO) and allow many duty drawback users to gain up-front exemption from import duties and sales tax.The Tradex initiative follows a review of the existing TEXCO and Duty Drawback schemes which showed that excessive access and compliance costs are denying businesses the chance to recover unnecessary duty and sales tax and impacting on their international competitiveness.In essence, the Tradex scheme is designed to address problems associated with the existing TEXCO and Duty Drawback schemes, in particular the low utilisation rates and high compliance costs associated with these schemes. It has been estimated that the current levels of utilisation of these schemes is approximately 50 per cent. This equates to over $100 million in customs duty and sales tax that is unclaimed by Australian exporters with the consequential detrimental impact on their international competitiveness.Under present arrangements, imported goods generally incur a duty liability when they are landed in Australia and before being used in a manufacturing process prior to export or re-exported in the same condition at a later time. In circumstances where the goods are re-exported the producer uses duty-drawback provisions to claim the import duty and sales tax back. These arrangements for handling temporary imports represent a significant cost and burden for domestic manufacturers who use imports in their exported production.Exporters who undertake industrial processing of imports prior to export may currently be eligible for up-front exemption from import duties and wholesale sales tax under the TEXCO scheme. However, the TEXCO scheme makes no allowance for imports that are exported in the same condition or that do not fulfil the `industrial processing' requirement.Tradex will remove the requirement that goods must undergo an industrial process and enable exporters to gain up-front exemption from duty and sales tax for goods exported in the same condition.Tradex will improve the effectiveness of existing arrangements by:. moving primarily to an exemption based system, thereby reducing compliance costs for users. A drawback facility will still be available for instances where, at the time of import, it was not known that goods would be re-exported or used as inputs to exports.. adopting a more light handed approach to access and compliance requirements and stronger reliance on self-assessment and periodic settlement; and. relaxing some regulatory arrangements relating to eligibility, registration and ongoing compliance requirements.In particular, the legislation for Tradex will:. clearly spell out eligibility criteria so that potential applicants have a degree of certainty as to the conditions they must meet in order to participate in the scheme;. enable unsuccessful applicants to have a right of review of the relevant adverse decision;. provide the administrators of the scheme with the appropriate audit and recovery powers and penalty provisions to help ensure compliance.Summary This bill and the two associated bills provide for the introduction of new, streamlined arrangements for Australian exporters who import goods for further processing prior to export or export goods in the same condition.Tradex is an acknowledgment of the increasing globalisation of the world economy and will help to improve Australia's attractiveness as an investment destination.Tradex will provide real benefits to Australia's exporters and, together with the introduction of the goods and services tax, will improve our international competitiveness as a trading nation.I commend the bill to the House, and present the explanatory memorandum to this bill.Debate (on motion by Ms Macklin) adjourned.Bills7372r8577372Bill presented by Mr Entsch, and read a first time.737210:01:007372Entsch, Warren, MPMr ENTSCH7K6LeichhardtLP10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill, along with the Tradex Scheme Bill 1999 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (Tradex) Bill 1999 , will implement the government's new Tradex scheme.Recovery of Tradex DutyThis bill gives the Department of Industry, Science and Resources the ability to recover Tradex duty where participants fail to export goods in accordance with their undertakings under the provisions of the Tradex scheme. In particular, Tradex duty becomes payable when goods imported under the scheme are:. consumed or used by the Tradex order holder in Australia;. disposed of by the holder to another person in Australia for the purposes of being consumed;. unable to meet the requirements of the drawback regulations under section 168 of the Customs Act 1901; or. not exported within one year after importation.The Tradex Scheme Bill 1999 sets out the circumstances in which Tradex duty becomes payable to the Commonwealth and the process for recovering the duty. This bill imposes the liability.I commend the bill to the House, and present the explanatory memorandum to this bill.Debate (on motion by Ms Macklin) adjourned.Bills7372r8497372Bill presented by Mr Entsch, and read a first time.737210:03:007372Entsch, Warren, MPMr ENTSCH7K6LeichhardtLP10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This is the third bill in the legislation package designed to give effect to Tradex, which was discussed in the previous two bills.The effect of this bill is to provide a `free' rate of duty for goods imported under a Tradex order.I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill.Debate (on motion by Ms Macklin) adjourned.Bills7372r8567372Bill presented by Mr Entsch, and read a first time.737310:04:007373Entsch, Warren, MPMr ENTSCH7K6LeichhardtLP10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.Members may recall that a small number of urgent amendments were passed last year to the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967. These emerged as recommendations from a review of offshore petroleum legislation that commenced some time ago and was brought to finalisation in early 1998. However, these amendments were only a subset of a larger number of important proposals to amend the act that were recommended in the review report. The bill now before the House incorporates these proposals.Over the years it has become evident that a number of provisions in the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act are no longer appropriate while others place unnecessary burdens on companies and government by way of reporting requirements and approvals. Seen against the backdrop of technological change in the petroleum industry and developments such as the opening up and growth of liquefied natural gas markets, there is a need to ensure that the act promotes the government's objectives as set out in the 1998 resources policy statement. The government's vision is one of a competitive, innovative and growing petroleum sector operating in a streamlined legislative framework that offers high levels of certainty to stakeholders and contributes to rising national prosperity.With this in mind, the proposed amendments to the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act aim to improve government administration and the efficiency of exploration for, and production of, petroleum resources. This is to be achieved without compromising operating, safety and environmental standards. The states, Northern Territory and the petroleum industry have been intensively involved in the review and in drafting the amendments.As there are no fundamental changes to the legislation, none of the changes could be called major, but I will now give some details about the more substantive ones.I would mention four new provisions that the bill would insert in the act.At the pre-exploration stage, where companies make competitive bids for exploration permits, an option is to be introduced whereby supplementary bids may be called as a tie breaker for bids that are ranked equal. This will also create an incentive for each company to commit itself to more exploration work and expenditure.Secondly, a new class of title known as an infrastructure licence is to be introduced to cater for at-sea operations that do not fall strictly within the ambit of current production or pipeline licences. One example is the licensing of offshore facilities for processing natural gas into products such as liquefied natural gas and methanol. Companies are reluctant to invest in processing plant unless they have security of title over the area in which it is to be located. Other examples are petroleum storage or off-loading facilities, particularly where the facilities are not part of the production plant within a relevant production licence area.The new infrastructure licence will also enable a company to remotely control some operations for the recovery of petroleum in an area when the petroleum is located in an adjacent production licence area. Thus, for example, companies will be able to connect subsea completions from the infrastructure licence area into the adjacent production licence area. Importantly, the existing requirements relating to good oilfield practices, including health, safety and environment protection, will equally apply to infrastructure licensees.In addition, the infrastructure licence arrangements will enable continued use of facilities after petroleum production ceases from the production licence area in which the facilities are situated. For example, aged platforms could serve as a gathering and initial processing point for oil and gas produced from smaller adjacent facilities before being pipelined to an onshore processing plant.Another new provision relates to information that companies are required to submit to the government and its protection so that trade secrets are not betrayed and the submitter's competitive position is not undermined. The existing safeguards involve gazettal of a notice to advise affected parties before any information that is deemed to be an interpretation of basic geological data can be released to third parties. The bill now introduces a streamlined system under which companies submitting information to the government will be able to declare at the time that they classify the information to be confidential or derivative. Unless the designated authority challenges this declaration within 30 days, the classification will stand and the information will be protected from release, permanently if it is confidential or for five years if it is derivative.I would also mention the creation of a new offence, namely deliberately interfering with offshore petroleum installations or operations. This will carry a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment, which will be equal to the strongest penalty provision in the act.Turning to the provisions that will be repealed by the amendments, one of the most notable is the repeal of the joint authority's discretion to fix the number of blocks for renewals of exploration permits at 16.The objective of the exploration permit system is to facilitate an optimal level of investment in petroleum exploration in offshore areas under the Commonwealth's jurisdiction. One of the mechanisms employed in the legislation to achieve this is a requirement that a permittee relinquish half the blocks covered by the permit at renewal so that these relinquished areas may be released again for exploration by other companies. However, currently, at the joint authority's discretion, holders of exploration permits may retain up to 16 blocks where the halving process would otherwise result in fewer blocks being included in the renewed permit. This has become the norm and resulted in large areas being retained by companies for extended periods with a consequent reduction in areas becoming available for competitive bidding.Accordingly, the discretionary minimum of 16 blocks for new permits is removed in the bill and the discretion for existing permits is to be removed after they have been renewed for the next permit term. Once a permit area has reduced to the point where the halving formula allows renewal over only four blocks, the permit will be renewable twice over those four blocks, instead of a four-block renewal followed by a two-block renewal. A one-block permit will not be able to be renewed.Another provision repealed is one relating to fragmentation constraints on areas covered by permits being renewed. At present, each exploration permit area must consist of aggregates of at least 16 blocks except where the total holding is less than 16 blocks. Moreover, each discrete area is to consist of blocks having a side in common with at least one other block. This concept is considered outdated because modern exploration techniques enable explorers to more accurately pinpoint targets. Repeal of these constraints would enhance the attractiveness of permits as, at the permit renewal stage, the company could hold on to more targets it considered prospective.The government has also agreed to repeal the 21-year term of pipeline licences. The term is to be indefinite, but the pipeline licence will be able to be terminated if there has been no work on, or use of, the pipeline for a period of at least five years, subject to force majeure. This conforms with the change made last year to the term of production licences and will enhance security of tenure and thereby encourage investment in pipelines.More generally, evolving technology is a factor behind a number of technical provisions being repealed with a view to incorporating them in regulations. The more technically prescriptive provisions are, the more quickly they tend to become outdated. There is, therefore, good sense in bringing such provisions into regulations, where they can more readily be amended than provisions of the act itself. The logistics of this require the provisions in question to be repealed only when the regulations are ready to come into effect. This is the reason why a subset of the amendments is to come into effect on a date to be fixed by proclamation rather than at royal assent.Additionally, a number of minor machinery amendments are made to update the act to current legal and administrative practices. This is specifically in areas such as the removal of the need for companies to use approved forms, converting pecuniary penalties in the act to penalty units and deleting provisions relating to offences that are fully dealt with in the Crimes Act 1914.There will be no net impact on the Commonwealth budget as a result of these changes. Annual licence fees payable to the Commonwealth will apply to pipeline licences and infrastructure licences with indefinite terms of effect as much as they would if the terms were limited. To this end, a consequential amendment is made to the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Fees Act 1994 to ensure that the state and territory costs of administering infrastructure licences are recovered from these fees in the same way as the costs of administering other titles. The overall effect of the amendments is likely to be reduced administrative costs for both government and industry.I commend the bill to honourable members and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Ms Macklin) adjourned.Ministerial Statements7375737510:16:007375Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—by leave—Mr Speaker:OverviewA full bench of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission has reported on the feasibility of replacing junior rates with non-discriminatory alternatives. The tabling of the report in this parliament, and its subsequent distribution to interested parties and the wider community, should now be a catalyst for the resolution of the policy and political impasse which has dogged the future of junior wages in Australia for most of this decade.The report is an extensive body of work commissioned by this legislature, conducted over six months in an inquisitorial manner rather than the more traditional adversarial approach of commission litigation. It follows an independent public inquiry by the commission that drew together oral and written submissions from all major stakeholders, including most of the historical participants in this debate. Being an inquisitorial process, the report makes no orders, decisions or recommendations but, in its own words, assists in resolving issues about the content of legislation and may serve to inform debate and future industrial policy (p. 8).The challenge for this parliamentThe report concludes that the commission could not find any feasible non-discriminatory alternatives to age based junior rates of pay. Such a finding is crucial to the central policy questions that now confront this parliament.Will the parliament legislate to permanently retain the existing system of junior rates? Will it remove the statutory scheme first introduced by the Keating government in 1993 which prima facie declares junior rates to be discriminatory and not to be made or, where made, to be removed?In the light of this report, these questions must now be unequivocally answered in the affirmative. Junior rates must stay, and where appropriate be extended throughout the work force.The opportunist political cover behind which the Labor Party and its leadership chose to hide on this issue has been its calls for an AIRC inquiry.That cover has now disappeared. The AIRC has reported. The Labor Party is exposed. Its political posturing has now been revealed as a sham. It has misread the debate and mislead the community, hoping beyond hope that an alternative would emerge behind which it could again cower in shallow opposition. Yet the commission has rightly repudiated each and every Labor sponsored alternative as being fundamentally flawed and in some cases even itself discriminatory.As unpalatable as it may be, Labor now has to do what the public interest dictated many months ago—make a real decision: a choice between protecting jobs for young Australians in urban, regional and rural areas or negative, opposition for opposition's sake posturing.There is no doubt that this is a dilemma for Mr Beazley, who only this week outlined to his caucus that over the coming months Labor could be portrayed in a negative position on industrial relations.If Labor repudiates this report from the independent umpire and again rejects the coalition's legislation to rectify Labor's flawed policy to abolish junior wages then it imposes not just a self-inflicted wound of negativity but, more importantly, jeopardises the jobs of tens of thousands of young Australians.The AIRC conclusionsIn reaching its conclusions on this central issue, the report supports the core propositions that the federal coalition government and the governments of Victoria, Western Australia, South Australia, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory have consistently advanced in this debate and before the commission. These conclusions are:. That there is an undisputable relationship between junior rates, their potential abolition and the employment prospects of young people (pp. xiv; 157, 165);. That a discounted pay rate for entry level work continues to be necessary in the areas in which employment under junior rate classifications is most concentrated, and that well-designed junior rate classifications may even create or protect employment opportunities, including in the building and construction industries (pp. xiii, xvi, 140-141, 189, 191, 201);. That the system of junior rates has been used as a wage reference for young people for decades, is simple to understand and administer and has active employment under it (pp. x; xv, 65-66, 138);. That none of the proposed alternatives to junior rates are feasible because they either are more complex, overvalue the work of employees, are themselves discriminatory or have considerable adverse cost effects (p. ix, 168-172, 206-212);. That the removal of junior rates or the introduction of adult rates at 18 years would significantly disemploy young Australians—that is, lead to large scale job losses (pp. xiv, 165, 207);. That the current legislative scheme, unless amended by the parliament, amounts to a rebuttable presumption that junior rates be removed from June 2000 (pp. xi; 88);. That, for a range of reasons, the labour force participation of young people is already relatively parlous and relatively scarce, and that changes that might have the effect of significantly increasing the relative cost of teenage labour beyond its real value to an employer may make teenage employment even more precarious, especially in regional and country Australia (pp. xiii, xiv; 151, 154, 199);. That if young people are to secure entry level employment and progress to economic self-sufficiency through paid employment they more than ever need to be competitive in the labour market (pp. x, 15);. That junior rates are often a useful bridge to full-time employment, especially for the educationally better qualified (p. xv); and. That the government submissions on the youth labour market and on the adverse consequences for young people on the abolition of junior rates have been broadly adopted, and that similar conclusions by bodies such as the Productivity Commission are supported (pp. xiii; 154, 163-165).The junior wage debateBefore turning to the details of the report, it is necessary to put the AIRC's inquiry into the context of the wider debate over junior rates.Junior rates have been a feature of the wages system in Australia since early this century. Age based junior rates of pay are set as a percentage of the adult rate, and usually increase annually until adult rates are payable. Over 400,000 young people under 21 are paid junior wages—this represents over half of all employed young people in Australia.Junior rates have been under direct legislative threat since the Labor government of 1993. Under the existing provisions of the Workplace Relations Act 1996, the continuation of junior rates in awards cannot be guaranteed after 22 June 2000.Because of the importance of junior rates for getting young people into jobs, the coalition government's preferred position has always been that junior rates should be allowed to continue indefinitely. In 1996 the government agreed as a temporary measure to extend the then exemption for a further three years, and to put in place a mechanism for the AIRC to review the feasibility of abolishing junior rates of pay. This reflected a compromise position only agreed to by the government as a way of avoiding Labor's legislated removal of junior wages. The coalition agreed to the review on the clear understanding that our policy would continue to be for the retention of junior rates and that we would seek a mandate for this legislation at the next election, which we did—and obtained.The AIRC reportThe AIRC report was prepared by a full bench of the commission to fulfil the requirements of section 120B of the WRA which requires a full bench to prepare a report assessing one primary question and three secondary questions.No feasible non-discriminatory alternatives existThe primary question answered by the inquiry was whether there are any feasible non-discriminatory alternatives to junior rates. The AIRC could not find any feasible non-discriminatory alternatives (paragraph [2] of the summary). Those who want junior rates abolished had every opportunity to put alternatives to the inquiry. Many tried to do so. The Australian Council of Trade Unions, the Australian Council of Social Service, the Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Association and the CFMEU all took up the challenge and put alternatives to the inquiry. Not one of these proposals were found by the full bench to qualify as non-discriminatory and feasible.The first of the secondary questions considered by the inquiry was whether it is desirable to replace junior rates with non- discriminatory alternatives. The full bench concludes that an assessment of the desirability of replacing junior rates would require a balance to be struck between the pros and cons of junior rates. It considered that no useful purpose would be served by the bench making that kind of assessment in the abstract (paragraph 4.4.3).Significant disemploying effects if junior rates abolishedThe next secondary question considered by the report was an assessment of the consequences for youth employment of abolishing junior rates. The inquiry found that the removal and non-replacement of the existing wage discounts embodied in junior rates would have significant disemploying effects for young people (paragraph 5.6.12). The report notes that this finding was not seriously challenged by the participants in the inquiry. The report indicates that, when given the opportunity to respond to this finding, the ACTU did not seek to address directly the finding or the substantial weight of economic opinion on which it is based.Significantly, the inquiry then used its finding about the disemploying effects of removing junior rates to assess the consequences for youth employment of alternatives that would apply adult rates at 18. The inquiry found that for most 18 year olds and above the application of full adult rates would cause an overvaluation of the work performed and would be expected to reduce the employment prospects of the 18- to 20-years-old age group (paragraph 5.8.7).Junior rates have high utility valueThe third of the secondary questions addressed by the report was the utility of junior rates for different types of employment, for different industries, and in the school to work transition. The inquiry found that well-designed junior rate classifications, framed to reduce capacity to exploit the use of them, may justifiably be used for creating or protecting employment opportunities for young people (paragraph [9](v) of the summary). The report also concluded that the role and usefulness of junior rates is best demonstrated in the school to work transition, and in school and work interfaces (paragraph 6.4.11).The inquiry found that junior rates had high utility for the retail industry and the hospitality and accommodation industries (paragraph 6.3.1). Significantly, the report also concludes that an expanded application of junior rates in the building and construction industry could, with some qualifications, result in expanded opportunities for youth employment (paragraph 6.3.14).Additional independent support for junior ratesThe AIRC also noted the existence of strong economic evidence in support of its conclusions. The AIRC report made use of a major study by the Productivity Commission entitled Youth wages and employment. That found that a one per cent increase in youth wages would lead to a decrease in youth employment of two per cent in the retail industry, five per cent in the accommodation industry, and 2.5 per cent in the cultural and recreational services industry.This is consistent with the overwhelming body of international and Australian evidence, ranging from one of the world's leading authorities on labour demand Professor Daniel Hamermesh, to the Australian Retailers Association which estimated that 170,000 to 180,000 junior jobs would be lost from the retail industry alone if junior rates were abolished.Recently both the UK Low Pay Commission established by the Blair Labour government and the Irish National Minimum Wage Commission recognised the need to discount minimum wages for young people to ensure they are not disadvantaged in the labour market.In fact, the Blair Labour government not only received the recommendations of the Low Pay Commission recommending a minimum junior rate but then proceeded of its own motion to further discount that recommended minimum out of concern for the youth labour market.Every state and territory government in Australia has the power to legislate to end the use of junior rates. None have done so. Other OECD countries that have minimum wages that provide significant protection for the low paid also typically have lower minimum wages for young people.The government's youth employment billThe AIRC report is overwhelming evidence in the case for retaining our system of junior rates and making junior rates more widely available. The continued existence of junior rates is essential to protect the employment prospects of young people. They help young people get that first foothold in the labour market that is critically important for their future career. With teenage unemployment above 24 per cent, everything possible must be done to assist young people into work.Of course, the preservation and expansion of junior rates is not the whole answer to reducing youth unemployment. Rather, it is an integral element of the government's strategy that includes a well-managed growing economy, initiatives to increase school retention rates and raise literacy and numeracy standards, the expansion of the apprenticeship system and the assistance provided to unemployed youth through the Job Network and mutual obligation.Our response to the need to protect junior rates is the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment) Bill 1998 , which the government introduced last November. The bill, when passed, would preserve and enhance the job prospects of young people by protecting the existing system of junior rates and, where appropriate, by extending junior rates to awards that do not currently contain them. The bill was passed by the House of Representatives on 10 February 1999 but was rejected by the Senate on 8 March 1999.In light of the AIRC report and because of the important role junior rates play in getting young people into jobs, the government will be reintroducing the youth employment bill. A number of members who previously spoke against the bill did so on the ground that it should not have been brought forward until after the tabling of the commission's report on junior rates. Their initial opposition to the bill appears to have been determined by timing and process issues, rather than by the merits of the bill itself. This difficulty that some members had with the initial bill has now been removed. And, as I said earlier, the Labor Party must now come clean with a position for or against junior wages and youth employment.On behalf of the government and all of the members, I thank the full bench of the AIRC for its important work on this matter of public importance, as well as the participants to the inquiry. I commend the report to this parliament and urge honourable members to use its conclusions as the basis for setting aside past policy differences and securing the passage of the government's youth employment bill when I reintroduce it into this place. I advise the House I intend to reintroduce it this afternoon, with the overwhelming support of the conclusions of the commission's report, which supports the propositions which this government has been advancing in the public debate for some time now. I commend the commission's report to the House.10:32:007379Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—by leave—Members of this House will know that it is customary for reports and ministerial statements of this kind to be dealt with after question time—indeed, the Notice Paper includes such a provision. The rather extraordinary process of dealing with this matter in the morning has obviously been done to facilitate the minister's intention, just announced, to introduce laws on this matter this afternoon into the parliament. The simple fact is that, when this government wants to legislate quickly, it can do it within hours and, when it comes to stripping away from people in the work force some of their entitlements, it seems to be able to do that with rapidity. Today's events are reminiscent of the Patrick fiasco, which saw this minister introduce laws into parliament within hours of the Patrick employees being dismissed. Again, we see today a report tabled in the morning with laws introduced in the afternoon. When the government wants to reduce workers' rights, it can do it straight away. When it is asked to defend workers' rights, like the entitlements of the Oakdale workers, it drags the chain for a couple of years and then says that it needs more time to talk. The comparison could not be more stark.There is in fact no urgency confronting the parliament in dealing with the important matters that are contained in the AIRC's report. The existing laws provide for a continuation of junior rates until June of next year. The industrial commission has spent the best part of the last six to eight months reviewing evidence and considering this matter, and the parties to it have been involved in submissions and preparation of work for more than a year. That work which has gone on over the past year is now to be considered by the parliament within hours of a 350-page report being presented to the parliament. There is no urgency, as the government and the minister claim, for the parliament to deal with this matter. The current laws will continue the operation of junior rates of pay at least until June 2000.It is important to also put on the record again the fact that the existing laws do not abolish junior rates of pay in June of next year. They provide for case by case extension in any award where any employer—or any union, for that matter—wishes to see junior rates continue. It is not a blanket exclusion of junior rates, but I do accept—and I will make comment later—that there is some need to review that position. But it is important to place on the record, to correct the impression this government continually presents, that there is no urgency for the June 2000 deadline, or beyond that in fact, because junior rates can, under the existing laws, continue beyond it.The Australian Labor Party welcomes the Industrial Relations Commission report that has been presented to the parliament today, and I will take this opportunity to thank the commission for their efforts in dealing comprehensively with a very complex and difficult situation and trying to balance a range of competing interests. It is also worth recording that the document before us provided by the commission does not actually contain any recommendations. It does not contain any decisions, and it does not contain any orders. But it is a very valuable contribution to the debate—some 350-odd pages, which the opposition has now had something approaching two hours to look at, from a government that intends to introduce legislation this afternoon on that matter. I make the point that, in the process of dealing with this important issue, the government should not seek to use their numbers to guillotine debate on this matter as they have done on other industrial relations issues since the last election. They should not seek to guillotine it through this House when we resume—I assume that will be in August—but they should facilitate a full and proper debate in the parliament on the matter so that members can digest the 350-page report in a little more time than we have had this morning.The crux of the issue that the commission was asked to look at is whether there is an identifiable replacement system for junior rates in those awards in which junior rates apply. It will come as no surprise to those in this parliament or listening to the broadcast to learn that the minister has been very selective in the way in which he has gone about quoting from the report. He has been selective today in quoting from the report, and he was certainly selective in the leaks that were provided to the Financial Review over the last week.Mr Brough interjecting—ET4Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVIS—The interjection is that the leaks were provided by the union. For the benefit of members of the government, the simple fact is that this was a report which was not held by the unions. There were copies—2K6BROUGHMr Brough—Yes, it was.ET4Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVIS—That was the exposure draft, not the final document. They are, in fact, different documents, and they say different things. The simple fact is that those things that were in the press in the last week were only known to the commission and to the minister. The simple fact of life is that it was released not by the commission but by the minister in a selective way to try to precondition the debate, to put out there in the public mind the Peter Reith window through which we are all supposed to look at this document.I want to go to some of the things in the document, in the very short time we have available to us, to demonstrate just how selective the minister has been. At paragraph 2 the AIRC makes this comment in relation to the core question of finding an identifiable replacement for junior rates of pay:We do not close off the possibility that there are feasible alternatives . . . We were already persuaded that in the design of replacement of junior rate classifications no one size fits all. The fit of an alternative is a matter of attention to detail and the merits in particular circumstances.That is a view with which we agree. The question of how this matter should now be progressed clearly is one of case-by-case analysis, and the commission report makes that plain. The commission does not come to a conclusion that it is not possible to replace junior rates—quite the contrary. Nor does it come to the conclusion that it is not desirable to replace junior rates—quite the contrary. The commission's report says that this is a matter that requires further consideration and it requires analysis case by case, award by award, industry by industry, and only then can you make meaningful determinations on this matter.We support that view. There is no need for the political impasse that the minister referred to and will no doubt try to make great play of during the debate on this matter. There is no need for that political impasse, because if the minister and this government are willing to accept the commission's view that this is a matter that requires consideration case by case, they will have our support on that. But to date the government have given no indication that that is the approach they will adopt. In fact, the government have already announced their intention to reintroduce into the parliament this very day laws that prevent that happening.So, far from endorsing the commission's report, we have a government again intending to flout the very wishes of the commission. But that should not come as a surprise. Throughout this entire process the government and this minister have done everything they can to intimidate and stand over the commission to try to force it to a view of its liking, including through endeavouring to legislate over the top of the commission inquiry in the very month in which the commission was commencing its work. So it is important at the outset to record that the impasse the minister argues is of concern to him is, in fact, an impasse he wants. There need be no political impasse in this matter if the government is willing to accept the core findings of the report and allow this to be dealt with case by case.One size does not fit all when it comes to looking at the question of youth wages across Australian industry. There are varying circumstances from industry to industry, even from enterprise to enterprise in some circumstances. The proper way in which that should be dealt with is to go through that process and ensure that equity prevails in a commonsense way. There is no comfort for the government out of this report. Their plan to indefinitely keep junior rates flies in the face of those points contained in the report to which I just referred. Their plan to go beyond that and actually force the commission to apply junior rates of pay into areas that do not currently have junior rates of pay is clearly in breach of the approach adopted by the commission in the report the minister has tabled today. Yet, in spite of that, the government will seek to introduce legislation this afternoon that would have that effect.It is worth actually pointing out that, when we look at the government's proposal in relation to junior rates and the extension of them, the government and the minister regularly refer to the extension of junior rates where that is `appropriate'. Most people who hear that actually take the word `appropriate' in its commonsense usage. In fact, that is not what the government intends. The explanatory memorandum to the legislation explains what the government means by the words `appropriate extension of junior wages' in this context. It defines `appropriate' as any situation in which an award exists where someone under 21 years of age could be employed. It does not matter whether they are employed, but if they could be employed there then the government requires the commission to introduce a junior rates clause. The memorandum gives the exclusions:For example, under some awards the employment of people under a certain age is effectively precluded for reasons such as legally imposed age barriers (for example, in relation to legal driving ages) . . . In other words, the government's own memorandum says that, unless the law prevents someone under 21 working in the area, then the commission has to put the junior rates scale in. That is totally in contravention of the approach adopted by the Industrial Relations Commission on this matter.The Labor Party takes the view that we should be pursuing a training wage approach to those people who are juniors and who are under 18 years of age. The question of how you deal with this issue is important. The school to work transition is complex, but it is vitally important to the future of young Australians and the future of our nation. Education, training and experience determine a person's employability. We should be structuring laws that give young people opportunity across all of those areas. Our wages system needs to be structured to take that into account. But it is part of a broader process. Regrettably, the Liberal Party have a one-dimensional approach when it comes to youth employment: it is to reduce youth wages and to ignore the educational and social aspects of development of young people and the importance that holds for their future and for the nation's future.I note also that the commission made some comment in relation to the operation of junior rates in the building industry. In looking at the operation of those junior rates, it made the observation that it thought there were some alternatives to simply revising a junior rates provision in that area. The commission has actually suggested that junior rates in the construction and building industry—that industry which is so important to this minister and which has been the target of his frustrations; this minister has been exhorting employers in the construction industry to pull on a Patrick style dispute and is somewhat frustrated that they do not want to enter into industrial Armageddon as part of his political campaign—should not necessarily be revived in that industry. It noted that a better outcome could be achieved by revisiting the training contract options for young people. We are very prepared to look at that because we see the importance of the training connection—not just as a question of wages but as an issue of skilling and experience for our young people as they move into adulthood and greater responsibility in the work force.The current system is discriminatory. That is a fact that should be acknowledged. Indeed, Mr Reith's own department in its submission to the Industrial Relations Commission acknowledged that it is discriminatory. So we should not be here debating whether or not we have a discriminatory system; we should be here debating how best we can go about removing the discrimination in a way that is responsible for all involved.The next step in the process along that track is to have the matters dealt with specifically: for there to be a specific application dealing with a particular award and a particular industry—that is, the case-by-case consideration that the commission itself acknowledged was the appropriate course to follow. We take the view that the onus of proof in that rests with the party seeking to alter the status quo. That is, for example, if a union were seeking to remove a junior rates clause and replace it, let us say, with a competency based clause, the onus of proof would rest with the union to demonstrate its case for that change. Equally, if this government or an employer were to argue for an extension of junior rates into areas that presently do not have them, we would say that the onus of proof would rest with them to justify that extension.Clearly, that is not the government's view as, within minutes of releasing the report, the government had announced that it intended to press ahead with its bill—and I would be interested to know what consideration the report had in government ranks because the government simply pressed ahead with what was its position months ago. The government has decided to ignore the evidence contained in the report and to ignore the role of the umpire to deal with these matters case by case and to tie the umpire's hands by requiring it to make a certain decision that fits with the government's political dogma.We take the opposite view: the umpire should be allowed to deal with these matters on a case-by-case basis with the onus of proof resting on those who seek the change. This government wants to tie the AIRC's hands, and we will not support that. The umpire should be allowed to do its job. Necessarily, for case-by-case decisions to be taken in which the onus of proof rests with the party wishing to make the change, such a situation would require an alteration to the existing laws. We acknowledge that and, if the government is willing to look at a process whereby the umpire is allowed to do its work on a case-by-case basis, we will work with the government towards some adjustments in that area.I conclude by reminding the parliament that there need be no political impasse out of this. I think the Industrial Relations Commission has done a fine job; it has presented us with a report that sets out the arguments and the complexity of the issue before us. We have an opportunity now to move ahead together; to allow the umpire to do its work, without hindrance from this government or this minister, and look at cases on their merits and place the onus of proof on those seeking change. If the government is willing to take that view, then the parliament can move ahead in a united fashion.But, if the government intends to persist with its divisive and biased approach to this issue with its intention to restrict the powers of the commission and tie its hands in relation to junior rates, we will continue to have a major dispute in this parliament and in this community on an issue which we now have the opportunity to pursue on a more common footing. So I urge the minister to step back from his legislation. Rather than for him to rush in this afternoon, trying to push that legislation through, he should step back, look at the report and consider the options that we have put before the parliament today.Motion (by Ms Worth) proposed:That the House take note of the papers.Debate (on motion by Mr McMullan) adjourned.Miscellaneous73827382Mr DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)10000PON/A10—Order! Before calling on the Clerk, I would like to make a short statement. Amendments to the Telecommunications (Consumer Protec tion and Service Standards) Bill 1998 and the Telecommunications (Universal Service Levy) Amendment Bill 1998 have given rise to questions about the provisions of section 53 of the Constitution. The second paragraph of section 53 provides that the Senate may not amend a proposed law imposing taxation. The third paragraph provides that the Senate may not amend any proposed law so as to increase any proposed charge or burden on the people.It is possible that objection could be taken to Senate amendment 34 to the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Bill on the ground that it would cause an increase in expenditure. I understand, however, that in essence it is not clear that there will be what might be regarded as a genuine increase in the expenditure of public money. It is also possible to regard the Telecommunications (Universal Service Levy) Amendment Bill as a bill imposing taxation, and so incapable of being amended by the Senate. This is, however, a highly technical argument. On balance, and while noting the issue, the House may consider that it would be appropriate not to take any objection on constitutional grounds to the Senate amendments in question.Motion (by Mr McGauran) agreed to:That the House endorse the statement by the Deputy Speaker.Bills7383r637Billsr636Billsr635Billsr6337383Motion (by Mr McGauran) proposed:That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent: (1) orders of the day Nos. 1 to 4, government business, relating to consideration of Senate amendments to the Telstra and telecommunications bills, being called on forthwith and being considered together; and(2) a Minister moving one motion—That all the amendments of the Senate be agreed to—in respect of all Senate amendments therein.10:53:007383McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—The opposition will not be opposing this motion, but I just want to say one or two things about it. It is not a particularly attractive or convenient way of dealing with the matters before us just because they all have the word `Telstra' in them. The various amendments to the bills run across a wide range of issues, deal with radically different matters and require quite different debate. It is going to force the debate into a bit of an artificial straitjacket. Therefore, it is not the best way to deal with it. It is not the way we would have desired to deal with it and it is not going to facilitate the easiest management of the issue from here on.Given that we received the usual amount of consultation about this, which is we found out about it when the government had decided to do it, we did not have any chance to come to an agreement about a better way of dealing with it which we might have been able to suggest. Next time, if anybody wants to try to find a better way, they are welcome to come and talk to us about it. I indicate our marked lack of enthusiasm for this approach. But we want to talk about the substance, not the process, so we will not oppose the motion.Question resolved in the affirmative.7383Consideration resumed from 22 June.TELSTRA (TRANSITION TO FULL PRIVATE OWNERSHIP) BILL 1998Senate's amendments—(1) Clause 1, page 1 (lines 5 and 6), omit "Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Act 1998 ", substitute "Telstra (Further Dilution of Public Ownership) Act 1999 ".(2) Clause 2, page 1 (line 8), omit "Subject to item 1 of Schedule 3, this Act", substitute "This Act". (3) Clause 3, page 2 (line 2), omit "Subject to item 1 of Schedule 3, each Act, and each regulation,", substitute "Each Act".(4) Clause 3, page 2 (lines 7 to 9), omit subclause (2).(5) Schedule 3, page 32 (line 2) to page 52 (line 17), omit the Schedule.TELECOMMUNICATIONS (CONSUMER PROTECTION AND SERVICE STANDARDS) BILL 1998Senate's amendments—(1) Clause 2, page 2 (after line 6), after paragraph (a), insert: (aa) the definition of approved digital data service plan in subsection 5(2); (ab) the definition of digital data service obligation in subsection 5(2); (ac) the definition of digital data service provider in subsection 5(2); (ad) the definition of draft digital data service plan in subsection 5(2);(2) Clause 2, page 2 (after line 8), after paragraph (b), insert: (ba) the definition of general digital data service area in subsection 5(2); (bb) the definition of general digital data service obligation in subsection 5(2); (bc) the definition of general digital data service provider in subsection 5(2);(3) Clause 2, page 2 (after line 15), after paragraph (g), insert: (ga) the definition of special digital data service area in subsection 5(2); (gb) the definition of special digital data service obligation in subsection 5(2); (gc) the definition of special digital data service provider in subsection 5(2);(4) Clause 4, page 3 (line 7), omit paragraph (c), substitute: (c) prescribed carriage services; and (d) digital data services.(5) Clause 4, page 4 (after line 1), after: • Telstra is subject to price control arrangements. insert: • This Act regulates telephone sex services.(6) Clause 5, page 4 (line 8) to page 5 (line 7), insert: approved digital data service plan means an approved digital data service plan under Division 4A of Part 2. digital data service obligation has the meaning given by section 19A. digital data service provider means: (a) a general digital data service provider; or (b) a special digital data service provider. draft digital data service plan means a draft digital data service plan under Division 4A of Part 2. general digital data service area has the meaning given by section 19B. general digital data service obligation has the meaning given by section 19A. general digital data service provider has the meaning given by section 26A. special digital data service area has the meaning given by section 19C. special digital data service obligation has the meaning given by section 19A. special digital data service provider has the meaning given by section 26A.(7) Clause 8, page 8 (line 13), omit paragraph (c), substitute: (c) prescribed carriage services; and (d) digital data services.(8) Clause 8, page 8 (line 17), at the end of paragraph (a), add "and the digital data service obligation".(9) Clause 8, page 8 (line 18), at the end of paragraph (b), add "and digital data service providers".(10) Clause 8, page 8 (line 19), at the end of paragraph (c), add "and digital data service plans".(11) Clause 8, page 8 (line 20), at the end of paragraph (d), add "and digital data service charges".(12) Clause 9, page 9 (line 13), omit subparagraph (iii), substitute: (iii) prescribed carriage services; and (iv) digital data services;(13) Clause 9, page 9 (after line 16), after paragraph (b), insert: (ba) the digital data service obligation described in section 19A should be fulfilled as efficiently and economically as practicable;(14) Clause 9, page 9 (after line 27), at the end of the clause, add: ; (e) certain costs associated with fulfilling the digital data service obligation should be shared among carriers. (15) Page 10 (after line 23), after clause 12, insert:12A Digital data services (1) For the purposes of this Act, a digital data service is: (a) a general digital data service (see subsection (2)); or (b) a special digital data service (see subsection (3)). General digital data service (2) For the purposes of this Act, a general digital data service is a carriage service that provides a digital data capability broadly comparable to that provided by a data channel with a data transmission speed of 64 kilobits per second supplied to end-users as part of the designated basic rate ISDN service. Special digital data service (3) For the purposes of this Act, a special digital data service is a carriage service that provides for a capability for the delivery of digital data to an end-user broadly comparable to the corresponding capability provided by a data channel with a data transmission speed of 64 kilobits per second supplied to end-users as part of the designated basic rate ISDN service. Designated basic rate ISDN service (4) For the purposes of this section, if: (a) immediately before 1 July 1997, Telstra supplied a basic rate Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN) service; and (b) the service complied with any of the standards for ISDN services made by the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI); the service is a designated basic rate ISDN service . Comparability of digital data capability (5) For the purposes of subsection (2), the determination of the comparability of the digital data capability of a carriage service is to be based solely on a comparison of the data transmission speed available to an end-user of the service.(16) Page 12 (after line 9), after clause 14, insert:14A Supply of digital data services General digital data service (1) A reference in this Part to the supply of a general digital data service includes a reference to the supply of: (a) customer equipment of a kind specified in the regulations; and (b) other goods of a kind specified in the regulations; and (c) services of a kind specified in the regulations; where: (d) the equipment, goods or services, as the case may be, are for use in connection with the general digital data service; and (e) the supply complies with such requirements, restrictions or conditions (if any) as are specified in the regulations. (2) Regulations made for the purposes of paragraph (1)(e) may require that the supply of a specified kind of customer equipment is to be by way of hire. If those regulations impose such a requirement, this Part has effect, in relation to the customer equipment concerned, as if a reference to supply were a reference to supply by way of hire. (3) Regulations made for the purposes of paragraph (1)(e) may require that specified customer equipment is to be supplied on the basis that the customer concerned enters into a legally enforceable agreement containing such terms and conditions relating to the ownership, possession, location, disposal or use of the equipment, as are specified in, or ascertained in accordance with, the regulations. (4) Subsections (2) and (3) do not, by implication, limit paragraph (1)(e). Special digital data service (5) A reference in this Part to the supply of a special digital data service includes a reference to the supply of: (a) customer equipment of a kind specified in the regulations; and (b) other goods of a kind specified in the regulations; and (c) services of a kind specified in the regulations; where: (d) the equipment, goods or services, as the case may be, are for use in connection with the special digital data service; and (e) the supply complies with such requirements, restrictions or conditions (if any) as are specified in the regulations. (6) Regulations made for the purposes of paragraph (5)(e) may require that the supply of a specified kind of customer equipment is to be by way of hire. If those regulations impose such a requirement, this Part has effect, in relation to the customer equipment concerned, as if a reference to supply were a reference to supply by way of hire. (7) Regulations made for the purposes of paragraph (5)(e) may require that specified customer equipment is to be supplied on the basis that the customer concerned enters into a legally enforceable agreement containing such terms and conditions relating to the ownership, possession, location, disposal or use of the equipment, as are specified in, or ascertained in accordance with, the regulations. (8) Subsections (6) and (7) do not, by implication, limit paragraph (5)(e).(17) Page 15 (after line 20), after Division 2, insert:Division 2A—Digital data service obligation19A Digital data service obligation (1) For the purposes of this Act, the digital data service obligation is the obligation: (a) to ensure that one or other of the following: (i) general digital data services; (ii) special digital data services; are reasonably accessible to all people in Australia on an equitable basis, wherever they reside or carry on business; and (b) to ensure that general digital data services are reasonably accessible to at least 96% of the Australian population on an equitable basis; and (c) to ensure that special digital data services are reasonably accessible to the remainder of the Australian population on an equitable basis. General digital data service obligation (2) For the purposes of this Act, the general digital data service obligation is the obligation to ensure that general digital data services are reasonably accessible to all people in general digital data service areas on an equitable basis. (3) To the extent necessary to achieve the general digital data service obligation, it is part of that obligation to supply general digital data services to people in general digital data service areas on request. Special digital data service obligation (4) For the purposes of this Act, the special digital data service obligation is the obligation to ensure that special digital data services are reasonably accessible to all people in special digital data service areas on an equitable basis. (5) To the extent necessary to achieve the special digital data service obligation, it is part of that obligation to supply special digital data services to people in special digital data service areas on request. Supply of customer equipment or other goods or services (6) An obligation does not arise under subsection (3) in relation to particular equipment, goods or services the supply of which is treated under subsection 14A(1) as the supply of a general digital data service if the customer concerned requests not to be supplied with the equipment, goods or services. (7) An obligation does not arise under subsection (5) in relation to particular equipment, goods or services the supply of which is treated under subsection 14A(5) as the supply of a special digital data service if the customer concerned requests not to be supplied with the equipment, goods or services. Rebate system (8) The regulations may provide that: (a) an obligation that arises under subsection (3) in relation to particular customer equipment the supply of which is treated under subsection 14A(1) as the supply of a general digital data service; or (b) an obligation that arises under subsection (5) in relation to particular customer equipment the supply of which is treated under subsection 14A(5) as the supply of a special digital data service; is taken to have been fulfilled by a person (in so far as the obligation relates to a particular customer) if: (c) the customer acquires or hires the equipment from a third person; and (d) the customer is entitled to a rebate from the first-mentioned person in respect of that acquisition or hire; and (e) the amount of the rebate is equal to the amount ascertained in accordance with the regulations; and (f) the liability to pay the rebate has been discharged; and (g) the entitlement to the rebate complies with such requirements, restrictions and conditions (if any) as are specified in the regulations. (9) Regulations made for the purposes of paragraph (8)(g) may require that the customer be given the option of assigning the customer's right to the rebate to the third person. (10) Subsection (9) does not, by implication, limit subsection (8). 19B General digital data service areas (1) The Minister may make a written determination that a service area ascertained in accordance with the determination is a general digital data service area for the purposes of this Act. The determination has effect accordingly. (2) A copy of a determination under subsection (1) must be published in the Gazette . (3) The Minister must exercise the powers conferred by this section in a manner that is consistent with the fulfilment of the digital data service obligation. 19C Special digital data service areas (1) The Minister may make a written determination that a service area ascertained in accordance with the determination is a special digital data service area for the purposes of this Act. The determination has effect accordingly. (2) A copy of a determination under subsection (1) must be published in the Gazette . (3) The Minister must exercise the powers conferred by this section in a manner that is consistent with the fulfilment of the digital data service obligation.(18) Page 22 (after line 11), after Division 3, insert:Division 3A—Digital data service providers26A Digital data service providers (1) The Minister may make a written declaration stating that a specified carrier is a general digital data service provider for a specified general digital data service area. Note: If a selection system has been determined under section 26C, a declaration under this subsection must be consistent with the system. (2) The Minister may make a written declaration stating that a specified carrier is a special digital data service provider for a specified special digital data service area. Note: If a selection system has been determined under section 26D, a declaration under this subsection must be consistent with the system. (3) A declaration under subsection (1) or (2) has effect accordingly. (4) A declaration under this section: (a) takes effect: (i) if the declaration is the first declaration under subsection (1) or (2), as the case may be—on the date specified in the declaration; or (ii) in any other case—at the start of the next financial year after the one in which it is made; and (b) if it specifies a financial year at whose end it ceases to have effect—ceases to have effect at the end of that financial year, unless sooner revoked. This subsection has effect subject to subsections (6), (7) and (8). (5) A revocation of a declaration under this section takes effect: (a) if it specifies a financial year at whose end it is to take effect—at the end of that financial year; or (b) otherwise—at the end of the financial year in which it is made. This subsection has effect subject to subsections (6) and (7). (6) If: (a) a declaration (the original declaration ) is in force under subsection (1) in relation to a particular carrier; and (b) a fresh declaration is made under subsection (1); and (c) the fresh declaration is expressed to replace the original declaration with effect from a specified time; and (d) the fresh declaration specifies another carrier; and (e) the service area specified in the fresh declaration is the same as the service area specified in the original declaration; then: (f) the fresh declaration takes effect at that time; and (g) the original declaration ceases to have effect at that time. (7) If: (a) a declaration (the original declaration ) is in force under subsection (2) in relation to a particular carrier and in relation to a particular service area; and (b) a fresh declaration is made under subsection (2); and (c) the fresh declaration is expressed to replace the original declaration with effect from a specified time; and (d) the fresh declaration specifies another carrier; and (e) the service area specified in the fresh declaration is the same as the service area specified in the original declaration; then: (f) the fresh declaration takes effect at that time; and (g) the original declaration ceases to have effect at that time. (8) If: (a) a declaration is in force under subsection (1) or (2) in relation to a particular carrier; and (b) at a particular time, the carrier ceases to hold a carrier licence; the declaration ceases to be in force at that time. (9) A declaration under this section is a disallowable instrument for the purposes of section 46A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 . (10) A reference in this section to a carrier does not include a reference to a person of a kind declared by the regulations to be exempt from section 16.26B Effect of digital data service provider declaration (1) A digital data service provider in relation to a particular service area is a digital data service provider: (a) for that area; and (b) for each service area that is within that area. (2) For the purposes of this Part, a person in relation to whom a declaration is in force under subsection 26A(1) or (2) at any time during a financial year is a digital data service provider in relation to the financial year. (3) For the purposes of this Part, the areas for which a person is a digital data service provider are taken to be a single area. (4) A general digital data service provider for a general digital data service area must take all reasonable steps to fulfil the general digital data service obligation, so far as the obligation relates to that area. (5) A special digital data service provider for a special digital data service area must take all reasonable steps to fulfil the special digital data service obligation, so far as the obligation relates to that area.26C Selection system for general digital data service providers (1) The Minister may, by written instrument, determine a selection system for the purpose of selecting carriers to be general digital data service providers for specified general digital data service areas in relation to specified financial years. (2) A system so determined must require the selected carrier to have elected that: (a) an amount specified in the election will be the carrier's digital data cost for the financial year concerned; or (b) a method of ascertaining an amount, being a method specified in the election, will apply for the purposes of determining the carrier's digital data cost for the financial year concerned. (3) A system so determined may require an applicant for selection to give the Minister a copy of the document that the applicant would be required to give to the Minister under section 40A in the event that the applicant is successful. This subsection does not, by implication, limit subsection (1). (4) If a system has been determined under this section, the Minister must not exercise the powers conferred by subsection 26A(1) in a way that is inconsistent with the system. (5) This Part does not prevent a method mentioned in paragraph (2)(b) from being the same as a method that would have applied if the system concerned had not been determined. (6) A determination under subsection (1) is a disallowable instrument for the purposes of section 46A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 .26D Selection system for special digital data service providers (1) The Minister may, by written instrument, determine a selection system for the purpose of selecting carriers to be special digital data service providers for specified special digital data service areas in relation to specified financial years. (2) A system so determined must require the selected carrier to have elected that: (a) an amount specified in the election will be the carrier's digital data cost for the financial year concerned; or (b) a method of ascertaining an amount, being a method specified in the election, will apply for the purposes of determining the carrier's digital data cost for the financial year concerned. (3) A system so determined may require an applicant for selection to give the Minister a copy of the document that the applicant would be required to give to the Minister under section 40A in the event that the applicant is successful. This subsection does not, by implication, limit subsection (1). (4) If a system has been determined under this section, the Minister must not exercise the powers conferred by subsection 26A(2) in a way that is inconsistent with the system. (5) This Part does not prevent a method mentioned in paragraph (2)(b) from being the same as a method that would have applied if the system concerned had not been determined. (6) A determination under subsection (1) is a disallowable instrument for the purposes of section 46A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 .26E Selection systems—information-gathering powers (1) If the Minister has reason to believe that a carrier or carriage service provider has information that is relevant to: (a) the exercise of the powers conferred on the Minister by subsection 26C(1) or 26D(1); or (b) the administration of a system determined under subsection 26C(1) or 26D(1); the Minister may, by written notice given to the carrier or provider, require the carrier or provider to give to the Minister, within the period and in the manner and form specified in the notice, any such information. (2) A carrier or carriage service provider must comply with a requirement under subsection (1).(19) Page 28 (after line 22), after Division 4, insert: Division 4A—Digital data service plans40A Digital data service provider must submit digital data service plan (1) A digital data service provider for a particular area must give the Minister a draft digital data service plan for that area. (2) The provider must give the Minister the plan within 90 days after the provider became a digital data service provider for that area.40B Digital data service plans A draft or approved digital data service plan for an area is a plan that sets out how a digital data service provider for that area will progressively fulfil: (a) if that area is a general digital data service area—the general digital data service obligation (in so far as the obligation relates to that area); or (b) if that area is a special digital data service area—the special digital data service obligation (in so far as the obligation relates to that area). Note: An approved digital data service plan is a draft digital data service plan that has been approved by the Minister.40C Replacement of approved digital data service plan If an approved digital data service plan (the original plan ) for an area is in force, a draft digital data service plan for the area may be expressed to replace the original plan. When the draft plan becomes an approved digital data service plan, the original plan ceases to be in force.40D Approval of draft digital data service plan by Minister (1) If a digital data service provider gives the Minister a draft digital data service plan, the Minister must: (a) approve the draft plan; or (b) refuse to approve the draft plan. (2) If the Minister approves the draft plan, the draft plan becomes an approved digital data service plan. (3) If the Minister refuses to approve the draft plan, the Minister may, by written notice given to the provider, direct the provider to give the Minister, within the period and in the terms specified in the direction, a fresh draft digital data service plan for the area concerned. The provider must comply with the direction.40E Public comment—draft plan (1) Before giving the Minister a draft digital data service plan under section 40D, a digital data service provider must: (a) publish a preliminary version of the draft plan and invite members of the public to make submissions to the provider about the preliminary version within a specified period; and (b) give consideration to any submissions received from members of the public within that period. (2) The period specified in the invitation must run for at least 30 days. (3) This section does not apply to a draft plan given to the Minister in accordance with a direction under subsection 40D(3). (4) This section does not apply to a draft plan given to the Minister in accordance with a notice under section 40M.40F Minister to have regard to certain matters (1) In deciding whether to approve a draft digital data service plan for a general digital data service area, the Minister must have regard to whether: (a) the plan provides for the general digital data service obligation (in so far as it relates to that area) to be fulfilled: (i) as efficiently and economically as practicable; and (ii) at performance standards that reasonably meet the social, industrial and commercial needs of the Australian community; and (iii) progressively throughout that area within such period as the Minister considers reasonable; and (b) the draft plan complies with any requirements in force under section 40G. (2) Subsection (1) does not, by implication, limit the matters to which regard may be had. (3) In deciding whether to approve a draft digital data service plan for a special digital data service area, the Minister must have regard to whether: (a) the plan provides for the special digital data service obligation (in so far as it relates to that area) to be fulfilled: (i) as efficiently and economically as practicable; and (ii) at performance standards that reasonably meet the social, industrial and commercial needs of the Australian community; and (iii) progressively throughout that area within such period as the Minister considers reasonable; and (b) the draft plan complies with any requirements in force under section 40G. (4) Subsection (3) does not, by implication, limit the matters to which regard may be had.40G Minister may formulate requirements for draft plans (1) The Minister may, by writing, formulate requirements to be complied with by draft digital data service plans. (2) The following are examples of requirements: (a) timetables for the supply of services; (b) performance standards relating to the fulfilment of the digital data service obligation; (c) the form of a draft digital data service plan. (3) An instrument under subsection (1) is a disallowable instrument for the purposes of section 46A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.40H Notification of decision (1) After deciding whether to approve a draft digital data service plan for an area, the Minister must give a written notice setting out the decision to: (a) the digital data service provider concerned; and (b) the ACA.(2) A copy of a notice under subsection (1) must be published in the Gazette . (3) If the Minister refuses to approve a draft digital data service plan for an area, the Minister must give a written notice setting out the reasons for the refusal to the digital data service provider concerned.40J Variation of approved digital data service plan (1) This section applies if: (a) an approved digital data service plan for an area (the current plan ) is in force; and (b) the digital data service provider concerned gives the Minister a draft variation of the plan. (2) The Minister must: (a) approve the variation; or (b) refuse to approve the variation. (3) The Minister must not approve the variation unless the Minister is satisfied that, if it were assumed that the digital data service provider were to give the Minister a draft digital data service plan in the same terms as the current plan (as proposed to be varied), the Minister would approve that draft plan. (4) After deciding whether to approve the variation, the Minister must give a written notice setting out the decision to: (a) the digital data service provider concerned; and (b) the ACA. (5) A copy of a notice under subsection (4) must be published in the Gazette . (6) If the Minister refuses to approve the variation, the Minister must give a written notice setting out the reasons for the refusal to the digital data service provider concerned. (7) If the Minister approves the variation, the current plan is varied accordingly.40K Public comment—variation of plan (1) Before giving the Minister a draft variation of a plan under section 40J, a digital data service provider must: (a) publish a preliminary version of the draft variation and invite members of the public to make submissions to the provider about the preliminary version within a specified period; and (b) give consideration to any submissions received from members of the public within that period. (2) The period specified in the invitation must run for at least 30 days. (3) This section does not apply to a draft variation given to the Minister in accordance with a notice under section 40M.40L Minister may direct the ACA to give reports and/or advice (1) Before deciding whether to approve a draft digital data service plan or a draft variation of an approved digital data service plan, the Minister may direct the ACA to give the Minister such reports and/or advice as the Minister requires to assist in making the decision. (2) The ACA must comply with the direction. (3) This section does not, by implication, limit the Minister's powers under section 486 of the Telecommunications Act 1997 (which deals with public inquiries). 40M Minister may direct variation or replacement of plan (1) This section applies if an approved digital data service plan (the current plan ) for an area is in force. (2) The Minister may give the digital data service provider concerned a written notice requiring the provider: (a) within the period and in the terms set out in the notice, to give the Minister a draft variation of the current plan; or (b) within the period and in the terms set out in the notice, to give the Minister a fresh draft digital data service plan for the area that is expressed to replace the current plan. (3) The provider must comply with the notice.40N Compliance with approved digital data service plan (1) If an approved digital data service plan for a general digital data service area is in force, the general digital data service provider concerned must take all reasonable steps to ensure that the plan is complied with. (2) If an approved digital data service plan for a special digital data service area is in force, the special digital data service provider concerned must take all reasonable steps to ensure that the plan is complied with.40P Register of digital data service plans (1) The ACA is to maintain a Register in which the ACA includes all approved digital data service plans currently in force. (2) The Register may be maintained by electronic means. (3) A person may, on payment of the charge (if any) fixed by a determination under section 53 of the Australian Communications Authority Act 1997 : (a) inspect the Register; and (b) make a copy of, or take extracts from, the Register. (4) For the purposes of this section, if the Register is maintained by electronic means, a person is taken to have made a copy of, or taken an extract from, the Register if the ACA gives the person a printout of, or of the relevant parts of, the Register. (5) If a person requests that a copy be provided in an electronic form, the ACA may provide the relevant information: (a) on a data processing device; or (b) by way of electronic transmission.(20) Page 31 (after line 10), after Division 5, insert:Division 5A—Regulation of digital data service charges46A Digital data service charges (1) For the purposes of this Division, if a person is a general digital data service provider for a particular area, a digital data service charge is a charge imposed, or proposed to be imposed, by the person for the supply of general digital data services to persons in the area. (2) For the purposes of this Division, if a person is a special digital data service provider for a particular area, a digital data service charge is a charge imposed, or proposed to be imposed, by the person for the supply of special digital data services to persons in the area.46B Declaration subjecting digital data service charges to price control arrangements (1) The Minister may, by notice published in the Gazette , declare that specified digital data service charges are subject to price control arrangements under this Division. (2) A declaration under subsection (1) is a disallowable instrument for the purposes of section 46A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 .46C Price control determinations (1) This section applies if a declaration is in force under section 46B in relation to a particular digital data service charge. (2) The Minister may make a written determination setting out: (a) price-cap arrangements and other price control arrangements that are to apply in relation to the charge; or (b) principles or rules in accordance with which the digital data service provider may impose or alter the charge; or both. (3) A determination has effect accordingly. (4) A determination under this section takes effect at the time specified in the determination. (5) A determination under this section may make different provision with respect to different customers. This section does not, by implication, limit subsection 33(3A) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 . (6) A determination under this section is a disallowable instrument for the purposes of section 46A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 .46D Content of price control determinations (1) A determination under section 46C relating to a digital data service charge may: (a) prohibit the charge from being imposed or altered without the Minister's consent; or (b) prohibit the charge from being imposed or altered without the ACCC's consent; or (c) prohibit the charge from being imposed or altered without prior notice being given to the Minister; or (d) prohibit the charge from being imposed or altered without prior notice being given to the ACCC; or (e) empower the Minister to direct the ACCC to give the Minister such reports and advice as the Minister requires for the purposes of assisting the Minister in deciding whether to give a consent in accordance with the determination. (2) Subsection (1) does not, by implication, limit section 46C.46E Price control determinations subject to determinations under Part 9 (1) This section applies if a determination under subsection 154(1) or 157(1) is in force in relation to a charge imposed, or proposed to be imposed, by Telstra. (2) A determination under this Division is of no effect in so far as it relates to that charge.46F Compliance with price control determinations A digital data service provider must comply with a determination in force under this Division.(21) Clause 47, page 32 (line 9), after "obligation", insert ", and certain costs that are associated with fulfilling the digital data service obligation,".(22) Clause 47, page 32 (line 13), after "obligation,", insert "or a digital data service provider incurs certain costs (called digital data costs ) in the course of fulfilling the digital data service obligation,".(23) Clause 47, page 32 (line 14), after "losses", insert "or costs". (24) Clause 54, page 36 (line 28), after "provider", insert ", or a digital data service provider,".(25) Clause 54, page 37 (line 5), omit "The claim", substitute "If the person is a universal service provider in relation to the financial year, the claim".(26) Clause 54, page 37 (after line 11), after subclause (4), insert: (4A) If the person is a digital data service provider in relation to the financial year, the claim must set out: (a) the person's digital data cost for the financial year (worked out under section 61A); and (b) details of how that digital data cost has been worked out; and (c) such other information (if any) as the approved form of claim requires.(27) Page 45 (after line 3), after clause 61, insert:61A Digital data cost of a digital data service provider for a financial year (1) A person's digital data cost for a financial year depends on which of the following paragraphs is applicable for that financial year: (a) if: (i) the person is a digital data service provider in relation to that financial year because of the operation of a selection system determined under section 26C or 26D; and (ii) the person has elected that a specified amount will be the person's digital data cost for the financial year; the person's digital data cost for the financial year is equal to that amount; (b) if: (i) the person is a digital data service provider in relation to that financial year because of the operation of a selection system determined under section 26C or 26D; and (ii) the person has elected that a specified method of ascertaining an amount will apply for the purposes of determining the person's digital data cost for the financial year; the person's digital data cost for the financial year is worked out using that method; (c) if: (i) the person is a digital data service provider in relation to that financial year; and (ii) the person is not a digital data service provider in relation to that financial year because of the operation of a selection system determined under section 26C or 26D; and (iii) a determination is in force under subsection (4) in relation to that financial year; the person's digital data cost for the financial year is worked out in accordance with the determination; (d) if: (i) the person is a digital data service provider in relation to that financial year; and (ii) the person is not a digital data service provider in relation to that financial year because of the operation of a selection system determined under section 26C or 26D; and (iii) no determination is in force under subsection (4) in relation to that financial year; then: (iv) if the amount worked out using the formula in subsection (3) is greater than zero dollars—the person's digital data cost for the financial year is equal to that amount; or (v) if the amount worked out using the formula in subsection (3) is not greater than zero dollars—the person's digital data cost for the financial year is zero dollars. (2) For the purposes of this section, if a person is a digital data service provider for an area in relation to a financial year, the person's customer equipment costs for the financial year is an amount equal to the sum of: (a) the total costs incurred by the person in acquiring customer equipment that: (i) is covered by a declaration that was in force under section 46B during the financial year in relation to charges imposed, or proposed to be imposed, by the person for the supply of customer equipment of a kind specified in regulations made for the purposes of paragraph 14A(1)(a) or (5)(a); and (ii) was supplied by the person during the financial year to persons in the area; and (b) the total rebates that became payable during the financial year by the person, in accordance with regulations made for the purposes of subsection 19A(8), in respect of customer equipment acquired or hired by persons in the area. (3) The formula referred to in paragraph (1)(d) is as follows: Customer equipment costs—Customer charges + Supplementary amount where: customer charges means the total amount payable by persons in the area referred to in subsection (2) by way of charges for the supply by the person during the financial year of customer equipment covered by paragraph (2)(a). customer equipment costs means the person's customer equipment costs for the financial year. supplementary amount means the amount (if any) specified in, or ascertained in accordance with, regulations made for the purposes of this definition. (4) The Minister may make a written determination specifying a method of ascertaining an amount for the purposes of paragraph (1)(c). The determination has no effect unless each person who was a participating carrier immediately before the determination was made gave a written consent to the making of the determination. (5) The amount worked out under a determination under subsection (4) may be zero dollars. (6) A copy of a determination under subsection (4) must be published in the Gazette .(28) Page 45 (after line 3), after clause 61, insert:61B Reduction of excessive costs (1) The Minister may, by written instrument, formulate principles or rules that are to be applied in determining the extent (if any) to which costs are to be treated as excessive for the purposes of subsection 61A(2). (2) For the purposes of the application of subsection 61A(2) in relation to a particular financial year, if: (a) a person has incurred costs of a kind mentioned in paragraph 61A(2)(a); and (b) the costs are treated, under the principles or rules in force under subsection (1), as excessive to any extent; the amount of the costs is to be reduced by the amount of the excess. (3) An instrument under subsection (1) is a disallowable instrument for the purposes of section 46A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 .(29) Clause 63, page 46 (after line 7), after paragraph (a), insert: (aa) whether or not a claim by a digital data service provider for a levy credit for a financial year correctly states the digital data service provider's digital data cost for that financial year; or(30) Clause 64, page 47 (after line 2), after subclause (3), insert: (3A) The assessment must set out, for each digital data service provider in relation to that financial year: (a) the digital data service provider's digital data cost for the financial year; and (b) the digital data service provider's levy credit balance (if any) under section 69 for the financial year; and (c) if the assessment sets out a levy credit balance of the digital data service provider for the financial year—the amount payable to the digital data service provider under section 85 for the financial year.(31) Clause 64, page 47 (line 5), after "providers", insert "and digital data service providers".(32) Clause 67, page 48 (lines 5 to 12), omit subclause (1), substitute: (1) A participating carrier's levy debit for a financial year is the amount worked out using the formula: Contribution factor x (Total net universal service cost + Total digital data cost) where: contribution factor has the meaning given by subsection (2). total digital data cost means the total digital data costs for the financial year of all the digital data service providers in relation to the financial year. total net universal service cost means the total net universal service costs for the financial year of all the universal service providers in relation to the financial year.(33) Clause 68, page 49 (lines 9 to 15), omit the clause, substitute:68 Levy debit balance of a participating carrier for a financial year If a person's levy debit under subsection 67(1) for a financial year exceeds the sum of: (a) the person's net universal service cost for that financial year; and (b) the person's digital data cost for that financial year; then: (c) the person has a levy debit balance for that financial year; and (d) the amount of that balance is the amount of the excess.(34) Clause 69, page 49 (lines 16 to 23), omit the clause, substitute:69 Levy credit balance for a financial year If the sum of: (a) a person's net universal service cost for a financial year; and (b) the person's digital data cost for that financial year; exceeds the person's levy debit under subsection 67(1) for that financial year: (c) the person has a levy credit balance for that financial year; and (d) the amount of that balance is the amount of the excess.(35) Clause 71, page 50 (line 12), omit "or (3)", substitute ", (3) or (3A)".(36) Clause 71, page 50 (line 22), after "provider", insert ", or a digital data service provider,".(37) Clause 72, page 51 (after line 5), after paragraph (a), insert: (aa) a person who is a digital data service provider in relation to a financial year;(38) Heading to clause 85, page 56 (line 24), omit "to a universal service provider ".(39) Page 80 (after line 6), after clause 117, insert:117A Time for payment of damages for breach of performance standardsDecision whether to accept liability for damages (1) If, at a particular time, a carriage service provider first has reason to believe that an event has occurred that is reasonably likely to result in the carriage service provider being liable to pay damages to a particular customer under section 116, then, within 14 days after that time, the carriage service provider must decide whether to accept that liability. (2) In making a decision under subsection (1), the carriage service provider must have regard to whether there is any reasonable basis for the carriage service provider to dispute the liability. (3) If a carriage service provider makes a decision under subsection (1) to accept, or not to accept, a liability to pay damages to a particular customer, the carriage service provider must give the customer written notification of the decision within 14 weeks after the decision is made. Crediting customer account (4) If: (a) a carriage service provider makes a decision under subsection (1) to accept a liability to pay damages to a particular customer; and (b) the liability is to be discharged by giving the customer a credit in an account the customer has with the carriage service provider; the liability must be discharged within the period of 14 weeks after the decision is made and: (c) if it is practicable for the carriage service provider to give the customer the credit within that 14-week period and in time for the customer to be notified of the credit in the first bill sent to the customer during that period—by giving the customer the credit in time for the customer to be notified of the credit in that bill; or (d) if paragraph (c) does not apply, but it is practicable for the carriage service provider to give the customer the credit within that 14-week period and in time for the customer to be notified of the credit in the second bill sent to the customer during that period—by giving the customer the credit in time for the customer to be notified of the credit in that bill. Other manner of discharging liability (5) If: (a) a carriage service provider makes a decision under subsection (1) to accept a liability to pay damages to a particular customer; and (b) the liability is not to be discharged by giving the customer a credit in an account the customer has with the carriage service provider; the liability must be discharged within 14 weeks after the decision is made. Customer (6) If the customer dies, a reference in this section to the customer includes a reference to the legal personal representative of the customer. Transitional (7) The reference in subsection (1) to a particular time is a reference to a particular time after the end of the period of 12 months beginning on the date of commencement of this section.(40) Page 81 (after line 6), after clause 118, insert:118A Right of contribution (1) If: (a) a carriage service provider (the first provider ) contravenes a standard in force under section 115; and (b) the contravention relates to a particular customer; and (c) the first provider is liable, under section 116, to pay damages (the primary damages ) to the customer for the contravention; and (d) the contravention is wholly or partly attributable to one or more acts or omissions of another carriage service provider (the second provider ); and (e) the first provider has discharged the liability for the primary damages; the second provider is liable to pay damages (the secondary damages ) to the first provider for the acts or omissions. (2) The amount of the secondary damages for the acts or omissions is: (a) if the contravention is wholly attributable to the acts or omissions—an amount equal to the primary damages; or (b) if the contravention is partly attributable to the acts or omissions—such amount (not exceeding the primary damages) as the court thinks fair and reasonable. (3) If the second provider makes a payment to the first provider as a result of a right or remedy that: (a) was available to the first provider otherwise than under this section; and (b) arose out of the same acts or omissions; the amount of the secondary damages payable for the acts or omissions is to be reduced (but not below zero) by the amount of the payment. (4) The first provider may recover the amount of the secondary damages by action against the second provider in a court of competent jurisdiction. (5) An action under this section must be instituted within 2 years after the first provider discharged the liability for the primary damages. (6) If the customer dies, a reference in this section to the customer includes a reference to the legal personal representative of the customer. (7) Paragraph (1)(a) does not apply to a contravention that occurs before the end of the period of 6 months beginning on the date of commencement of this section.(41) Page 110 (after line 25), after Part 9, insert:Part 9A—Telephone sex services158A Simplified outline The following is a simplified outline of this Part. • This Part prohibits unacceptable conduct by telephone sex service providers, and carriage service providers, in relation to telephone sex services. • Conduct is unacceptable if the customer: (a) has not agreed in writing to the supply of telephone sex services; and (b) has not been issued with a Personal Identification Number or some other means of limiting access by other persons to the telephone sex service. • If a carriage service provider engages in unacceptable conduct in relation to a telephone sex service, charges for the service must not be included in a bill sent by or on behalf of the carriage service provider to the customer concerned. • The supply of other goods and services must not be tied to the supply of a telephone sex service. • The regulations may prohibit or regulate the supply, advertising or promotion of a specified telephone sex service.158B Unacceptable conduct in relation to a telephone sex service (1) A telephone sex service provider or a carriage service provider must not engage in unacceptable conduct in relation to a telephone sex service (within the meaning of subsection (2)). Note: Telephone sex service provider is defined by section 158K. (2) For the purposes of this Part, if: (a) a telephone sex service provider uses a standard telephone service to supply a telephone sex service to an end-user in Australia; and (b) the supply is by way of a voice call; and (c) a person (the relevant customer ) is a customer of a carriage service provider in relation to the voice call; and (d) a charge for the supply of the telephone sex service is expected to be included in a bill sent by or on behalf of the carriage service provider to the relevant customer; the telephone sex service provider and the carriage service provider are taken to have engaged in unacceptable conduct in relation to the telephone sex service unless: (e) the relevant customer has agreed in writing to the use of the standard telephone service to supply telephone sex services in general; and (f) the telephone sex service provider has reason to believe that: (i) the relevant customer has been issued with a Personal Identification Number that provides a means of limiting access by other persons to telephone sex services supplied using the standard telephone service; or (ii) the relevant customer has been provided with some other means of limiting access by other persons to telephone sex services supplied using the standard telephone service; and (g) the telephone sex service provider has reason to believe that: (i) if subparagraph (f)(i) applies—the end-user of the telephone sex service has used the Personal Identification Number referred to in that subparagraph to access the telephone sex service; or (ii) if subparagraph (f)(ii) applies—the end-user of the telephone sex service has used the other means referred to in that subparagraph to access the telephone sex service; and (h) the voice call is made to a number with an approved prefix. Note 1: Telephone sex service is defined by section 158J. Note 2: Approved prefix is defined by section 158H. (3) Subsection (1) is a civil penalty provision . Note: Part 31 of the Telecommunications Act 1997 provides for pecuniary penalties for breaches of civil penalty provisions. Subsection (1) is a civil penalty provision for the purposes of that Act. Charge for supply of telephone sex service not to be included in bill (4) If a carriage service provider engages in unacceptable conduct in relation to a telephone sex service (within the meaning of subsection (2)), a charge for the supply of the telephone sex service must not be included in a bill sent by or on behalf of the carriage service provider to the relevant customer. (5) Subsection (4) is a civil penalty provision . Note: Part 31 of the Telecommunications Act 1997 provides for pecuniary penalties for breaches of civil penalty provisions. Subsection (4) is a civil penalty provision for the purposes of that Act. Agreements (6) An agreement referred to in paragraph (2)(e) has no effect for the purposes of this section if it deals with a matter other than the use of a standard telephone service to supply telephone sex services. Defence (7) In any proceedings against a carriage service provider under Part 31 of the Telecommunications Act 1997 that arise out of this section and relate to a telephone sex service supplied using a standard telephone service supplied by the carriage service provider, it is a defence if the carriage service provider establishes: (a) that it did not know; and (b) that it could not, with reasonable diligence, have ascertained; that the standard telephone service was, or was to be, used by a telephone sex service provider to supply the telephone sex service. (8) For the purposes of subsection (7), in determining whether a carriage service provider could, with reasonable diligence, have ascertained whether a standard telephone service supplied by the carriage service provider was, or was to be, used by a telephone sex service provider to supply a telephone sex service, the following matters are to be taken into account: (a) whether any inquiries were made of persons who proposed to use standard telephone services to supply commercial services by way of voice calls; (b) whether persons who use standard telephone services to supply commercial services by way of voice calls are under any contractual obligation to notify the carriage service provider of the nature of those commercial services; (c) whether the carriage service provider monitors, or arranges for the monitoring, of advertisements that are: (i) for commercial services supplied by way of voice calls made using standard telephone services; and (ii) published in mass-circulation newspapers or mass-circulation magazines circulated in Australia; (d) any other relevant matters.158C Supply of goods or services not to be tied to the supply of telephone sex services (1) A person (the first person ) must not: (a) supply, or offer to supply, goods or services; or (b) supply, or offer to supply, goods or services at a particular price; or (c) give or allow, or offer to give or allow, a discount, allowance, rebate or credit in relation to the supply or proposed supply of goods or services by the first person; on condition that the person to whom the first person supplies or offers or proposes to supply the goods or services will agree to the supply of one or more telephone sex services. (2) Subsection (1) is a civil penalty provision . Note: Part 31 of the Telecommunications Act 1997 provides for pecuniary penalties for breaches of civil penalty provisions. Subsection (1) is a civil penalty provision for the purposes of that Act. (3) An expression used in this section and in section 47 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 has the same meaning in this section as it has in that section.158D Regulations may prohibit or regulate certain telephone sex services (1) The regulations may prohibit or regulate any or all of the following: (a) the supply of a specified telephone sex service; (b) the taking of specified calls to a specified telephone sex service; (c) the use of a standard telephone service to supply a specified telephone sex service; (d) the use of a standard telephone service to carry specified calls to a specified telephone sex service; (e) the advertising of a specified telephone sex service; (f) the promotion of a specified telephone sex service. Note: A telephone sex service or call may be specified by name, by inclusion in a specified class or in any other way. (2) Regulations made for the purposes of subsection (1) may make provision with respect to a matter by conferring on the ACA or the Australian Broadcasting Authority a power to make a decision of an administrative character. Compliance (3) The following provisions have effect: (a) a telephone sex service provider or a carriage service provider must not contravene regulations in force for the purposes of paragraph (1)(a), (b), (c) or (d); (b) a person must not contravene regulations in force for the purposes of paragraph (1)(e) or (f). (4) Subsection (3) is a civil penalty provision . Note: Part 31 of the Telecommunications Act 1997 provides for pecuniary penalties for breaches of civil penalty provisions. Subsection (3) is a civil penalty provision for the purposes of that Act.158E Aiding, abetting etc. (1) A person must not: (a) aid, abet, counsel or procure a contravention of subsection 158B(1) or (4), 158C(1) or 158D(3); or (b) induce, whether by threats or promises or otherwise, a contravention of subsection 158B(1) or (4), 158C(1) or 158D(3); or (c) be in any way, directly or indirectly, knowingly concerned in, or party to, a contravention of subsection 158B(1) or (4), 158C(1) or 158D(3); or (d) conspire with others to effect a contravention of subsection 158B(1) or (4), 158C(1) or 158D(3). (2) Subsection (1) is a civil penalty provision . Note: Part 31 of the Telecommunications Act 1997 provides for pecuniary penalties for breaches of civil penalty provisions. Subsection (1) is a civil penalty provision for the purposes of that Act.158F Evidentiary certificate—telephone sex service (1) The Australian Broadcasting Authority may issue a written certificate stating that a specified service is, or was, a telephone sex service. (2) In any proceedings under the Telecommunications Act 1997 that relate to this Part, a certificate under subsection (1) is prima facie evidence of the matters in the certificate. (3) A document purporting to be a certificate under subsection (1) must, unless the contrary is established, be taken to be a certificate and to have been properly given.158G Onus of proof—agreement and limiting access In any proceedings against a person under the Telecommunications Act 1997 that relate to this Part, it is to be presumed, unless the contrary is established, that paragraphs 158B(2)(e), (f) and (g) are not applicable.158H Approved prefix (1) For the purposes of this Part, each of the following is an approved prefix : (a) 1901 or, if there is in force a written determination made by the Minister or the ACA specifying another prefix for the purposes of this paragraph, that other prefix; (b) if there is in force a written determination made by the Minister or the ACA specifying a prefix for the purposes of this paragraph—that prefix. (2) A determination under paragraph (1)(a) or (b) is a disallowable instrument for the purposes of section 46A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 .158J Telephone sex service (1) For the purposes of this Part, a telephone sex service is a commercial service supplied using a standard telephone service, where: (a) the supply is by way of a voice call made using the standard telephone service; and (b) having regard to: (i) the way in which the service is advertised or promoted; and (ii) the content of the service; it would be concluded that a majority of persons who call the service are likely to do so with the sole or principal object of deriving sexual gratification from the call. (2) However, a service is not a telephone sex service if it is a therapeutic or counselling service provided by a person registered or licensed as a medical practitioner, or as a psychologist, under a law of a State or Territory.158K Telephone sex service provider For the purposes of this Part, if a person uses, or proposes to use, a standard telephone service to supply one or more telephone sex services, the person is a telephone sex service provider .158L Voice call (1) To avoid doubt, a reference in this Part to a voice call includes a reference to a call that involves a recorded or synthetic voice. (2) In determining the meaning of a provision of the Telecommunications Act 1997 , or a provision of this Act other than this Part, subsection (1) is to be disregarded.158M Savings of other laws This Part is not intended to exclude or limit the concurrent operation of any law of a State or Territory.158N Transitional (1) This Part does not apply to a telephone sex service that is supplied before the end of the period of 6 months beginning on the date of commencement of this section. (2) However, an agreement referred to in paragraph 158B(2)(e) may be entered into before, at or after the commencement of this section. TELECOMMUNICATIONS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 1998Senate's amendments—(1) Schedule 1, page 4 (before line 24), before item 6, insert:5A Section 151AA Omit: • The Commission may issue a notice stating that a specified carrier or carriage service provider has contravened, or is contravening, the competition rule. The notice is called a competition notice . • A competition notice is prima facie evidence of the matters in the notice. substitute: • The Commission may issue a notice stating that a specified carrier or carriage service provider has engaged, or is engaging, in anti-competitive conduct. The notice is called a Part A competition notice . • Proceedings for the enforcement of the competition rule (other than proceedings for injunctive relief) must not be instituted unless the alleged conduct is of a kind dealt with in a Part A competition notice that was in force at the time when the alleged conduct occurred. • The Commission may issue a notice stating that a specified carrier or carriage service provider has contravened, or is contravening, the competition rule. The notice is called a Part B competition notice . • A Part B competition notice is prima facie evidence of the matters in the notice.(2) Schedule 1, page 5 (after line 6), after item 6, insert:6A Section 151AB (definition of competition notice ) Repeal the definition, substitute: competition notice means: (a) a Part A competition notice; or (b) a Part B competition notice.(3) Schedule 1, page 5 (after line 14), after item 8, insert:8A Section 151AB Insert: Part A competition notice means a notice issued under subsection 151AKA(1) or (2).8B Section 151AB Insert: Part B competition notice means a notice issued under subsection 151AL(1).8C Paragraph 151AJ(2)(b) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (b) either: (i) takes advantage of that power with the effect, or likely effect, of substantially lessening competition in that or any other telecommunications market; or (ii) takes advantage of that power, and engages in other conduct on one or more occasions, with the combined effect, or likely combined effect, of substantially lessening competition in that or any other telecommunications market.8D Before section 151AL Insert:151AKA Part A competition notices Particular anti-competitive conduct (1) The Commission may issue a written notice stating that a specified carrier or carriage service provider has engaged, or is engaging, in a specified instance of anti-competitive conduct. Kind of anti-competitive conduct (2) The Commission may issue a written notice stating that a specified carrier or carriage service provider has engaged, or is engaging, in at least one instance of anti-competitive conduct of a kind described in the notice. Part A competition notice (3) A notice under subsection (1) or (2) is to be known as a Part A competition notice . Part A competition notices under subsection (2) (4) For the purposes of this Part, a kind of anti-competitive conduct described in a Part A competition notice under subsection (2) is taken to be conduct of a kind dealt with in the notice. (5) To avoid doubt, a Part A competition notice under subsection (2) is not required to specify any instance of anti-competitive conduct. (6) In deciding how to describe a kind of anti-competitive conduct in a Part A competition notice under subsection (2), the Commission may have regard to: (a) whether the carrier or carriage service provider concerned could, by varying its conduct, continue to engage in anti-competitive conduct and avoid proceedings against it under one or more provisions of Division 7; and (b) any other matters that the Commission thinks are relevant. Threshold for issuing Part A competition notices (7) The Commission may issue a Part A competition notice under subsection (1) that specifies an instance of anti-competitive conduct if the Commission has reason to believe that the carrier or carriage service provider concerned has engaged, or is engaging, in that instance of anti-competitive conduct. (8) The Commission may issue a Part A competition notice under subsection (2) that describes a kind of anti-competitive conduct if the Commission has reason to believe that the carrier or carriage service provider concerned has engaged, or is engaging, in at least one instance of anti-competitive conduct of that kind. Note: For the effect of a Part A competition notice, see subsections 151BY(3), 151CB(3), 151CC(3) and 151CE(5).8E Subsection 151AL(2) Omit " competition notice ", substitute " Part B competition notice ".Note: The heading to section 151AL is altered by omitting "Competition " and substituting "Part B competition ".8F At the end of section 151AL Add: Threshold for issuing Part B competition notices (3) The Commission may issue a Part B competition notice relating to a particular contravention if the Commission has reason to believe that the carrier or carriage service provider concerned has committed, or is committing, the contravention. Notice may be issued after proceedings have been instituted (4) To avoid doubt, a Part B competition notice may be issued even if any relevant proceedings under Division 7 have been instituted.Note: For the effect of a Part B competition notice, see subsection 151AN(1).8G Subsection 151AN(1) Before "competition notice", insert "Part B".8H Section 151AO Before "competition notice" (wherever occurring), insert "Part A". Note: The heading to section 151AO is altered by omitting "competition " and substituting "Part A competition ".8J Subsection 151AO(2) Omit "151AL", substitute "151AKA".8K After section 151AO Insert:151AOA Variation of competition notice (1) If a competition notice is in force in relation to a carrier or carriage service provider, the Commission may vary the competition notice so long as the variation is of a minor nature. (2) If a Part A competition notice is in force in relation to a carrier or carriage service provider, the Commission may vary the competition notice by omitting the time at which the notice is expressed to come into force and substituting a later time. (3) If a competition notice is varied, the Commission must give the carrier or carriage service provider concerned a written notice setting out the terms of the variation.151AOB Revocation of competition notice (1) The Commission may revoke a competition notice. (2) If a competition notice is revoked, the Commission must give the carrier or carriage service provider concerned a written notice stating that the notice has been revoked.8L After section 151AQ Insert:151AQA Stay of proceedings relating to competition notices (1) Paragraphs 15(1)(a) and (b) of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 do not apply to a decision to issue a competition notice. (2) If a person applies to the Federal Court under subsection 39B(1) of the Judiciary Act 1903 for a writ or injunction in relation to a decision to issue a competition notice, the Court must not make any orders staying or otherwise affecting the operation or implementation of the decision pending the finalisation of the application. However, this subsection does not apply to an order under subsection (3). (3) If: (a) either: (i) a person applies to the Federal Court under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 for review of a decision to issue a competition notice; or (ii) a person applies to the Federal Court under subsection 39B(1) of the Judiciary Act 1903 for a writ or injunction in relation to a decision to issue a competition notice; and (b) any relevant proceedings have been instituted under Division 7 of this Part; the Federal Court or a Judge of the Federal Court may, by order, on such conditions as the Court or the Judge thinks fit, stay those proceedings.151AQB Advisory notices (1) This section applies if a Part A competition notice is in force in relation to a carrier or carriage service provider. (2) The Commission may give the carrier or carriage service provider a written notice advising the carrier or carriage service provider of the action it should take, or consider taking, in order to ensure that it does not engage, or continue to engage, in the kind of conduct dealt with in the Part A competition notice. (3) A notice under subsection (2) is an instrument of an advisory character. (4) A notice under subsection (2) that relates to a Part A competition notice ceases to be in force if the Part A competition notice ceases to be in force. (5) The Commission may vary or revoke a notice under subsection (2). (6) If a notice under subsection (2) is varied, the Commission must give the carrier or carriage service provider concerned a written notice setting out the terms of the variation. (7) If a notice under subsection (2) is revoked, the Commission must give the carrier or carriage service provider concerned a written notice stating that the notice under subsection (2) has been revoked.(4) Schedule 1, page 19 (after line 2), after item 23, insert:23A Subsection 151BY(3) Omit "competition notice that was in force" (wherever occurring), substitute "Part A competition notice that was in force in relation to the carrier or carriage service provider concerned".(5) Schedule 1, page 19 (after line 12), after item 26, insert: 26A Subsection 151CB(3) Omit "competition notice that was in force", substitute "Part A competition notice that was in force in relation to the carrier or carriage service provider concerned".26B Subsection 151CC(3) Omit "competition notice that was in force", substitute "Part A competition notice that was in force in relation to the carrier or carriage service provider concerned".26C Subsection 151CE(5) Omit "competition notice that was in force", substitute "Part A competition notice that was in force in relation to the carrier or carriage service provider concerned".(6) Schedule 1, page 23 (after line 2), after item 31, insert:31A Paragraph 152AN(2)(d) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (d) the Commission must ensure that each inquiry is covered by a report under section 505 of that Act, whether the report relates: (i) to a single one of those inquiries; or (ii) to any 2 or more of those inquiries.(7) Schedule 1, page 28 (after line 19), after item 36, insert:36A Section 152CL Insert: final determination means a determination other than an interim determination.36B Section 152CL Insert: interim determination means a determination that is expressed to be an interim determination.36C Subsections 152CN(1) and (2) Before "determination" (wherever occurring), insert "final".36D Subsection 152CN(3) Repeal the subsection, substitute: (3) If the notification is withdrawn: (a) the Commission must not make a final determination in relation to the access dispute; and (b) if the Commission has not already made an interim determination in relation to the access dispute—the Commission must not make an interim determination in relation to the access dispute.36E After section 152CP Insert:152CPA Interim determination by Commission (1) A determination may be expressed to be an interim determination. (2) The making of an interim determination does not terminate an arbitration or relieve the Commission from its duty to make a final determination. Objection by access seeker (3) The Commission must not make an interim determination if, at any time within the objection period, the access seeker gave the Commission a written notice objecting to the determination. For this purpose, the objection period is the period specified in a written notice issued by the Commission at the same time as a draft of the determination was issued by the Commission. The specified period must not be shorter than 7 business days after the draft of the determination was issued by the Commission. Duration (4) An interim determination has effect on the date specified in the determination. (5) Unless sooner revoked, an interim determination remains in force until the end of the period specified in the determination. The period must not be longer than 12 months. Revocation (6) The Commission may revoke an interim determination. (7) The Commission must revoke an interim determination if requested to do so by the parties to the determination. (8) If: (a) an interim determination relating to an access dispute is in force; and (b) the notification of the dispute is withdrawn under section 152CN; the interim determination is taken to have been revoked when the withdrawal occurs. (9) If: (a) an interim determination relating to an access dispute is in force; and (b) a final determination relating to the access dispute takes effect; the interim determination is taken to have been revoked when the final determination takes effect. Variation (10) The Commission may vary an interim determination. (11) Sections 152CQ and 152CR apply to a variation under subsection (10) as if: (a) in a case where the interim determination was made in arbitration of an access dispute relating to an earlier final determination of an access dispute (the eligible access dispute ) between the access seeker and the carrier or provider: (i) an access dispute (the notional access dispute ) arising out of the interim determination had been notified at the time when the eligible access dispute was notified; and (ii) the notional access dispute were an access dispute relating to the earlier final determination; and (iii) the variation were the making of an interim determination in the terms of the varied interim determination; or (b) in any other case: (i) an access dispute arising out of the interim determination had been notified at the time when the original access dispute was notified; and (ii) the variation were the making of an interim determination in the terms of the varied interim determination. Definition (12) In this section: business day means a day that is not a Saturday, a Sunday or a public holiday in the Australian Capital Territory.36F Subsection 152CR(1) After "making a", insert "final".36G At the end of section 152CR Add: (3) The Commission may take the following matters into account in making an interim determination: (a) a matter referred to in a paragraph of subsection (1); (b) any other matters that it thinks are relevant. (4) In making an interim determination, the Commission does not have a duty to consider whether to take into account a matter referred to in a paragraph of subsection (1).(8) Schedule 1, page 29 (after line 11), after item 39, insert:39A At the end of section 152CV Add: (2) To avoid doubt, a member of the Commission is not disqualified from constituting the Commission (with other members) for the purposes of an arbitration of a dispute about a particular matter merely because the member has performed functions, or exercised powers, in relation to the matter or a related matter. (3) Subsection (2) has effect in addition to subsection 152BBC(5). (4) In determining the operation of a provision of this Act other than this Division or section 152BBC, subsection (2) of this section and subsection 152BBC(5) are to be disregarded.39B Section 152DN Repeal the section, substitute:152DN Operation of determinations (1) A final determination has effect 21 days after the determination is made. Stay of determination by the Tribunal (2) However, if a party to an arbitration applies to the Tribunal under section 152DO for a review of the Commission's final determination, the Tribunal may make any orders staying or otherwise affecting the operation or implementation of the final determination that the Tribunal thinks appropriate to secure the effectiveness of the review by the Tribunal. (3) If an order is in force under subsection (2) (including an order previously varied under this subsection), the Tribunal may make an order varying or revoking the first-mentioned order. (4) An order in force under subsection (2) (including an order previously varied under subsection (3)): (a) is subject to any conditions that are specified in the order; and (b) has effect until: (i) the end of any period for the operation of the order that is specified in the order; or (ii) the finalisation of the review; whichever is earlier. Interim determination to remain in force if final determination stayed (5) If: (a) an order is made under subsection (2) in connection with a final determination relating to an access dispute; and (b) an interim determination relating to the access dispute was in force immediately before the final determination took effect; the interim determination remains in force until: (c) the end of any period for the operation of the order that is specified in the order; or (d) the finalisation of the review; or (e) the revocation of the interim determination; whichever is earliest. Commission may make interim determination while final determination stayed (6) If: (a) an order is made under subsection (2) in connection with a final determination relating to an access dispute; and (b) no interim determination relating to the access dispute was in force immediately before the final determination took effect; this Part does not prevent the Commission from making an interim determination relating to the access dispute while the order is in force. Such an interim determination ceases to have effect: (c) at the end of any period for the operation of the order that is specified in the order; or (d) on the finalisation of the review; or (e) on the revocation of the interim determination; whichever is earliest. Duration of interim determination (7) Subsections (5) and (6) have effect despite anything in section 152CPA. When final determination takes effect (8) For the purposes of subsections (5) and (6), in determining the time when a final determination took effect, an order under subsection (2) is to be disregarded.152DNA Backdating of final determinations (1) Any or all of the provisions of a final determination may be expressed to have taken effect on a specified date that is earlier than the date on which the determination took effect. (2) The specified date must not be earlier than the date of notification of the access dispute concerned. (3) For the purposes of subsections 152CPA(9) and 152DN(5) and (6), in determining the time when a final determination takes effect, a provision covered by subsection (1) of this section is to be disregarded. (4) A provision of a final determination may be expressed to cease to have effect on a specified date. (5) This section has effect despite anything in subsection 152DN(1).152DNB Stay of determinations (1) Paragraphs 15(1)(a) and (b) of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 do not apply to a decision of the Commission to make a determination. (2) If a person applies to the Federal Court under subsection 39B(1) of the Judiciary Act 1903 for a writ or injunction in relation to a decision of the Commission to make a determination, the Court must not make any orders staying or otherwise affecting the operation or implementation of the decision pending the finalisation of the application.39C Subsection 152DO(1) Omit "determination" (wherever occurring), substitute "final determination".39D At the end of subsection 152DO(4) Add: To avoid doubt, the Tribunal has power to make, vary or revoke an interim determination.39E Section 152DT Omit "determination" (wherever occurring), substitute "final determination".39F After subsection 152DU(1) Insert: (1A) The revocation of a determination does not affect any remedy under subsection (1) in respect of a contravention of the determination that occurred when the determination was in force.(9) Schedule 1, page 29 (after line 25), after item 41, insert:41A Transitional—interim determinations An interim determination may be made in relation to an arbitration under Division 8 of Part XIC of the Trade Practices Act 1974 , whether the access dispute was notified before, at or after the commencement of this item.41B Transitional—backdating of final determinations A final determination made by the Commission under Division 8 of Part XIC of the Trade Practices Act 1974 has no effect to the extent (if any) to which any provision of the determination is expressed to have taken effect on a date earlier than the date of commencement of this item.(10) Schedule 1, page 29, after item 41, insert:41C Transitional—pre-commencement competition notices(1) Despite the amendments made by items 5A, 6A, 8A, 8B, 8D, 8E, 8F, 8G, 8H, 8J, 8L, 23A, 26A, 26B and 26C of this Schedule, Part XIB of the Trade Practices Act 1974 continues to apply, after the commencement of this item, in relation to a competition notice in force immediately before the commencement of this item, as if those amendments had not been made.(2) Subsection 151AOA(2) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 applies to a competition notice in force immediately before the commencement of this item in a corresponding way to the way in which it applies to a Part A competition notice.(11) Schedule 1, page 29 (after line 31), at the end of the Schedule, add:43 Transitional—interpretation of pre-commencement provisions of the Trade Practices Act 1974In determining the meaning that a provision of the Trade Practices Act 1974 had before the commencement of this item, the amendments made by this Schedule are to be disregarded.(12) Schedule 3, item 13, page 34 (line 25), omit "1998 .", substitute "1998 ; or".(13) Schedule 3, page 34 (after line 25), after paragraph (l), insert: (m) subsection 158B(1) of the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1998 ; or (n) subsection 158B(4) of the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1998 ; or (o) subsection 158C(1) of the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1998 ; or (p) subsection 158D(3) of the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1998 ; or (q) subsection 158E(1) of the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1998 .(14) Schedule 4, page 47 (after line 25), after item 4, insert: 4A Section 7 Insert: digital data service provider has the same meaning as in the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1998 .(15) Schedule 4, page 48 (after line 22), after item 12, insert:12A After paragraph 105(3)(e) Insert: (ea) the adequacy of each digital data service provider's compliance with its obligations under Part 2 of the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1998 ;(16) Schedule 4, page 49 (after line 5), after item 15, insert:15A At the end of subsection 151CM(1) Add: ; and (d) the adequacy of each digital data service provider's compliance with its obligations under Division 5A of Part 2 of the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1998 (which deals with regulation of digital data service charges).15B Subsection 151CM(5) Insert: digital data service provider has the same meaning as in the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1998 .15C Subsection 151CM(5) Insert: universal service provider has the same meaning as in the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1998 .TELECOMMUNICATIONS (UNIVERSAL SERVICE LEVY) AMENDMENT BILL 1998Senate's amendment—(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (before line 6), before item 1, insert:1A Title Omit "payphones and prescribed carriage services ", substitute "payphones, prescribed carriage services and digital data services ". 10:54:007406McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPArts and the Centenary of Federation10—I move:That all the amendments be agreed to.I turn first to the amendments to the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998 . Amendment (5) omits schedule 3 of the bill to remove the provisions providing for the sale of more than 49.9 per cent of Telstra. The government recognises that a majority in the other place does not at this stage support legislation which permits a sale beyond 49.9 per cent. Amendment (1) changes the short title of the bill to Telstra (Further Dilution of Public Ownership) Bill 1999 as a consequence of the omission of schedule 3. Amendments (2), (3) and (4) make minor changes to the commencement and enacting clauses consequential on the omission of schedule 3.I turn now to the amendments to the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Bill 1998 . In order to provide greater visibility and clarity, the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Bill 1998 brings together the consumer protection measures that were contained in the Telecommunications Act 1997.In regard to digital data service obligation, the amendments to the bill implement the government's election commitment to include in the universal service obligation certain digital data requirements—namely, access to ISDN on demand for 96 per cent of the population; and, for the four per cent not able to access ISDN on demand, the provision of an on-demand Internet based satellite service that delivers a satellite downlink comparable to a 64 kilobits per second service as well as reimbursement of 50 per cent of the price of purchasing the necessary satellite receiving equipment. Amendments (1) to (4) and (6) to (38) insert new provisions into the universal service regime contained in the bill to include a `digital data service obligation'. These amendments will ensure equitable access to advanced communications services for regional Australia.Turning to the customer service guarantee, part 5 of the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Bill 1998 continues the operation of the customer service guarantee arrangements contained in part 9 of the Telecommunications Act. The customer service guarantee is referred to as the CSG. Amendment (39) will enhance the operation of the CSG by providing for the automatic payment of damages to customers in relation to a contravention of the CSG without the customer having to make a specific claim for payment. Amendment (40) will give a carriage service provider a right to obtain a contribution to the damages where a contravention of the CSG is wholly or partly attributable to the acts or omissions of another carriage service provider. In regard to telephone sex services, amendments (5) and (41) deal with the regulation of telephone sex services. Amendment (41) introduces a new part 9A into the bill containing detailed provisions for the regulation of these services. Part 9A will prohibit unacceptable conduct by telephone sex service providers and carriage service providers in relation to telephone sex services. This new part is intended to address community concerns that telephone sex lines are too easily accessed by children of standard telephone service customers. Under the proposed amendments, before a telephone sex service which is billed on a telephone account is supplied, the phone customer must have agreed in writing to the supply of telephone sex services and been issued with a personal identification number, PIN, or some other means of limiting access by others to the telephone sex service. Such services will have to be supplied from a special number range such as 1901 numbers. If a carriage service provider engages in unacceptable conduct in relation to a telephone sex service, charges for the service will not be able to be included in a bill sent by, or on behalf of, the provider to the customer concerned.These arrangements are not proposed for the purpose of closing down the telephone sex industry. The arrangements allow the industry to operate by providing for the services to be supplied where telephone customers have opted in or where the telephone sex service customer pays for the service otherwise than by the telephone account: for example, by using a credit card. Telephone sex service providers and carriage service providers will have a period of six months after the commencement of the bill to put arrangements in place to enable them to comply with part 9A. Regulations will be able to prohibit or regulate the supply, advertising or promotion of a specified telephone sex service.I turn now to the amendments to the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 . (Extension of time granted) I acknowledge the courtesy extended to me and the cooperation of the opposition. The amendments to the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 mainly make changes to provisions dealing with the competition regulation provisions for telecommunications in the Trade Practices Act 1974. The amendments further enhance the pro-competitive framework, making changes identified through additional consultation with industry and the ACCC and the Senate legislation committee process.In summary, the amendments enhance the ACCC's ability under part XIB of the Trade Practices Act to respond to anti-competitive conduct in the telecommunications sector, enhance the ACCC's ability under part XIC of the Trade Practices Act to arbitrate access disputes in the telecommunications sector and make a number of beneficial housekeeping amendments.In regard to competition notice provisions, amendments (1) to (5) and (10) enhance the competition notice provisions by making it clear that the definition of anticompetitive conduct includes the taking advantage of substantial market power in a market and engaging in other conduct on one or more occasions, with the combined effect, or likely combined effect, of substantially lessening competition in the telecommunications market; by clarifying that the threshold for the issue of a competition notice is `reason to believe' rather than `being satisfied' that a contravention has occurred; by enabling the ACCC to issue simpler, and therefore more easily drafted, competition notices; by enabling the ACCC to make minor variations to a competition notice; by enabling the ACCC to continue to build its case after it has issued a part A notice by issuing part B notices which have evidentiary effect in court; by enabling the ACCC to advise a person in receipt of a notice what changes a person might make to its conduct so that it is no longer acting anticompetitively; and by substantially changing incentives to challenge notices by ensuring they remain `on foot' during the hearing of an appeal. These amendments generally represent changes that the ACCC has sought to enable it to administer the provisions more effectively.In regard to arbitration provisions, amendments (7) to (9) enhance the access arbitration process by enabling the ACCC to make interim access determinations as well as to backdate any or all provisions of a final determination. These amendments also reduce the incentive to challenge determinations by providing that determinations will, as a default, continue to operate during such reviews—which reverses the current arrangements—and they will ensure that commissioners are not disqualified from conducting arbitrations because of past involvement in other telecommunications regulatory activities.Amendments (6) and (7) include housekeeping amendments which will help address delays in the declaration of services where combined inquiries are undertaken and ensure that the withdrawal of an access dispute does not nullify obligations which it is appropriate should continue. Amendment (11) includes a transitional provision in the bill and amendments (12) to (16) make amendments consequential to the amendments to the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Bill to regulate telephone sex services and make digital data services part of the universal service obligation.In conclusion, these amendments reflect changes requested by the ACCC and address the fundamental claims of industry but in a way which retains an appropriate balance of all interests. The government is confident that the amendments will enhance the effectiveness of the pro-competitive regime for telecommunications and support the further development of a competitive environment for the supply of efficient and effective telecommunications services.Briefly, the Telecommunications (Universal Service Levy) Amendment Bill 1998 makes minor consequentials amendments to the Telecommunications (Universal Service Levy) Act 1997. A further amendment is required consequential upon the amendments to the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Bill providing for a new digital data service. Amendment (1) amends the long title of the Telecommunications (Universal Service Levy) Act of 1997 as a consequence of applying the universal service levy to the provision of digital data services. I commend the amendments to the House.11:04:007408Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—To suit the convenience of the House and the minister I will indicate how the opposition proposes to approach the debate, given we have this slightly unusual procedure as a consequence of the suspension of standing orders and the motion moved by the minister. We are dealing with four out of the five bills in the original Telstra package, the fifth bill not being amended in the Senate. So far as the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998 is concerned, the opposition opposes that bill in its entirety and as a consequence opposes the amendments from the Senate. We are opposed to the sale of a further 16 per cent of Telstra, just as we were opposed to the government's original legislation when it passed through this House—legislation which was to effectively authorise, by a sham inquiry, the full sale of Telstra.As to the second bill, the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Bill 1998 , we in general terms support that legislation. We support the amendments that have been made in respect of digital data. But we pursued amendments in respect of the telephone sex services in the Senate and we will re-run those amendments here because we believe the regime which the government has imposed on this industry is not as flexible as it could have been.As to the third bill, in general terms we support the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 and we support the amendments. There are a couple of amendments which we had on the Notice Paper in the Senate which in the course of the guillotine were lost, and I will ask the minister some questions about those. I also give the minister notice that on 16 June his colleague the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts received a formal letter from industry commenting on the amendments as adopted but also raising further questions in respect of the competitive regime. I will inquire of the minister whether the government is in a position to make a formal response to the issues raised by that letter. There is no difficulty in respect of the fourth bill in the package, the Telecommunications (Universal Service Levy) Amendment Bill 1998 or those amendments.In terms of the procedure, if these bills were treated separately, which was the way in which they were first introduced into this House, we would have opposed on division the amendments to the Telstra privatisation bill and opposed that message. So far as the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Bill 1998 is concerned, we would have opposed the government's telephone sex regime and moved amendments in respect of that and divided on them. On defeat, I expect, of those amendments, we would have opposed that portion of the amendments. If the telecommunications legislation bill and the Telecommunications (Universal Service Levy) Amendment Bill 1998 were treated separately, we would have supported those after modest inquiries of the minister.The procedure which the minister has adopted for today's debate, as the Manager of Opposition Business indicated, is not the most ideal way of doing it. It restricts our flexibility in some respects but it does enable us to place on the record the points that we wish to make. The minister has formally moved that all the amendments of the Senate be agreed to, but I now move:That the following words be added to the motion:"except that (1) the House opposes the Senate amendments to the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill and opposes the Bill itself; and(2) Senate Amendment 41 to the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Bill 1998 be amended as follows:(A) Proposed section 158B (pages 21 and 22) omit paragraphs 158B (2)(e), (f), (g) and (h), substitute: (e) the voice call is made to a number with an approved prefix; and one of the following paragraphs applies: (f) the relevant customer has agreed: (i) in writing; or (ii) by telephone or other electronic means; to the use of a carriage service to supply telephone sex services in general and the carriage service provider is satisfied as to the identity of the relevant customer; (g) the telephone sex service provider has reason to believe that: (i) the relevant customer has been issued with a Personal Identification Number under an access arrangement with a telephone sex service provider that is determined by the ACA to be an appropriate access arrangement; and (ii) the end user of the telephone sex service has used the Personal Identification Number referred to in subparagraph (i) to access the telephone sex service; (h) the telephone sex service provider has reason to believe that: (i) the relevant customer has been issued with some other means, approved by the ACA, of limiting access to other persons to telephone sex services supplied using a carriage service (an approved access limitation means ); and (ii) the end-user of the telephone sex service has used the approved access limitation means referred to in subparagraph (i) to access the telephone sex service.(B) After proposed section 158G (page 24), insert:158GA Appropriate access arrangement (1) For the purposes of this Part, an access arrangement between a relevant customer and a telephone sex service provider for the provision of access to telephone sex services supplied using a voice call to a carriage service is an appropriate access arrangement if the arrangement is an arrangement of a kind specified in a written determination made by the ACA for the purposes of this subsection. (2) The minimum requirements for an appropriate access arrangement are as follows: (a) a customer must make an application to a service provider for a Personal Identification Number; (b) the telephone sex service provider must not issue a Personal Identification Number to a customer without first receiving an application from the customer and unless the telephone sex service provider also provides the customer with an identity authentication card; (c) before issuing an identity authentication card, the telephone sex service provider must verify the customer's identity in a manner determined by the ACA; (d) the identity authentication card must be linked to an automated verification system to which the customer may gain access using a telephone service with a 1800 prefix or other prefix as determined from time to time by the ACA; (e) the customer may use any suitable telephone to gain access to telephone sex services following customer verification through the automated verification system using the identity authentication card and Personal Identification Number; (f) the ACA must consult with carriage service providers, telephone sex service providers and bodies that, in the opinion of the ACA, represent carriage service providers or telephone sex service providers before determining that an access arrangement is an appropriate access arrangement. (3) A determination under subsection (1) is a disallowable instrument for the purposes of section 46A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 .(C) After proposed section 158G (page 24) insert:158GB Approved access limitation means (1) For the purposes of this Part, a means of limiting access to telephone sex services supplied using a voice call to a carriage service is an approved access limitation means if the means is of a kind specified in a written determination made by the ACA for the purposes of this subsection. (2) The ACA must not make a determination under subsection (1) without first consulting carriage service providers, telephone sex service providers and bodies that, in the opinion of the ACA, represent carriage service providers or telephone sex service providers . (3) A determination under subsection (1) is a disallowable instrument for the purposes of section 46A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 .(D) Proposed section 158N (page 25), omit "6 months", substitute "12 months".I will speak to this amendment later. I now appropriately yield the floor to the senior member from Western Australia, the Leader of the Opposition.11:09:007410Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—These bills represent, apart from a number of other things, the fact that the government have failed in a deceitful effort to privatise 100 per cent of Telstra. They went into the election campaign implying that they had effectively abandoned that objective, that they would put up a sale of 16 per cent and that then there would be a genuine inquiry. While there was a disposition to proceed from that point on to 100 per cent, that disposition was not shared by the collective National members, all of whom said, `We'll stop at 16 per cent. We'll get a few gains from the bush and it will be maintained in majority ownership.' They allowed the National Party to campaign on that point and, when this parliament reconvened, they put in place a bill for the 100 per cent sale of Telstra.Every single National Party member went to this last election campaign on a deceit. At least one small mercy, I suppose, from this outcome is that the deceit on their part to some extent has been made good. But, of course, it still leaves us on a course which is completely unnecessary, a course which is not supported by anything like a majority of the Australian people and a course which is to the long-term disbenefit of the budget and the long-term disbenefit of those who rely—and we all will—on affordable access to each new stage of technological development in the communications industry.The Australian people do not trust this government in the handling of this issue and in the handling of this legislation. The Australian people do not believe that Telstra should be privatised. It is their company. It is a reasonable thing for the Australian people to expect their views to be reflected in the actions of government. One of the reasons why they do not trust it is the way in which the resources are used. Some will accept the notion of privatisation in order to retire debt, but nobody accepts the notion of privatisation in order to pork-barrel.If you actually sit down and contemplate the enormity of this, we have here an asset which every Australian needs. We have here an asset which stands at the heart of technological development in our society and on which we will always rely, not just for the next 10 years, five years or three years—forever. It stands at the heart of this. It is making good money. It requires no taxpayer subventions. It is there as an aid to the budget; it is not a detractor from the budget. It helps the Commonwealth's fiscal performance; it does not detract from the Commonwealth's fiscal performance.These attributes are all dismissed and laid on the altar of Liberal Party and National Party pork-barrelling. You cannot escape that. That is exactly what happens with this. We found that more than 90 per cent of the first environmental fund went to seats held by the National Party and the Liberal Party. They had a smart alec response that the terms had been encapsulated in a way that permitted that to be done legitimately. You can always put in a set of terms of reference that, when implemented by the bureaucracy, does not necessarily worry the Auditor-General, although there are features of this which did. But the outcome is not simply about those elements of the proper process if what it is devoted towards is nevertheless a political end. The political end here was selling Telstra to maintain a political hold of the National Party and the Liberal Party seats, particularly in the bush.Then we have the example of what has happened to the Federation Fund. Quite extraordinary things have been revealed about that in the Senate estimates committee hearings in recent times. At least a dozen Public Service determinate outcomes were overridden by ministers, all of which coincided with problems being experienced in particular seats by our political opponents.Now we come to this little exercise. One of the elements of the so-called social bonus is going to be devoted to rural transaction centres. Whom do we find heading up the list of the folk who are going to determine how those rural transaction centres are selected and where they will ultimately be located? It is none other than Mr Russell Broadbent and Mr Noel Hicks—in one case a retired member and in the other case a defeated member. (Extension of time granted) They are going to be responsible for the disbursement of this. These are extraordinary things. Here we have a massive asset that everybody in this country understands is critical to their future simply being frittered away for a temporary gain for our political opponents in the bush. This is not acceptable to the average Australian.We alone in this parliament have a view about privatisation which is non-ideological. We accept that from time to time there will be public assets that ought to be privatised. That was the position we adopted when we were in government. We do not think nothing should remain in public hands; we think that, where a particular company held in government hands is going to be requiring substantial budgets and subventions in order for it to be able to survive and prosper or where it does not stand in a monopoly situation and the private sector can adequately provide, those are circumstances among others in which privatisation might be legitimate. But where something is returning a substantial profit to the budget, where it is near monopoly in many of its most important attributes or where it is performing services which are going to be more and more important as time goes by, then there is a substantial case for public ownership.We have no ideological objection to privatising and we have no ideological objection to something in those circumstances remaining in public hands, and that is precisely what applies in the case of Telstra and what did not apply in the case of Qantas and the Commonwealth Bank. That is why we adopted one view on them and another view on this. We actually have a bit of integrity when it comes to policy in this area and we do not drive it with Labor ideology; we drive it with a commonsense approach to what is a proper issue of public management.The argument is raised by our opponents, `You've got to sell it to retire debt,'—belied of course by the extent to which it is used for the purposes of a pork barrel. When this government came into office, whatever the blah and persiflage that has surrounded their argument, they inherited this situation: they inherited the third best position on public debt in the Western world. They talk about this huge debt that they inherited. That debt was approximately half the public debt to GDP ratio of Maggie Thatcher's Britain, approximately half the public debt to GDP ratio of Ronald Reagan's United States, less than half the public debt to GDP ratio of Helmut Kohl's Germany and—this may not necessarily be a terribly good comparison, and I will sit with those three—approximately one-fifth of the public debt to GDP ratio of Italy. So it could not be said that they faced an overwhelming budgetary requirement.What they actually confronted was Liberal Party ideology, that is all. It was not a public debt position which drove the determination they had, but Liberal Party ideology that there should be nothing in the public sector. Even if it has a monopoly characteristic, even if it has a technology utterly essential to regional Australia—actually utterly essential to all Australians—this was irrelevant.Then we come to the other element of public debt that is worth commenting on. Depending on which of the brokers you wish to believe and the earnings that can be expected by the sale from these shares, some time in the next five years there will be a crossover between what would be the value of this in terms of a dividend return to the budget and what will be retired and hence relief given to the public debt interest obligation upon the government. At some point there will be a crossover.From that point on, the sale of Telstra becomes an economically disastrous decision as far as proper management of our budget is concerned. From that point on, that occurs, and it will occur within the next decade. So we will no longer have the capacity to direct Telstra to provide affordable new technologies and new services in the bush, or anywhere else for that matter. We will no longer have that, and our budget within the next five to 10 years will be for the bad: it will deal with a debt problem that does not exist in terms of any reasonable international comparison and will pork-barrel Liberal and National Party electorates. This is exceptionally bad public policy and, instinctively, the Australian people reject it. (Time expired)11:19:007412Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to talk in detail on the further sale of Telstra. I for one do not accept the mantle of deceit. I have never deceived the people of my electorate on where I stand on the 49 per cent issue and, indeed, nor have my colleagues. If we are in the business of deceit and we are in the business of the sale of public assets, I would like to know why the Labor Party told the Australian public that you were not going to sell the Commonwealth Bank, and then you did; that you would never sell the second half, and you did; and that you would never sell Qantas, and you did. The Leader of the Opposition argues the case that this is a commonsense policy that you have adopted. Suddenly, you have changed from being the great privateers to becoming people defending public ownership.I suppose there would be a lot of people in regional and rural Australia who thought there was some merit in retaining the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. The Commonwealth Serum Laboratories had a very proud record of providing pharmaceuticals to the bush. We might have thought that was sensible.I take some pride in this because the sale of this 16 per cent of Telstra will deliver something that I was personally involved in. I was one of the two authors of the Bundaberg resolution, which is often quoted in the media. It was a package of those things that had been neglected by the Labor Party for half a generation when they were in office. In this Bundaberg resolution, we benchmarked, if you like, seven things that the bush wanted, including reliable mobile telephony and the removal of black spots in terrestrial television reception—things that in 13 years the Labor Party had done nothing about.The Labor Party saddled us with a digital system that was arguably going to miss 40 per cent of regional and rural Australia. Talking television, in my own electorate of Hinkler, between Bundaberg and Gladstone—two quite large provincial cities quite close to the coast—there are 3,000 to 5,000 people without adequate television. For 13 years, the current opposition did nothing about it. Now under the $120 million program that the government has undertaken to provide, not only will some of those black spots be filled but SBS will be extended to those areas. In Labor's day, SBS had to be delivered to the capital cities—it was absolutely essential; but when it came to giving it to regional and rural Australia, we confronted a torturous position that was dragged out over months and months, and many of those communities have been without SBS for many years. That is also part of that $120 million package.I take offence to the provision of $1 billion for regional and rural Australia to give them the same entitlement to telecommunications, broadcast communications and mobile telephony that the rest of Australia takes for granted. How dare the Leader of the Opposition come into this House and say that the provision of these basic links of the community to people are pork-barrelling. It is evidence of 13 years of virulent neglect. To my way of thinking, for the government to provide $1 billion of the likely $16 billion to $18 billion of this 16.6 per cent sale of Telstra is commendable justice. The Leader of the Opposition should hang his head in shame. He has no answer. He himself had no policy initiatives. When someone sets out to fix it, all he can call it is pork-barrelling. It is pathetic.11:24:007413Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—I have listened with interest to this debate and have decided to inject myself in it to put a few thoughts on the record, particularly about regional services, which the previous speaker alluded to. These could have been achieved without the sale of Australia's icon asset, delivering as it does $3 billion at the moment and perhaps $4 billion or $5 billion down the track. As was pointed out earlier, Telstra has been at the forefront of the world's telecommunications industry. It is a world leader. It has skills that could be utilised world wide in a globalised market. We saw figures a couple of years ago that there was something like a trillion dollars worth of communications infrastructure going into South-East Asia. That was before their economic difficulties, but with that area now recovering that work will again be on the agenda. Telstra is very well positioned to take advantage of that.That is realised by the million or so shareholders who have taken up the shareholding. They realise the potential of this company. To hand what is now owned by Australians across to a minimal number of shareholders is an absolute disgrace. We are not talking about our future generations; we are talking about short-term, political, hard-nosed privatisation policy that is already on the nose, judging by voter response to the New South Wales coalition's power industry privatisation plans. People are finally realising that privatisation does not necessarily lead to improved services. The government can cite its transaction centres. It can do what it likes in terms of the sorts of services that should be provided anyway to the bush, but not by privatising our telecommunications entity.Telstra was sold off in its initial phase at $3.30 a share. As we all know, they closed at $8.10 last Friday and are still on the way up. While that share price has continued to rise, the same cannot be said about services. In Orange, for example, you are lucky to get a public telephone that works. Telstra is very reluctant to keep or maintain them because of the cost of doing so. The bottom line is that the more it costs Telstra to provide services in regional areas the less profit there will be for shareholders.Let us look at who benefits from selling Telstra. The government would have us believe that one of the greatest benefits of selling Telstra was and remains letting ordi nary mums and dads reap the rewards of share ownership. We have seen the share ownership shrink since that original float. I would suggest that many of the mums and dads have taken the profits, and good luck to them. But, undoubtedly, many such people have benefited from Telstra's spectacular performance on the stock market. Information across my desk suggests that many have benefited beyond others.In the 1996-97 financial year, 23,500 taxpayers in Bradfield, the most affluent federal electorate, held shares for which tax rebates were available while only 6,600 people from Calare declared such shares. During the same period the average taxable income in Bradfield was $51,000, or thereabouts, while in Calare it was $30,000. While the figures do not include Telstra shareholdings, what they do show is how share ownership in Australia is concentrated among the most wealthy. It follows that those who stand to benefit most from the sale of a public asset like Telstra are people with higher incomes, a large proportion of whom live in coalition seats. But all Australians have a vested interest in Telstra. That is why if the sale of the next sixth of Telstra goes through, as it surely will, the government must stand condemned if it does not get top dollar for it. Otherwise, it will again be ripping off the millions of Australians with stakes in Telstra but no capacity to buy them back.The $100 million that Senator Harradine has wangled out of the government is an absolute pittance when you look at the benefits that Telstra in public ownership could continue to deliver down the track, particularly so in our critical environmental area. Here we have the government sitting on a report on the salination problems that are out there, particularly in the Murray-Darling basin, and what do we have? We have procrastination, we have delay, we have no real way of handling that crisis. I believe that, by quarantining part of that $3 billion, $4 billion or $5 billion forever, we could have handled the environment problem for which we have no answer. (Time expired)11:29:007414Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—The opposition opposes the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998 and the amendments from the Senate. We oppose the whole bill itself, and that is reflected by the amendment that has been circulated in my name. Why do we oppose the further privatisation of Telstra? We oppose the further privatisation of Telstra because we are fearful that services to rural and regional Australia will continue to decline and decline further.We opposed the initial privatisation of Telstra, and one reason was that we feared that service levels to rural and regional and remote Australia would decline. Commonsense tells you that they will decline if you give Telstra a commercial orientation because they are not the great profit earners for Telstra. The last time the ACA put out a performance bulletin we saw a six per cent national decline in fault repairs to regional centres which followed on a nine per cent national decline in fault repairs for regional centres on the previous year. So, if you further privatise Telstra, you give it a further commercial orientation and service levels to rural and regional Australia will continue to decline further.The second reason we oppose the privatisation of Telstra is that Telstra is an important part of our national infrastructure. It has been built up effectively over a century. The third reason we say that we oppose the privatisation of Telstra is that the government says, `We will flog it off and fund regional telecommunications infrastructure.' You can fund telecommunications infrastructure in one of two ways. You can do it in the short term and fund it out of privatisation, but once you flog a bit off it is gone forever—you can do it only once—or you can fund telecommunications infrastructure and other merit worthy public policy initiatives by relying on Telstra's dividend and its long-term return.Let's put the so-called social bonus, the bribe to the bush, in perspective. It is now, after a press release on Sunday, $1 billion. That is $1 billion out of a 16 per cent privatisation, a privatisation which the market says we will get anywhere between $15 billion and $20 billion. So, if it is between $15 billion and $20 billion and the social bonus, the bribe to the bush, is $1 billion, that is about a five per cent return on a capital investment that has been built up over a century. If you put that in context, the last time Telstra reported a six-monthly profit, a half-yearly profit, it was $1.8 billion. So Telstra's last six-monthly profit was $1.8 billion, nearly twice the bribe for a 16 per cent privatisation, which will give you between $15 billion and $20 billion on current market expectation.Even if you do not accept the fact that you are better off funding in the long term by way of its dividend, what the National Party and the coalition have gone for is a paltry bribe, a paltry bribe. Members of the National Party should be ashamed of themselves. For the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation, who is a National Party member from Victoria, to come into this House to support these amendments and support the privatisation with the Prime Minister out there saying that they are still committed slavishly to the 100 per cent privatisation of Telstra, National Party members in this House should be ashamed of themselves. No wonder the member for Dawson and the member for Kennedy are not in here at the moment.When you look at the bribe to the bush, the original bribe was $671 million, of which $350 million would go to regional telecommunications infrastructure. The bribe we saw on the weekend was $314 million. That was done by press release, not even legislated by the government in the Senate when it guillotined this measure through. When you look at some aspects of the pork barrel there, the trap that Senator Harradine has fallen into is to accept a short-term local benefit for a long-term national loss. That is what he and Senator Colston have done by supporting this measure.If you come from Queensland, don't bother trying to look in the press release on the weekend for a benefit for Queensland because there is no special benefit for Queensland. Whatever special benefit has occurred, it has occurred to Senator Colston, not to Queensland. And that point has been made in spades by the Deputy Premier of Western Australia, National Party leader, Hendy Cowan, who described the Regional Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund, which was funded out of the first 30 per cent privatisation, as a `disgrace', weighted as it was to Tasmania as against Western Australia, and Premier Court has described this process as a `corruption' of the process. So what Senators Harradine and Colston have effected is a short-term local gain for Tasmania but a long-term national loss for the nation. You can fund regional telecommunications infrastructure better in the long term from Telstra's dividend than you can by flogging off bits and pieces of Telstra. (Extension of time granted)The other context in which the so-called social bonus needs to be put is the fees that have gone to the bankers and brokers from Melbourne and Sydney and offshore. With the first privatisation, the fees to the bankers and brokers was $260 million, more than the government allocated to the Regional Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund. So National Party members should be really proud of themselves on the first privatisation. You gave more to the bankers and brokers in Sydney and Melbourne than you gave to rural and regional Australia for the Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund.When you look at the original bill that came through this House, on the government's own admission you can see that the bankers and brokers would have received $800 million to $1.1 billion in fees and commission payments on a full privatisation—an absolute disgrace and a scandal. We know from the first privatisation that the Auditor-General effectively said, `You sold it too low. The fees were too high. It was a botched job.' So do not think the Labor Party and the community will not be watching with assiduous scrutiny this next privatisation process in terms of the fees for bankers and brokers and preferment that goes to institutional shareholders or others.We are strongly opposed to the further privatisation of Telstra. We fear that services to rural and regional Australia will continue to decline. We believe Telstra is an important part of our national infrastructure built up over 100 years, and it ought to remain in public hands. The more you privatise it the more you will ensure the commercial orientation will see a denuding of services to the bush. We believe that you are best ensuring that the provision of infrastructure is done in the long term out of Telstra's dividend.People in the press have made the commentary that you now have a dichotomy—private ownership versus public ownership. The real dichotomy here, and the real crime of public policy other than privatisation, is that the government has now given the community a dominant market player or a monopolist, which you might have described previously as a slothful public monopoly but which now you have sought to turn into a voracious private monopoly. You have done that before you have sorted out the competitive arrangements. So the real crime here is turning and unleashing Telstra into a private oriented monopolist or dominant market player without having previously established in proper terms the access arrangements or a properly competitive marketplace.When you look at the changes that the government has made to the telecommunications legislation which establishes the regulatory regime, whilst the amendments that the government has pursued—dragged there kicking and screaming by the industry—are in themselves okay, what real mistake has the government made here? On 1 July 1997 when the government established a competitive regime, it should have firstly made sure that the ACCC was properly resourced both in its nature and the extent of its resources. The penny did not drop for the government in that respect until recently.Secondly, the government should have immediately identified—as every other comparable jurisdiction has—that two of the crunch issues for the competitive regime would be access to the local loop and the interconnect fee. We are still waiting to see those issues resolved in favour of a competitive marketplace. While those issues drag along, in its obsession for privatisation the government foists a voracious private monopolist or dominant market player into the marketplace without those issues having been resolved.The great crime of public policy here is unleashing a private monopolist, turning a blind eye and dragging their feet to the competitive regime. We have been saying to the government for some time that they should bring forward the comprehensive review of the competitive arrangements, not wait for the standard departmental review in 2001 and do it properly.The great dichotomy now is not a dichotomy between public and private. My message to Telstra management and Dr Switkowski is: `just get on with it. Telstra is not the only company in the world that has majority-minority shareholders. It is not the only telco in the world that has part-government/part-private ownership. It should just get on with it: improve your service levels and improve your competitive attitude; solve the access regime and interconnect fee issues with the ACCC, and do it quickly; and show Australia that you can do it. (Time expired)11:39:007416Haase, Barry, MPMr HAASE84TKalgoorlieLP10—I rise to speak very much in favour of the passage of this legislation and the sale of Telstra. I represent the largest electorate in the world. My constituents are very conscious of the shortcomings of telecommunications at present, and this sale will enable the funding of new initiatives in telecommunications which will overcome the antiquated technologies of the past and allow us to move into the new millennium with a technology that suits.XW4KERNOTMs Kernot—What did you do at Kalgoorlie? Nothing!84THaase, Barry, MPMr HAASE—The interjector suggests that we are not winning in the electorate of Kalgoorlie. What the interjector does not understand is that there is far more to the electorate of Kalgoorlie than the city of Kalgoorlie-Boulder.CK6HARDGRAVEMr Hardgrave—She probably does not understand where it is.84THaase, Barry, MPMr HAASE—I would suggest that perhaps a lot of personal visitation has not been carried out. However, my constituents, especially those in the pastoral areas, are sick and tired of relying on antiquated radio repeater stations to communicate with the rest of the world. I will give a classic example from the Gascoigne area of my electorate of one neighbour wanting to speak to their nearest neighbour. The conversation has to go through 12 radio repeater stations, then 400 kilometres of copper line and then all the way back again. This is in order to talk to a neighbour who lives about 70 kilometres away. At almost all times of the year those facilities are affected by something or another that creates problems with that system of communications.This sale of Telstra will allow an injection of funds to provide state-of-the-art technology and perhaps provide for satellite communications which will not be limited by local weather conditions and will not be limited by the availability of staff, who at the moment are perhaps prevented from attending to repairs because the road infrastructure is such that they cannot get out to repeater stations to repair them.This is a breakthrough in the availability of funds, not only to provide better facilities on the ground but also to pay off Labor's obscene debt. When we came into office there was a debt of $96 billion. It is only by the sale of such assets that we can afford to effect change to reduce the huge annual debt of paying interest on that capital borrowed and get back to an equitable situation where we can enjoy reasonably low interest rates, the benefits of which are passed onto every home buying family in Australia.There is so much to benefit from this particular sale that it cannot be ignored. I, for one, am absolutely thrilled that the Senate has finally seen sense and will allow this sale to take place. Without this sale, we do not have the funds to provide the brand new, cutting edge technology that is so necessary in the remote areas of my electorate. This particular win for the government is quite clearly an absolute win for the bush, and my electorate of Kalgoorlie is the major part of that bush in Australia. I commend the amendments to the House.11:44:007417Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—I rise in support of the opposition's position on this telecommunica tions legislation. I am, frankly, astounded by the comments from the member for Kalgoorlie about the so-called benefits to his constituents as a result of this legislation. I have lived in very remote areas of northern Australia, and I can say without fear of contradiction that, if it were not for the fact that Telstra was able through its CSO obligations to provide telecommunication services to remote communities, there would be no communications to these remote communities; we would still be on the flying doctor radio scheds.The fact of the matter—and the shadow minister has, I think, made the point very succinctly—is that we are about to see the diminution of telecommunications service throughout remote Australia as a result of this sell-off. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the commercial imperatives that will drive an operation, 49 per cent of which is owned privately, will far outweigh the social obligations which I think a publicly owned company should have in providing for all of its citizens.I do not want to repeat the words of the Leader of the Opposition because I think his arguments speak for themselves, and I strongly support them. For a start, I want to go to two of the proposals in this social bonus package which will supposedly give a great many benefits to rural and remote Australia. The first proposal is this magnificent sum of $3 million to extend mobile phone coverage in regional Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania. What is wrong with the Northern Territory? If you are really concerned about remote Australia, about people in the bush, you would say, `Well, there's a fair chance that we should provide mobile phones to people who live at Port Keats or Yuendumu or Timber Creek.' This does not do it.The second proposal is the $25 million to provide continuous mobile phone coverage along designated major highways. Whoopee! What does it do for the Barkly Highway? What does it do for the Victoria River Highway? What does it do for the Stuart Highway? What does it do for the remotest of Australian communities? Absolutely zero. If you had done some sort of sensible, needs based analysis of how you might distribute funds which you have made available through this source, a source with which I disagree because of the benefit we would otherwise accrue over time, as the Leader of the Opposition said, and if you accept, as members of the government do—I do not—the legitimacy of this approach, you would have applied some reasonable, rational criteria to need. But no criteria have been applied in this approach.Then we have the approach of providing SBS services to communities of over 10,000 people. Why 10,000 people? I note that the Prime Minister had a go at me the other day about Alice Springs. For the information of the government, and in particular the Prime Minister, there has been a self-help scheme in Alice Springs since 1995. We have had SBS since 1995. Does that register? I wonder how much this government really understand about remote Australia. If they want to extend SBS, they should be saying, `Let's do it equitably.' There is no equity in this package. There is the bribe to Tasmania. Why should the children of Tasmania achieve a $15 million benefit that does not go to other Australian students?CK6HARDGRAVEMr Hardgrave—They have got the greatest need.Mr Haase interjecting—IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDON—Well, mate, I suggest you go for a swim, cool down, because you have got absolutely no idea about need. You have got no idea about the educational needs of people who live in remote Australia. And the person sitting behind you, the member for Kalgoorlie, should understand, if he does not already, that the most disadvantaged people educationally in Australia are those people in his electorate and my electorate—not the people in Moreton and not the people in Tasmania. Just look at the educational outcomes of Aboriginal communities in your electorate. Look at the educational outcomes of Aboriginal communities in my electorate. They are not going to benefit by this $15 million. There is no equity in this package. It should be opposed not only because of its lack of equity but also because it is an outright bribe. There is, in my view, nothing in this package to satisfy the demand. (Time expired)11:49:007418Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—I am fascinated by the opposition's position on this. In fact, they are all over the place. One minute they are calling Telstra a national icon, something to be preserved, put in a glass case; the next minute the shadow minister at the table suggests to us it might have been better to leave it as a slothful public monopoly. I think that is extraordinary. I pose the question: if it was a slothful public monopoly over the 13 years Labor were in power, are the service and installation difficulties we are experiencing today necessarily a dimension of lack of focus at present by Telstra or are they a result of the accumulated lack of interest over the years? Finally, having first had it as an icon and then as a slothful public monopoly, the opposition now turn round and call it a voracious commercial monopoly. You cannot have it three different ways all the time.Mr Hardgrave interjecting—KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLE—You could satisfy all three factions with the three titles, exactly.Opposition members interjecting—KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLE—I will get to the shadow minister for regional services. I say to the opposition: you had 13 years to fix this. You left Australia's mobile telephony in a shocking mess. In fact, at the end of next year—if it had not been for your appalling mishandling of cable—the people of Australia would have had much better telecommunications. The Leader of the Opposition calls this pork-barrelling. To give $1 billion back to the bush is pork-barrelling, is it? I wonder whether it is because you no longer hold any reasonable seats in the bush. It can wither on the vine like it did in the 13 years that you were in power. You let it wither on the vine.Honourable members interjecting—KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLE—My word, yes. I will look after Capricornia, don't worry about that. If it is not looked after, I will look after it. I would like to pose a few questions. Not only is there rampant—5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Socialists in the bush.KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLE—Yes, that'll be the day! Not only is there rampant hypocrisy on the part of the opposition, not only did they stuff it up when they were in power, but I put it to you which of these are pork-barrelling—Mr O'Connor interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Quick)—Order! If the member for Corio wishes to interject he should resume his seat.KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLE—Which of these are pork-barrelling: $150 million to upgrade telecommunications infrastructure in extended zones, to give people the—Opposition members interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The honourable member for Hinkler will resume his seat. I remind honourable members on my left that there is an opportunity for them to stand and participate in the debate.KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLE—I want to know: is providing extended zones for people who were neglected over 13 years pork-barrelling? That is people right across Australia—Mr Snowdon interjecting—KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLE—including the Northern Territory. If $120 million for SBS that you were going to allow to go on for years in advance has been pulled back to some reasonable limit, is that unreasonable?Opposition members interjecting—KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLE—Is it pork-barrelling to fill the black spots that you left neglected right across electorates, including the electorate of Capricornia you mentioned earlier? Where is the pork-barrelling in the $70 million to replace the banks that have left regional Australia, the $70 million for the BARN program, the $45 million to bring local government online, the $36 million to improve Internet services and the $25 million to fix up mobile telephones? (Time expired)11:54:007419Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOTXW4DicksonALP00—It is very appropriate that we are talking about selling here, because who has sold out the most in this debate? The Queensland Nationals, who went to the last election—Opposition members interjecting—XW4Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOT—Version No. 1 was, `We won't allow one more per cent of Telstra to be sold.' Version No. 2 was, `All right, we'll let 16 per cent more go but only if there is an independent inquiry which recommends the sale of the rest.' What a sell-out. On the question of what pork-barrelling is, I say to the member for Hinkler, in the words of the editorial from the Canberra Times :The government which came into power pledging to govern for all Australians has elevated the art of pork-barrelling to new heights with its Telstra deal.And we know it to be true. I want to talk about the propaganda associated with the double-speak term `social bonus'. Let us call this social bonus exactly what it is. A great, big, fat bribe. Let us note that this government has said that Australians who live in rural and regional areas can have fair access to telecommunications infrastructure only if Australia's best performing asset is sold. In other words, `You can have this bonus not as a right but only if you let us sell our best performing Australian owned asset.' By contrast, the New South Wales government has just paid for every country small business operator to be connected to the Net—not as a social bonus, not as some disgusting trade-off but because it is the right thing to do. It is a right which the government in New South Wales is prepared to fund. It is not a shonky bribe.The Queensland Nationals at the federal level have allowed themselves to be both duped and silenced. Where is Mr Katter today? Where is Mrs Kelly today? Just the lone member for Hinkler trying to defend the indefensible. The Nationals have allowed themselves to willingly contribute to the emasculation of Telstra, because agreeing to the next 16 per cent has made it all the more inevitable that you will capitulate to this Prime Minister when he says, `Let us have the rest.' And you have fooled nobody in your actions.The second element of this wonderful double-speak we hear in here every day in question time is, `Mums and dads can now buy shares in Telstra,' which conveniently and dishonestly overlooks the reality that every Australian owned shares in Telstra. Everybody used to own 100 per cent of Telstra. All Australians used to share in the spending of the Telstra dividend on services for all Australians. How can it be honest, how can it be fair and how can it be democratic to take away something from those who own it and then resell it to those who can afford to buy shares? Nobody begrudges anyone the right to buy shares, but this is a shonky deal because you are stealing from those who already own. You are selling it at undervalued prices and in that way you are robbing the public coffers of even what is left. That is the point.The Herald Sun poll today says over 80 per cent of Australians say, `Do not sell the rest of Telstra.' And they also said, `Do not sell one per cent more of Telstra,' before the last election. Three thousand five hundred votes out of 12 million votes does not give you a mandate. The Nationals have betrayed country Australians. John Howard has betrayed all Australians with this dishonest bribe and this dishonest and unauthorised action in selling another 16 per cent of Telstra.It is possible to fund the social bonus by dedicating a proportion of the Telstra dividend as of right to regional infrastructure. You have been bribed, you have sold yourselves short and you have allowed Telstra to be emasculated. Go and answer country Australians on that charge. (Time expired)11:59:007420Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—I just want to make some brief comments on the accompanying legislation. I made some comments earlier about the telecommunications legislation competitive regime, and I have previously drawn the attention of the minister at the table to the letter to the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts dated 16 June from the various carriers raising further competitive matters. I indicated that I would go through those but, if the minister is happy for me to do so, I am happy to take a response to that on notice. I see the minister nodding in agreement. I treat that as his usual undertaking.So far as the consumer protection legislation is concerned, there are two areas I would like to comment on. One is the digital data amendments. People should understand the history of this. In the run-up to the 1996 election, the now government made a commitment that it would extend ISDN capacity to everyone. At the time, we said from government, `You need to understand what you are committing yourselves to because you won't be able to afford that and, when you get into government, you won't do it.' That is precisely what occurred.Minister, you and your colleagues bagged us uphill and down dale for saying what we said, and we were right. You then sent it off to Tony Shaw at the ACA who rescued you and came back to enable you to have a commitment for the 1998 election saying, `Whoops. What the Labor Party said from government responsibly in 1996 in the run-up to that election was correct.' You cannot do it and fund it properly, so you come up with a half-baked solution. The advisers are smiling in the box because they know the truth, and so do you, Minister, because you are smiling as well. The four per cent ISDN is half a service.Minister, you should please understand that the expectations you have raised will be dashed in the rural and regional community. You have been making loud noises about connecting the bush to the electronic Internet world. You had an opportunity here to deliver something of real substance and some real advantage to those in the community isolated from the information economy. You fumbled the ball, and you are effectively providing a substandard service. The community will come to know this reasonably quickly, I am sure. Your amendment effectively locks people into a particular carrier, and the high-speed lines will be loaded down with slow up-line speeds restricted to whatever cable or copper connection they have.The second area I want to very quickly refer to is the amendments that I have circulated in respect of the government's proposals on telephone sex. We have made the point in the Senate that we believe in an opt-in regime. In general terms, we support that view, which is also the government's view. Your opt-in regime is too restrictive and effectively too onerous a burden for the industry.Our amendments seek to make it a sensible opt-in regime to enable it to work flexibly. We believe that opt-in is preferable in this area because it is a question of consumer protection. We have all, as members of parliament, had mums and dads come into the office saying, `Here is a telephone bill that I wasn't expecting. Someone in the family, a friend or someone has been using a 0055—in the old days—or 1900 phone sex line. I am now copping the bill.' That is why we say, `Opt-in.' Our amendments make that an effective and sensible opt-in regime.We suspect, Minister, that your motives are coloured by other things, like encouraging Senator Harradine to vote for you. I have become increasingly concerned about the collateral industry damage to telephone service providers. Telephone service providers, in Western Australia for example, who provide the telephone service to the adult sex lines also provide telephone services for the Western Australia newspapers, radio 94.5, Stockphone Pty Ltd—which provides ASIC information—Agriculture WA farm notes, junior soccer fixtures and the like. The collateral industry damage you will cause there will be quite significant.I note that there has been some reporting about the way in which this matter was handled in the Senate. I also note that Senator Colston is refusing to say how he voted on that matter. I was in the Senate, regrettably, on that night and I can tell you how Senator Colston voted. When the government's amendment was put, there was one voice in opposition to it—that was the Labor Party. Senator Harradine and Senator Colston were with the government on the other side, and the Democrats and the Greens were silent. We are used to Senator Colston saying one thing and doing another. We have copped that big time. People out there who thought they had an undertaking from Senator Colston should please understand on this issue that he voted with the government and Senator Harradine to knock off our amendments and to put in the government's regime. (Time expired)12:04:007421McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPArts and the Centenary of Federation10—As entertaining as the rantings and ravings of the opposition may be, it is time to move on. I move:That the question be now put.Question resolved in the affirmative.Question put: That the amendment (Mr Smith's) be agreed to. The House divided. [12.09 p.m.](Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr H.V. Quick) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 ——Voting details are recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Question so resolved in the negative.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bills7421r815Billsr814Billsr818BillsBills7421Debate resumed from 13 May, on motion by Mr Moore:That the bill be now read a second time.upon which Mr McMullan moved by way of amendment:That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:"while not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House expresses its concern about the failure of the Government to provide for a review of the future of the automotive industry before tariffs are reduced in 2005".12:16:007421O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—The ACIS Administration Bill 1999 , the ACIS (Unearned Credit Liability) Bill 1999 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (ACIS Implementation) Bill 1999 are very important pieces of legislation to the future of the car industry and component manufacturing in Australia. They are very important also to the Corio electorate, which encompasses the great city of Geelong, because we have located there a major car manufacturing plant as well as a significant car component manufacturing capacity. The Customs Tariff Amendment (ACIS Implementation) Bill 1999 implements the tariff pause. The ACIS Administration Bill 1999 and the ACIS (Unearned Credit Liability) Bill 1999 implement the transitional assistance arrangements for the car industry. These will be very important if the industry is to prepare itself for the program of tariff reductions that have been signalled by the government in this legislation.The car industry is extremely important to my electorate. As I have mentioned, we have a major car manufacturer in Geelong in Ford, and we have several important component producers who employ a lot of people. Also, to give you an idea of the size of this industry and its importance to the national economy, around 55,000 people are employed in car and component manufacturing in Australia. It is an industry that has a turnover in excess of $14 billion and, in gross turnover terms, that represents about seven per cent of total manufacturing turnover. It is an industry that exports now over $2 billion.We do not have to go back very far—indeed, only into the early eighties, when the major restructuring of this great Australian industry began—to see the enormous gains that have been made in the car and component industry's export performance. Back in the early eighties, we had a car and component industry that was only exporting several hundred million dollars worth of product, and companies engaged in export were quite few and far between. However, we now have a very dynamic car and component manufacturing sector. It has an appropriate focus to export in that we see it now exporting in the region of $2 billion, with projected growth very favourable indeed.The significance of this particular industry is the fact that it is one of the core manufacturing industries in Australia off which many others feed. The car and component industry is a major purchaser of steel products; it is a major purchaser of paint; and it is a major purchaser of glass, rubber and textile products, and other ancillary industries that supply the car and component industry in this country. Therefore, that industry's importance to Australia's overall manufacturing perform ance cannot be underestimated. It is a very significant industry nationally. It is a major employer, a major exporter, a major generator of research and development within the manufacturing sector, and it has linkages not only to other important manufacturing industries but also to service industries throughout the economy.As far as my electorate is concerned, the car and component industry is the largest single employer of skilled labour in the Geelong area. The Ford Motor Co. employs around 2,500 people and, when you take into consideration component manufacturers like Henderson Springs and Pilkington, we have the further employment of around 1,200. So, in the totality of the Geelong region, it is of huge significance as an employer. Of course, flowing from that company is the important demand for goods and services that it generates for many smaller businesses within the local community and regional economy of Geelong.I might mention that, if you took a wider circle which encompassed the great regional city of Ballarat, that city also has significant manufacturing employment, with around 1,300 people employed in automobile component manufacturing there. Looking at regional Victoria, if you drew a radius showing an hour's drive time around Geelong, you would have some 5,000 highly skilled people employed in motor vehicle and component manufacturing.I cannot understate the economic importance of car and component manufacturing to my electorate. But there are other dimensions to the car industry's involvement in Geelong. Mr Deputy Speaker Quick, being a great fan of Australian football and a hot Demons supporter, you would know as well as I do that these days it takes a lot of money to put an AFL side on the field. In Geelong we are very proud of our football side, despite its losses. We won five on the trot, we have lost seven on the trot, but we will come home with a strong breeze. I have great confidence in the coach, the players and the committee of our football club. I also have great confidence in the football club's major sponsor, which is the Ford Motor Co.Geelong is able to profile itself in two ways, not only to the rest of Australia but also to the world: (1) through the quality cars that are produced in the Geelong manufacturing facility, and (2) through the football side that we put on the field in the national competition. We cannot underestimate the economic importance of the latter because when the footy side wins that has spin-offs for local businesses. The Ford Motor Co. is a major and important sponsor. It is also a good corporate citizen in Geelong. It has been a strong supporter of the football club that gives us a national sporting profile as one of the only regional based AFL clubs in the competition.The Ford Motor Co. is also a contributor to what I guess you could call the cultural dimension in our fair city. It has recently opened a museum which will become a very important part of the tourist infrastructure of the Geelong region. We rely not only on the capacity of the car and component industry to provide employment for skilled Geelong people but also on what comes with the car and component manufacturing—and that is the sporting and cultural linkages. It is an extremely important industry that the total community takes a very strong interest in.The Geelong community has been involved in several campaigns to ensure that, if protection levels were reduced in this particular industry, appropriate transitional arrangements were put in place by the government of the day. That certainly applied when the Labor Party in government embarked on a fairly significant program of structural adjustment in the industry. At that time there were very strong community campaigns. My predecessor the Hon. Gordon Scholes, who was a great member for Corio, was heavily involved in those campaigns, as was the Geelong Trades Hall Council, ably led by John Kranz, and the vehicle builders union with Russell Gardner and Harry Bartz. They were all very strong campaigners for car workers to ensure that, if adjustments were going to be made to the industry, there would be minimal disruption to our local manufacturing capacity and to the flow-on effects in the electorate. I am sad to say that the support that had been shown by the local councils of the day, the local business communities, the union movement of the day and by the general community to the car industry was not given by the member for Corangamite who, on the other side of the Barwon River, around the Hewson era strongly articulated the zero tariff proposal by the year 2000. That was the policy of the Liberal Party which, if implemented today, would have seen the decimation of car manufacturing and car component manufacturing in Geelong.No adjustment, no careful planning for this industry, no real refocusing of its efforts to the export area, and no extractive guarantees from the car companies that if transitional arrangements were put in place they would reciprocate with higher employment levels—none of those were looked at. The member for Corangamite argued the low tariff position early at a time when the industry was not prepared for those sorts of changes. Many people questioned the member for Corangamite's bona fides in this regard. Did he really have the interests of car workers, many of whom lived on the other side of the Barwon River in Corangamite but travelled into Corio to earn their daily living? We were disappointed that the honourable member for Corangamite did not take a proactive role, along with the rest of the community, in ensuring that the adjustment process in this industry took place over a long period of time so that the companies could maintain their levels of employment. In 1997 we had what you would call the notorious Productivity Commission report into this industry. The recommendations in that were not acceptable to the Geelong community. They were not acceptable to the trade union movement or to the unions that have coverage in this great regional industry in Geelong. We as a community rallied once again against those proposals. We rallied around the flag and the plan that had been put forward by the then shadow industry minister, the member for Hotham. It was a very strong industry plan and one that eventually the government of the day adopted in most of its aspects. We did not complain at the time. The only person who was complaining was the member for Corangamite because he was a supporter of the majority position. If he had stayed true to form and that majority position had been implemented, we would have seen the decimation of Geelong's car and component manufacturing capacity. But the community rallied, we made very strong submissions to the federal government and they announced the plan. It is that plan which is the subject of this legislation today.I will not go into the fine detail of the arrangements that are outlined in this bill because they have been adequately canvassed by the shadow minister for industry, my good colleague the member for Canberra. But I have two very strong reservations about the legislation we are debating here today. They are the subject of the second reading amendment we have moved. We understand that the industry really wants this legislation to go through, and we are going to support it. But the first thing is this. This is an inordinate delay for an essential piece of legislation which gives effect to the transitional arrangements that are going to be required by the car and component industry if it is going to stay in the ring, retain its manufacturing capacity, increase its employment and increase its exports.We had the genesis, the framework, the outline of this plan in 1997. It has taken 1½ to two years for the government to put this legislation on the deck and give effect to the announcements they made. The one thing this industry, along with others, requires is certainty. It needs a certain economic environment in which to invest, to reskill, to retool, to redirect its activities. Those things cannot be done in short periods of time. This industry wants as much certainty as we can give it about its production and economic environment. Sadly, we did not get it from the government.This legislation kept being put back. We had the announcement I think in 1997, and what month are we in? We are in the month of June 1999. It has taken the government until June 1999 to get a bit of legislation on the deck to give effect to the legislative arrangements we need to make for this very important industry for Geelong and for Australia.The second thing I am very concerned about is the fact that the government has not made provision in this legislation for a review of how the industry is progressing before the tariff drops in 2005. This is a very dangerous situation for this industry and for communities that depend very much on it for their survival. We have argued consistently with the government that the review ought to take place around 2003, not in 2005 after the government has dropped the tariff by five percentage points. It makes no logical sense to do it then because we will not be in command of the full facts insofar as how this industry is making the transition to the lower tariff regime. We will not have in place the sort of information about how our trading partners are responding to the imperatives that we have all signed up to in the Bogor declaration and other trade related agreements. These are very serious omissions in this bill.But the uncertainty does not stop there. If uncertainty was created by the length of time that it has taken to bring the legislation here, and if further uncertainty is going to be created by the fact that the government has not put the review mechanism in, we now have a new uncertainty, and that is the impact of the GST—that infamous GST—on the car industry. Recently the head of Ford has rung the bell on a real potential drop in demand that may occur from now until the introduction of the GST. This may well affect the production schedules of the company and could at the end of the day lead to corrective actions being taken which will impact on car workers in my electorate. It is a sad situation that the government has not seen fit to address this problem. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Quick)—Before I call the honourable member for Hindmarsh, I remind the House that it has been agreed that a general debate be allowed covering this bill, the ACIS Administration Bill 1999, and the ACIS (Unearned Credit Liability) Bill 1999 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (ASIS Implementation) Bill 1999. 12:37:007425Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUSCU4HindmarshLP10—There is nothing like a local member trying to win favour with his constituents by rewriting history and calling black white and white black, as did the member for Corio. As indicated by the previous speakers, this package of ACIS bills is an indication of the government's long-term commitment to the automotive industry and Australia's international obligation. It follows a commitment that the Howard government made in June 1997 that tariffs would be frozen from 2000 to 2004 at 15 per cent before being reduced to 10 per cent in 2005.At the same time, this package brings into reality the government's commitment to introduce a new assistance scheme to replace in 2000 the Export Facilitation Scheme which, in providing duty credits solely for exports, is regarded as a subsidy on exports, contrary to WTO rules.Comprising five per cent of GDP, the automotive industry is a key Australian industry. It has a $15 billion turnover, a $7 billion value of production by motor vehicle manufacturers and $3.8 billion worth of production by component manufacturers. Almost 300,000 Australians are employed directly or indirectly by the automotive industry, comprising 3.4 per cent of the total work force. It adds $1.7 billion to the balance of trade and $4.5 billion to tax revenue.The automotive industry is also a leading influence in the development and production of new products and processes, with the transport equipment sector leading the manufacturing sector in the use of technologies. Forty-one per cent of all robots installed in Australian industry in 1995 were in the automotive industry. The automotive industry is also a nursery of labour for skills in the manufacturing and technology sector. The transport equipment sector has relatively high expenditure in training, with expenditure per employee significantly greater than the industry as a whole. The number of establishments using advanced manufacturing techniques such as total quality control, just in time, manufacturing resource planning and lean manufacturing is higher in the transport sector than in all other areas of manufacturing.The automotive industry is a significant user of design skills. It supports a number of design service capabilities, including concept development, model building and testing, tooling and equipment provision and process planning, which are then used by other Australian industries. The industry is one of Australia's leaders in the use of advanced technology and management techniques, R&D and training activity, creating valuable spillover effects to a wide range of industries.The Automotive Competitiveness and Investment Scheme, ACIS, will assist the automotive industry to move ahead over the next five years. Motor vehicle manufacturers, automotive component producers, automotive machine tools and tooling producers and automotive service providers will all benefit from ACIS. Benefits in the form of duty credits based on production will encourage further investment as well as research and development.In the area of research, eligible companies will receive duty credits to the value of 45 per cent of their investment in eligible research and development. For example, if a motor vehicle producer spends $1 million on research and development, they will receive $450,000 in duty credit which can, if they so desire, be traded. ACIS incentives for research and development will encourage motor vehicle and component manufacturers to develop Australian innovations.The automotive industry and motor vehicle component manufacturers are key industries in South Australia and Victoria. Passenger motor vehicle production in South Australia includes the production of the Holden Commodore and Mitsubishi Magna and their derivatives such as the Calais and the Verada. The principal automotive component manufacturers in South Australia include Bliss Automotive, Castalloy, Irons Engineering, Milford Industries, Numetric Tooling, Bridgestone Australia, Monroe Australia and Henderson Auto Trim which are in or near my electorate of Hindmarsh.The South Australian manufacturing sector was built up around the automotive industry. Traditionally, South Australia has been relatively more dependent on manufacturing as an economic activity than other states, and its direct dependence on automotive manufacturing is significant. Directly or indirectly, it employs 10.9 per cent of the total Australian work force. It represents 15.7 per cent of South Australia's gross state product.Because the automotive industry purchases a range of goods and services from other industries, the performance of the automotive industry has a significant influence on the overall performance of South Australia's economy. It is a significant purchaser of chemicals, iron and steel, other metal products, rubber, plastic, gas, electricity, water, road transport, communication and financial services. The automotive work force also generates additional demand for other Australian industry, particularly wholesale and retail trade, community and personnel services.Acknowledging the importance of the automotive industry to South Australia, the Premier, John Olsen, opposed the Productivity Commission's 1996 majority report which recommended that tariff levels on motor vehicles continue to decline after 2000 at 2.5 per cent per annum, a rate that was a simple extension of the regime that had been put in place by the Labor government.Reducing tariffs is a key strategy for Australia's trade performance. Australia is the most efficient primary producer in the world. As such, it is in our interest to encourage countries to reduce their high tariffs on primary products which they use to protect their agricultural sectors. To do this, to a certain extent we must lead by example. It is also in the interest of our own industries to reduce tariffs as industries protected by tariffs are invariably inefficient and uncompetitive. Such was the Australian car industry when it was protected by tariffs as high as 57.5 per cent in the 1980s. Bringing down those tariffs has created a much more dynamic Australian automotive industry, with Australian manufactured cars being exported overseas.However, as with all things, there has to be a reality check. Just because mechanisms have been successful, this should not be a prescription to pursue them irrespective of other impacts. In recommending a continuing 2.5 per cent per annum decrease in tariffs, the Productivity Commission revealed its obsession with the process rather than the outcome. There have been huge leaps forward in the car industry over the last decade, but the industry has also paid the costs.There is a limit to the speed at which companies can become lean and mean, and there is often a point where the long-term strategy dictates a pause rather than a continuation of the same policy. This was the situation in 1996 when the Productivity Commission made its recommendations. The automotive industry, the South Australian government, the then member for Kingston, Ms Jeanes, and I argued that the commission's recommendations would have a negative impact on South Australia.Australia unfortunately does not have any locally owned vehicle manufacturers, and we are dependent on investors offshore to maintain support for the industry in Australia. Consequently, in making policy, it is important to determine the effect those policy decisions would have on overseas investors. South Australian Premier John Olsen was concerned that a decrease in tariffs of 2.5 per cent per annum from the year 2000 would put unacceptable stresses on the South Australian automotive industry, which had already achieved remarkable efficiencies. As I have indicated before, there is a diminishing return that can be expected in regard to efficiencies at a point where trying to force efficiencies is counterproductive.To its credit, the Howard government accepted submissions from the automotive industry, the South Australian government, me, Ms Jeanes and other members of the coalition and decided to hold tariffs at 15 per cent from 2000 to 2005. The automotive industry accepted, as part of this agreement, that tariffs would then be reduced to 10 per cent in 2005.One of the incredible aspects of the debate on the Productivity Commission's report was the role taken by the Labor Party in opposition. It was the Labor Party that reduced tariffs in the car industry from 57.5 per cent in 1987 to 15 per cent in 2000. But in opposition, the Labor Party put on a different mask and pretended to be a different animal to the Labor Party in government.In this place, the Labor Party walked away from the policies they had in 13 years of government and they walked away from their own record in the car industry. As if the Australian public had no memory, they declared tariff reduction to be anathema to their principles. With no consistency, with no policy, with no leadership and with no vision for Australia, they denied their own record, their own values in 13 years in government, and had the gall to accuse the Howard government of being driven by economic rationalism.The facts are different from the rhetoric. It was the Howard government that declared a pause in tariff reduction to allow the industry to consolidate and take a breather. It was the Howard government that listened to the industry, to the state governments of Victoria and South Australia and to its own members whose constituents worked in the industry, and it is the Howard government that is introducing the ACIS legislation to support the industry while maintaining our obligation to WTO.Compare this to Labor's record. Under Labor, between 1983 when they came to government, and 1996 when they left, Australian manufacturers' share of the domestic passenger car market fell from 78 per cent to 45 per cent. Unremitting tariff reductions combined with other elements of the Button plan resulted in the loss of Nissan and the cancellation of models whose production run did not reach the critical number to qualify for government assistance. While there needed to be a rationalisation in the industry, the forced cancellation of small models has left Australia producing only medium to large cars. This is one of the reasons we have seen a decline in Australian-produced vehicles' share of the market from over three-quarters to less than half in a little more than a decade. The majority of growth in domestic sales is coming from the small car sector and, hence, from imports.Currently, Australia imports more than $10 billion worth of cars and automotive parts per year compared with $2.5 billion we export. While the percentage of exports is increasing at a faster rate than the percentage of imports, the former is coming off a low base and, in monetary terms, the cost of imports is far outpacing the revenue from imports.Because of the flow-on effect of the automotive industry on other domestic industries, on technology, skilling and employment, countries seek to manufacture motor vehicles within their own national boundaries. Similarly important is the impact of imported motor vehicles on the balance of trade. Any country that is totally reliant on imports in the automotive sector will necessarily have an extremely high trade deficit in that sector which has to be offset by exports in other categories. Because of the high individual cost of motor vehicles and the high consumer demand for them, achieving sufficient export credit to offset a total debit in the automotive category is a difficult challenge for any country. With countries recognising the importance of having their own automotive industries for both trade balance and domestic economy reasons, it is not surprising that currently the world has a 50 per cent production over-capacity in motor vehicles.There has to be rationalisation in the industry, with marriages and a few deaths. We have already seen the start of marriages, with Renault teaming up with Nissan, Daimler merging with Chrysler, Volkswagen buying out Rolls Royce, and Ford acquiring Volvo Cars. It is too early yet to predict the deaths but, when I was in Cardiff in 1996 talking to the Centre of Automotive Research, there was a suggestion that some of the old smaller European companies were the most vulnerable.In Australia there have been recent suggestions in the newspapers that Mitsubishi may be a casualty of the world overproduction capacity. Mitsubishi has strenuously denied this and, in reply, has pointed out that Mitsubishi Australia has progressively increased its imports so that approximately 10 per cent of annual production is exported, that it would record a profit in 1999, and that the Mitsubishi group of companies has a gross revenue of $50 billion a year. Mitsubishi Corporation has launched a worldwide pro gram, RM2001, which will reduce manufacturing costs and improve Mitsubishi's global competitiveness.Mitsubishi Motors Australia Ltd is a key part of the South Australian economy, as I have indicated previously. It currently employs around 5,000 Australians, mainly in Adelaide's suburban areas. Its annual turnover in Australia last year was $2.4 billion and the net profit of the Australian venture was $3.6 million. The South Australian Centre for Manufacturing is a notable contribution Mitsubishi has made locally to research and development.Growth in the automotive industry cannot be reliant on federal government intervention. The drive must come from the automotive companies themselves and from the states who benefit. In South Australia, the Olsen government has set new directions for the South Australian automotive industry with the formation of `Automotive 21: Road to the future', which will ensure South Australia remains a player in the global automotive industry.In the legislation today, the opposition have pursued their usual task of not agreeing with the government. Although they silently do agree with the government, they have decided that there have to be things in the legislation that they object to and, in a desperate attempt to find something, they have settled on the review of the industry in 2005. They claim that, as the tariffs come down in 2005 from 15 per cent to 10 per cent, this is too late to review the programs.But it has already been set in legislation that the tariffs will come down in 2005, so there is no point reviewing that earlier. It is in legislation. The opposition has agreed to it and so has the industry. The effects of that will not be known until considerably after 2005. So it is appropriate that in 2005 we have a look at the situation that exists in the industry at that time to see whether, post-2005, there needs to be more types of schemes, such as the ACIS scheme, to assist that industry to thrive. To undertake a review earlier than 2005 is simply nonsense. In conclusion, in this legislation the federal government recognises the importance of the Australian automotive industry and the essential role it plays in the economy. I commend these bills to the House.12:53:007428Gillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD83LLalorALP00—This is an important debate about an important industry to Australia—the automotive industry. According to the latest available figures, it is an industry which provides 55,000 Australians with work and generates a gross turnover of $14.5 billion, a full 7.4 per cent share of the total manufacturing turnover. Our automotive industry is the second largest consumer of basic iron and steel products and is the third largest consumer of paints. It is also an industry of vital importance to my electorate, which is home to the industry leader, Toyota.Toyota manufactures at a $420 million plant in Altona in my electorate. Toyota's manufacturing operation was consolidated there in 1994 and 1995. However, Toyota is a long-term player in the Australian motor vehicle industry. Its origin goes back to 1959 when the Thiess brothers began importing the first Toyota land cruiser models for work on the Snowy Mountains hydro-electric scheme. Car assembly began in Melbourne in 1963. Within a decade, Australians were familiar with the Toyota Corona and Toyota Corolla brands. I have to say that a very ancient Toyota Corolla was my first car. I am happy and indeed greatly relieved to drive a much more modern Toyota today. The commercial vehicle business became Thiess Toyota in 1971 and eight years later achieved commercial market leadership. In the same period, Toyota began investing in engine and stamping plant to consolidate its position as a high local content motor vehicle manufacturer. As I have said, all manufacturing operations were consolidated in Altona in 1994-95.The facility at Altona is one of world rank in terms of lean manufacturing technology and processes. It is a facility with which I am very familiar, having been given the opportunity to visit it. It is also en route to my home when returning from commitments within the city, so I am frequently driving past and seeing the activity there. At the facility, Toyota employs the latest environmental controls including the water borne paint system which reduces emissions to the atmosphere. Earlier this year the company commissioned a water borne paint system for emissions reduction. That is now performing at optimum global standards in the vehicle emissions area.Toyota is a major employer in my electorate and in Australia generally. The livelihood of some 4,300 Australians depend on Toyota, and 2,600 of those work in Altona. Of course, many of them live locally. Toyota is currently Australia's No. 1 in market ranking with a market share of 19.6 per cent. Last year it produced a record number of vehicles, an impressive 100,404 of them. Its exports last year were also at an all-time high and valued at $612 million, making Toyota not only Australia's market leader but also Australia's largest exporter of cars.This great export performance has been built from a base of export revenue of $47 million in 1990. From $47 million in 1990 to $612 million last year is an unbelievably long way to come in a decade, but, as we all know, the quest for global competitiveness is a race without a finishing line. Toyota is continuing to invest to further improve its performance. Its current investment program includes a 20 per cent lift in its production capacity—that was achieved in 1998 and the aim is to achieve it on an ongoing basis; a new parts and accessories warehouse and distribution centre at Altona which is due for completion later this year; and the introduction of a large, locally built car in the year 2000.Given the importance of the automotive industry to Australia overall and its critical importance to regions within Australia, such as the region in which my electorate is located, it would be nice to be able to stand here today and say that the Australian government has a clear vision for the automotive industry—indeed for Australian manufacturing industry in general—and is focused on the job of developing and implementing the best possible industry policy. It would be nice to be able to make that statement but, unfortunately, we cannot. When you review the process which led to this legislation being before the House today, the picture is one of getting here more by accident than by clever design, by default rather than by planning.As has been raised earlier in this debate, this legislation follows an Industry Commission inquiry and report on the automotive industry. The final report was given to the Treasurer on 26 May 1997. Prior to the publication of the final report, a draft report was issued for public comment and debate. The report was divided into a majority report and a minority report. The majority report by Presiding Commissioner Scales and Commissioner Rae recommended that tariffs be reduced on passenger motor vehicles and components from 1 January 2001 at the rate of 2.5 percentage points per annum until 2004 when the tariff would reach five per cent. The minority report by Associate Commissioner Webber recommended the maintenance of tariffs on passenger motor vehicles, original equipment and replacement components at 15 per cent until 2005 with a review to be held in, say, 2003 to consider post-2005 assistance arrangements for the industry.The publication of the Industry Commission's draft report in late 1996 caused a huge reaction from the industry, the relevant trade union and communities like my own which depend on the industry for jobs. In a speech earlier in this debate, the member for Corio referred to the major community campaign which was held in his electorate as a result of that Industry Commission report. Some of the reaction—and I have brought a sample of it with me—to that Industry Commission report reads as follows. The Chief Executive of the Australian Chamber of Manufacturers, Mr Alan Hanberg, said:Unless the government rejects these recommendations very decisively, you can kiss future investment in the automotive industry in this country goodbye.He continues:There are huge international corporations which have no loyalty or allegiance to this country, and they can afford to close.He went on to say that he believed the industry could be devastated if the Industry Commission recommendations were picked up. He was in good company in making these remarks. Certainly, the Australian Manufactur ing Workers Union predicted that the report's recommendations could lead to job losses of more than 100,000. Mr Ian Jones, the union official responsible for the vehicle building section of that union, described the industry as `on the precipice'. They were not alone—although perhaps I would not describe it as good company—but they were accompanied in making these remarks by the Premier of Victoria, Mr Kennett, who described the draft report as `short-sighted', and the Premier of South Australia, Mr Olsen, who said that he would join with Mr Kennett in fighting the report to ensure that we retained a `vibrant, healthy and growing industry'.Faced with these views, with the community campaigning, with the employer and trade union reaction and with a majority and minority report from the Industry Commission, the government should have assessed all of the relevant information and articulated a clear vision for the industry. This government did anything but. Rather, it squabbled internally and was paralysed for a period, not knowing how to react. Press reports at the time named the government Senate leader, Robert Hill, and the then industry minister, John Moore, as not seeing themselves as bound to or wedded to the majority Industry Commission report. However, there were those who were known to support tariff cuts, including both the contenders for leadership, the federal Treasurer and the then industrial relations minister. The one-time leader, the current Minister for Foreign Affairs, was also recorded on this issue as being in the tariff reducing camp. Out of such division, one could hardly expect leadership—and we did not get leadership.The government announced its post-2000 arrangements for the industry on 5 June 1997. Significantly, the government accepted the minority report recommendation for a tariff pause at 15 per cent from 2000-04, but it did not provide for any review of the industry before a further reduction to 10 per cent on 1 January 2005. Given that the announcement was in June 1997, it seems extraordinary that it took until 22 April 1998 for the government to announce that the current scheme in this legislation, the ACIS scheme, would be the centrepiece of its post-2000 transitional arrangements for the automotive industry.The legislation that is before the House today has—in a somewhat different form—been here before, as a bill was introduced into parliament on 2 July 1998 to deal with this matter, but the legislation lapsed as a result of the federal election being called. We therefore find ourselves, slightly more than two years after the government's announcement about its position on this matter in June 1997, finally dealing with this piece of legislation. We would have to say that, given the time period that has passed and the clear divisions in the government about this matter, we are not dealing with a piece of legislation that has got here through a positive and proactive process in pursuit of a vision for the automotive industry. Rather, it is a solution which has been slowly stitched together by a divided government. Whilst we have arrived here more by accident than design, the opposition is prepared to support this legislation, but we believe it can be improved.As I have said, the bill provides for the establishment of the Automotive Competitiveness and Investment Scheme. This scheme aims to encourage the continuing pursuit and development of international competitiveness in the automotive industry through the following measures. Firstly, those qualifying as motor vehicle producers will be able to claim duty credit to the value of 25 per cent of the value of production of motor vehicles, engines and engine components, multiplied by the tariff rate; and duty credit to the value of 10 per cent of their investment in eligible plant and equipment. Secondly, those qualifying as automotive component producers, automotive machine tools and tooling producers or automotive service providers will be able to claim duty credit to the value of 25 per cent of their investment in eligible plant and equipment and duty credit to the value of 45 per cent of their investment in eligible research and development.To comply with our World Trade Organisation obligations, benefits under ACIS for each participant will not be permitted to exceed five per cent of its eligible sales for the preceding year. Benefits under ACIS will also be capped for the industry as a whole at $2 billion over the years 2001 to 2005. The production credit which directly replaces the duty-free allowance—that is, 15 per cent of the value of production of passenger motor vehicles sold in Australia and New Zealand—is not included within the fiscal cap, and the revenue forgone is expected to be about $825 million over five years.Our improvement to this bill, encapsulated in our amendment, is to provide clearly for a review of the industry in a timely fashion. Even the government believes in having a review and has committed itself to doing so. The government has announced that such a review will encompass reviewing the position with Australia's APEC commitments and the general progress on market access internationally for Australian made motor vehicles. But, inexplicably, the government has said that it will conduct this review in 2005. This means the scheme we are dealing with today and the tariff adjustments would be fully implemented, and then you would have a review. Only an industry policy free government would be crazy enough to set up a timetable which has you move into a legislative and policy vacuum and, having then got there, work out what to do.Proper management obviously requires that you have the review in a timely fashion so that you move seamlessly from one known and certain policy regime to another and not have a lapse for a period of time into a disturbing nothingness. Given the difficulties that the government has faced in establishing its position in order to present these pieces of legislation to the House, and given the time that that has taken—as I have said, more than two years from the original announcement—one can only be concerned about how long we could be in that disturbing nothingness if this government is still in office in that time period. Hopefully, we will not ever face that sort of problem.The question of reviewing our market access is one that needs to be done closer to the time than we are today but done in a timely fashion so that we can work out in a constructive and rational way what regime should apply to the industry after 2005. It should be noted that our manufacturers continue to struggle in relation to access to world markets. Given this, it seems odd indeed that the government should resist a timely review to see whether or not world trade conditions have changed before implementing a tariff reduction and moving into a policy vacuum. The only speaker on the government side who has addressed the question of the timeliness of the review is the last speaker in this debate. It would seem to me extraordinary that one would put the position that you would move from a known policy to a nothing policy for a period and then assess what to do. Clearly, we will have further information about world trade conditions and the questions of market access closer to 2005. But in a timely and appropriate fashion in the few years before 2005 we should assess the position.Toyota, in my electorate, confronts the following market barriers in export markets that are of importance to it: in Brunei, tariffs in the range of 40 to 200 per cent; Malaysia, 140 to 300 per cent; Saudi Arabia, 25 per cent; South Africa, 61 per cent; Taiwan, 30 to 42 per cent and a quota of 2000; and Thailand, 80 per cent. There may or may not be substantial changes in these trade barriers by 2005. The point is that we just do not know. So, given that here in June 1999 we cannot have that information at our disposal, is it not sensible to say and to commit in this legislation to having a review prior to 2005 when we will have more information on these questions?I would have thought that that argument about the need for a review and a further policy regime to be developed in a timely fashion would be one which would strike the government as a very important argument, given the importance of the industry to Australia overall and, in particular, to various regional areas within Australia. And, given that almost each and every speaker in this debate has spoken about the importance of the industry and that many representatives of regions in which the car industry is located have spoken in this debate and have spoken about their local car industry, I would have thought that that was an argument the govern ment would understand and that it would not oppose the amendment the opposition has proposed to this legislation.However, given that only one speaker has addressed—and she only briefly—the question of the amendment that the opposition is proposing to this legislation, we really have to assume that they are bereft of argument because there is no good argument against the proposition we are putting. In those circumstances, I would urge government members to think about this proposition, and if they have an argument against the proposition we are putting to put it in this House and put it clearly. If they have no opposition to the proposition we are putting, presumably they will vote for it at the appropriate time.13:12:007432McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHURVH4CorangamiteLP10—I am delighted to join this debate on the ACIS bills to refute some of the arguments put forward by the honourable member for Corio and the honourable member for Lalor. At the outset, I commend the speech by the member for Hindmarsh. As members on this side would know, the member for Hindmarsh and I have had considerable debate about this matter in relation to the car tariffs. I thought that she gave a very thoughtful exposition as it represented her electorate and the view of South Australia on this very important question.Of those members opposite who do know something about the car tariff issue, the previous speaker, the member for Lalor, demonstrates the problem those opposite have. The Labor government—the member for Lalor was not a member of that government and, therefore, she is somewhat excluded from this debate whereas the member for Corio was very much a part of the government—advocated a lower tariff position. The member for Lalor comes in here and advocates a middle road position. That there are some export markets that Toyota—the factory in her electorate—are unable to access clearly demonstrates the point that high tariff barriers are difficult, that they do not encourage trade and that, in the longer run, they need to be reduced.I do acknowledge that the Toyota factory in her electorate is of modern construction. The industrial relations changes encouraged by this government—discouraged by the previous Labor government—have brought about dramatic changes in that factory in quality control and productivity. I commend the innovation and approach of the company with the particular paint shop she refers to. Some of us on this side of the House have visited that factory and share her support for the newer processes that Toyota has invoked in producing a quality vehicle. But, of course, she does not defend the position of lowering tariff barriers and she goes back to some of the old rhetoric.In relation to the member for Corio, who joined a strong debate in saying that he had been a supporter of lower tariffs, I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the member for Corio was part of a government which quite rightly reduced the tariff barriers from 57 per cent down to 20 or 23 per cent, or wherever it was at the time of the change of government. The member for Corio supported the member for Hotham. The member for Hotham is on the public record in 1992 saying that the reduction of tariff barriers was good for the industry and good for Australia. But, of course, as they got into opposition, they immediately changed their stance. Like the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Beazley, they are against things. They are against tax change, which they advocated in 1985. And in the debate on car tariffs they advocated a change of their position to no change—they were not quite game to put the tariffs up but they were advocating a status quo position.In terms of his good friend from the Labor Trades Hall in Geelong, can I just put on the public record that Russell Gardner and John Kranz were encouraged by me to put a point of view on behalf of those workers of Geelong to the Prime Minister. They actually spoke to the Prime Minister and put their arguments, as did the delegation from the City of Geelong led by the then mayor, Councillor Gerry Smith. So whilst I disagreed with their views, because in my assessment it was important to have lower tariffs to ensure the long-term survival of the car industry in Broadmeadows and Geelong, they did put their point of view strongly and they put it at the local community. My view was that I wanted to encourage the survival and long-term commitment of the Ford Motor Co. to Geelong, ensuring that, not in the short term with tariff support, it would survive because of its productivity efficiency. Quite clearly, the Labor Party changed their position once they reached the opposition benches, compared to their position in government. That is regrettable.I put on the record my support for the Button plan. Minister Button was very active in the automobile industry. He saw the merit of reducing the number of manufacturers in Australia and ensuring that there was a lowering tariff regime to encourage innovation, technical changes and changes in the industrial relations regime that historically had existed in that industry. Senator Button, over time, with the support of the Hawke-Keating governments, had reduced the tariff from extraordinary levels down to the more commendable level that it is now at.This legislation puts in place getting the tariff level from 15 per cent down to 10 per cent in the year 2005. So I totally reject the argument that has been put by members opposite that there was not time for change. When this decision was made, everyone in the industry—the South Australian car industry, the Victorian car industry—was very aware and alert to the problems that the industry faced. They were given time to make the adjustments and by the year 2005 there will be a 10 per cent tariff barrier. I make the point that fundamentally and philosophically the tariff barriers had been reduced in a gradual sense and that when they reach the 10 per cent barrier that, in many ways, is a non-tariff position because the fluctuation in exchange rates can have a much bigger impact than the tariff barriers.The Industry Commission report, which other members have brought into this debate, was a landmark report. The two commissioners in the majority report had put their material together in a very painstaking way. I pay particular tribute to Bill Scales, who was the chairman of the Productivity Commission and who had a lifetime involvement with the car industry. He had started on the shop floor and he knew exactly the inefficiency of that car industry over 20 years, so here was a person who had applied some practical skills and understanding of the industry and, in my assessment, had provided a first-class report.The minority report has been referred to and, of course, that did cause some controversy. I think at the time the government wanted to allow somebody from the car industry to put a point of view. I was disappointed by that minority report and the way in which it was handled. That particular commissioner had a long association with the car industry and I think the bias of his particular assessment showed through in providing that minority report. That was unfortunate for the public debate because those who were in favour of maintaining a high tariff barrier rather clung on to some of what I consider to be questionable points of view in that minority report in order to support their case. There were arguments about modelling to support the impact of tariff reductions. We know over time that is very difficult. That clouded the issues that that very good report brought to this parliament and to the car industry.We now have a position in Geelong where the Ford Motor Co. is internationally competitive. The number of employees unfortunately are less—I concede that point—but that is happening around the world. Those people who have been following the industry and the activities of Australian Jac Nasser, the CEO of Ford World, would know that that is happening in plants in Detroit, in the UK and in Europe. The number of workers in these plants are being reduced inevitably by the introduction of automation, quality controls and the sheer movement of technology in the car industry. That was an inevitable development. The car industry in Geelong and in Ford in particular have been reducing their numbers since 1989—under the previous Labor government. That is happening in certain industries where numbers are being reduced not because of tariffs but because of technical change.I have been a great supporter of the Ford Motor Co. Whilst I have had an argument with the management about the rate of tariff change, I have always advocated that the Ford company could compete with the world because of their technical excellence and their ability to bring about change. Their new model involved an investment of about $1 billion in research and development, in tooling up and getting that particular vehicle back into the production line. They took that risk. The bean counters of Detroit were making a fundamental decision about whether the car industry could be profitable here in Australia, and it was fundamentally because the changes in the industry resulting from the tariff reductions that had taken place that this major investment was made in Geelong and in Broadmeadows to maintain the Ford company in Australia.For all the rhetoric, all the discussion and all the local concern in the city of Geelong, in Broadmeadows and in the state of Victoria—where the Premier got into the argument and in my view was not correct in his assessment of the impact of tariffs—we have found that with the gradual reduction of tariffs the car industries have improved. They have become more competitive and, in the final analysis, they will survive in the globalised, international industry of automotive construction. So in this last citadel of high tariff debate, where Australia is now demonstrating its commitment to the World Trade Organisation by ensuring that tariffs have been reduced in the automobile industry and in the TCF industries, we find that we are in a better position to argue the case of freer trade in the world forums. We have the case of Australian lamb, about which our trade minister and the Prime Minister have been talking to the President of the USA in recent times. We can go there with clean hands to argue the case of freer trade, whereas only five or six years ago we had the monkey on our back, so to speak, of high tariffs in TCF and in the car industry.Not only have the reductions in the tariff numbers and rates been of benefit to the car industry, in my assessment, but they have been introduced gradually and the industry has known what they were and what they were going to be. I refute the argument that members opposite have put, that it has taken some time to bring the changes into the parliament. The industry has been working on the assumptions that were announced after the big tariff debate.The final point I would put to the parliament is that the government adopted a fundamental position of lowering the tariffs. I agreed with that. Tariffs may not have been lowered as much as I might have advocated, but the legislation here implements that earlier decision. However, the members opposite have a position of being against the lowering of tariffs. The member for Corio has advocated that position on a number of occasions. I totally reject the argument that he has put on the public record that I was in favour of zero tariffs. I never was. I always argued for a gradual reduction with time for readjustment, and that the five or 10 per cent tariff barrier was a fair and reasonable thing, given the international pressures and the unfair trading practices of some of our trading partners. The member for Corio is great at putting up public statements that I was a zero tariff man because our former leader, John Hewson, on some occasions had been quoted in this context. I always argued the case for lowering the tariffs and doing it in a gradual manner.We have the opposition again being against tariffs which it had advocated in government and against tax changes which it had advocated, quite strongly, in government. So we find it in a policy free zone yet again. Opposition members come into this parliament suggesting that we have an amendment to do it a bit more slowly and do it a bit differently, just to be against the government position.I commend this package of bills, which implement the historical decision that tariffs in the automobile industry be reduced in a gradual manner to the year 2005. The automobile industry has gone from strength to strength from that decision, and we can see that reflected in the profits of the three major automobile companies operating in Australia.13:26:007434Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—I am always pleased in these debates to follow the Liberal Party's rightful heir to Bert Kelly, the honourable member for Corangamite. I might just correct him on a few points regarding trade policy. If he wants to have a look at the Labor Party's commitment to tariff reduc tion, he should turn to the excellent speech given by the Leader of the Opposition just last Friday at the APEC forum. Unfortunately, the contents of the speech were somewhat overshadowed by its ending. The Leader of the Opposition stated:The one guaranteed route to global wealth destruction lies in the downward spiral of retaliative protectionism . . . protectionism climbs, steadily choking off international trade, reducing economic growth with it in country after country; workers lose their jobs and spending power, and before you know it, a recession becomes a depression.The problem with beggar-thy-neighbour protectionism is that everyone has neighbours.Labor will not stand for it.That is the Labor Party's commitment on these matters, reinforced earlier this year by the announcement by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the member for Hotham, `Labor rejects tariffs as a policy tool in the future. We have consigned the tariff debate to the dustbin of history.'Mr Anthony interjecting—K26Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAM—Of course you will still get a few members in this parliament rummaging around in the dustbin. The member for Richmond is one of them.Mr Anthony interjecting—K26Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAM—The member for Richmond has a huge problem, because his side of the parliament is currently condemning those politicians who might be described as second-generation. What low opinion must they have of the member for Richmond—not second generation but third generation in this parliament, along with his colleague the member for Mayo. So if it is a problem to be a second-generation politician, we must take a very limited view of the career horizons of the member for Richmond—not first or second generation, but a lowly third-generation politician in this parliament. There could not be anything worse, according to the definitions we are getting from the Treasurer in recent times.Mr Anthony interjecting—K26Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAM—He does not like that. The old, snarly hooknoses go all right when they are dishing it out, but when a bit of reality comes back at them, oh, they're most upset: `I'd better go consult daddy or granddaddy on that one.' Let's get real. To return to this bill: the ALP supports the package, not only for the present time but beyond the next election. I understand that is the government's commitment in this legislation; the difference of opinion is on the timing of the review. Labor sensibly believes that there should be a review before the program is completed. The government holds out the possibility of finishing the program and then having a review, and if it decided to continue the program there would be a gap. That, in public policy, is not a very flash way to do things. Labor has proposed, by way of amendment, that you would have a review before the program finished.A review is nothing more than what it suggests: a reassessment, an analysis of how this program might be proceeding. A review by no means provides any commitment to continuing the program. You would have to look at the program's strengths and weaknesses in the year 2004 and make an objective assessment of how it was going. A review is nothing more than a reassessment before the program ends. It by no means commits Labor or any future group of MPs here to continuing the program.The other thing the member for Corangamite would be disappointed in—and this is where he needs to keep an eye on his protectionist colleagues like the member for Richmond, the parliamentary secretary for trade—concerns cars as well as TCF. He should share my concern that this government has written into our APEC individual action plan the nonsense about unilateral disarmament. This is a defining difference between the government and the opposition.The opposition, in the words of the Leader of the Opposition and his deputy, have committed Labor to a multilateral trade approach. They have committed Labor to the goodwill agreements such as APEC, which are unconditional. Labor's commitment here is unconditional tariff reduction, recognising the destructive influence of retaliative protectionism—the sort of conditional protectionism advocated by the third generation politician, the member for Richmond.The member for Corangamite on cars and TCF will have to take it up with his third generation colleague, the member for Richmond, because what he and his minister have done is to write into—XJ6ANTHONYMr Anthony—I am fourth generation.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAM—You are fourth generation! Well, I do not know the history of the Anthony family that well, but if you are fourth generation, that is even worse. He is not first, or second, but third generation. How lowly in the assessment of the coalition. He has got some problems down there.His other problem on the substance of this bill is that the government, courtesy of the parliamentary secretary and the trade minister, has written into our APEC commitments conditional protectionism. That is, what we are saying is that Australia will only reduce its tariffs on cars and TCF after the year 2004 if other nations do the same.What sort of madness is that in multilateral trade agreements, because if every single nation said, `Hang on, we will look over our shoulder and see what other countries are doing,' we all know what would happen—nothing would happen. Every nation would spend all its time looking at each other instead of committing itself and getting on with the business of trade liberalisation.The member for Corangamite, as the heir to Bert Kelly should, nods his head in agreement. He knows the folly of conditional protectionism. This is the disappointing aspect on this government's performance on cars and TCF. They have written into our APEC individual action plan the folly of conditional protectionism.Labor, of course, stands against that. I would expect that a future Labor government would make our commitments to APEC unconditional, as they were in the first place, as they were when Prime Minister Keating signed the Bogor Declaration.So that is a defining difference between this side of the parliament and the protectionists opposite. They believe in a conditional approach in multilateral agreements which rips the guts out of those agreements. Conditional protectionism is no way in which to proceed on a multilateral basis, it is a recipe for everyone watching everyone else and no-one doing anything. It is a recipe for countries spending all their time looking over their shoulders instead of looking at the commonsense of trade liberalisation.The member for Corangamite might take note of those observations and counsel some of his more protectionist colleagues about the need to once more return unconditional obligations into Australia's APEC individual action plans.I want to turn to some of the myths surrounding this question of trade and protectionism. The first myth which needs to be rebutted is the one that Australia has gone far enough in opening its economy to free trade. In fact, the growth in imported goods into Australia over the past 30 years has been relatively small. Taken as a proportion of goods production, imports to Australia rose by 44 per cent between 1965 and 1995. This compares to 79 per cent in East Asia, 74 per cent in North America, and 85 per cent across the world economy.We had the embarrassing sight of the parliamentary secretary for trade up in the Main Committee yesterday saying that Australia had gone faster than comparable nations in trade liberalisation. The figures I have quoted came from Ross Garnaut in his excellent article in the Australian Economic Review in December 1997, `Australian cars in a global economy'. He points out that in trade liberalisation, Australia has moved slower than just about every other part of the world when you take our imports as a proportion of goods production.The second myth surrounding this debate is that Australia's free trade commitments far exceed those of our competitor nations. Again, the third generation member for Richmond was up to this sort of argument in the Main Committee yesterday. This is what some have described, where Australia thinks it has gone far enough and faster than other nations, as unilateral disarmament—a belief that Australia should only lower its trade barriers once other nations have done the same.Unfortunately, the Howard government, as I pointed out earlier on, has written this approach into Australia's individual action plan for APEC. This is contrary to the whole purpose and rationale of this trade group—that is, adherence to an open regional agreement unrelated to reciprocity.APEC is built on the principle of voluntary unilateral liberalisation. Its only sanction is a practical one. Protectionist policies will destroy the potential of the Bogor Declaration to create gains for all nations. If every nation waited for other nations to liberalise then, quite plainly, nothing would happen and nothing could be achieved.So for anyone who thinks that this bill, or any other piece of legislation, is an alibi for maintaining high tariffs in the car industry 2005, think again. Australia must meet its Bogor commitments of a five per cent tariff rate in this industry, and also the TCF industries, by the year 2010. That will not be achieved by conditional liberalisation. Only an unconditional Australian commitment to trade liberalisation can get us to that target. If every other nation listened to people like the third generation member for Richmond, they would slow down their trade liberalisation. We would do nothing but look at each other and end up achieving absolutely zero.In any case, most of our APEC partners have committed themselves to a faster rate of trade liberalisation than Australia. Measured by unweighted average tariff rates, eight countries have gone further and faster with their World Trade Organisation and APEC commitments. Let me name them—Hong Kong, Brunei, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Mexico, Singapore and the United States. Two others, Chile and the Philippines, have produced individual action plans which exceed their Bogor commitments.So let us not have any of this nonsense that Australia is a trendsetter, that Australia is leading the pack and that no-one else is liberalising on trade. I have just given the names of 10 nations which are either moving faster than Australia or intend to do so under their Bogor commitments. Again, the parlia ment would want the appropriate reference for this information to counter some of the nonsense that gets put around in the public arena. Fred Bergsten from the Institute for International Economics in Washington, part of the APEC apparatus, in 1997 wrote an article, Whither APEC? The progress to date and agenda for the future, in which he gives all those comparative trade liberalisation performances. I know the member for Corangamite will look this up because he will need some of that information to counteract the rubbish that gets around that Australia is the only country going down this path. Well, everyone else has got their commitments and, in many cases, they are moving faster than Australia.The third myth in this debate is that free trade forces the withdrawal of government from other areas of economic regulation such as decent labour and consumer and environmental standards. In fact, the logic of free trade points to a very different argument. In recent decades, companies have won the right to trade and invest extensively in the global economy. As with all rights in our society, they need to be matched by certain social responsibilities, often described as a mutual obligation or mutual responsibility approach. Governments need to firmly protect the social standards. This role is best discharged through international economic governance. The European Union is a fine example of this process. At an intergovernmental level, the work of the WTO and ILO needs to be more effectively linked. It is absurd, for instance, that the WTO bans imports made by prison labour but does not ban imports produced by slave or child labour.There is an argument for a third approach in trade policy. The old Left, while always keen to embrace decent labour, consumer and environmental standards, has been a bit sceptical about the benefits of trade liberalisation. The New Right, while embracing a free trade agenda, has had little concern for social standards. You could bring those two approaches together under the banner of free trade with social standards. Free trade does not involve a winding back of basic government responsibilities. Free trade—the right of companies to trade freely—should be accompanied by a responsibility to have in place decent industrial, labour law, consumer and environmental standards. If you follow that approach—free trade with social standards—you cut through a lot of the nonsense you hear in the debate: the Left arguing for protection; the New Right saying that there must be free trade but nothing more than free trade. This cuts through a lot of the nonsense we have heard in this parliament in recent years: a very narrow debate about Australia's economic interests. Instead, the sensible approach is to recognise that all countries benefit from a free trade environment, improving their prosperity and economic growth.However, the right of companies to trade freely needs to be matched by their responsibility to have decent social, environmental, consumer, tax and labour law standards in place. If they took their responsibilities seriously, there would be no need for government regulation. But one recognises, of course, that regulation is often necessary to force responsibilities upon not only corporations but some citizens. If companies do not take their responsibilities seriously, then those social responsibilities should be written into multilateral trade agreements. That is the broadening of the free trade agenda—not just free trade for its economic benefits, but free trade for the social responsibilities that arise in the global trading environment.Another good part in the Leader of the Opposition's speech last Friday—and again, it bears on this legislation—was his reference to consumer costs. There is no doubt that anyone who opposes regressive indirect taxation would also oppose tariffs. That is the point that the Leader of the Opposition, the strongest possible opponent of the GST, put last Friday when he said:. . . tariff reductions provided perhaps the biggest indirect tax cut in Australian history. When Labor left office, cars imported into Australia were around 25% cheaper than if the tariffs of a decade before still applied. Clothing and footwear were around 14 per cent cheaper.Labor's tariff cuts gave the average Australian family an extra $1,000 per year.Those tariff cuts represent a policy—VH4McARTHURMr McArthur—What happened to Simon Crean? Where did Simon go? Poor old Simon.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAM—consistent with Labor's opposition of the GST. The member for Corangamite asked about the member for Hotham. Well, the member for Hotham is the strongest possible opponent of the GST.VH4McARTHURMr McArthur—Where's the member for Hotham?K26Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAM—In his address to the Sydney Institute earlier this year, he pointed out that he was consigning the tariff debate to the dustbin of history. Again, it is a perfectly consistent piece of public policy: opposition to tariffs—because they represent a regressive indirect levy on Australian consumers, particularly low income consumers—and opposition to the GST because it does the same. That is a perfectly consistent piece of public policy, and I am sure that, while the member for Corangamite is doing a juggling act over there—something familiar to the member for Hunter, juggling public policy imperatives—he would recognise the consistency of the member for Hotham and of the Leader of the Opposition, of course. It is all here in black and white—well constructed, consistent speeches, which are logical and rational in every single respect.The argument is clear: it is only this side of the parliament that is committed to unconditional trade liberalisation; it is only this side of the parliament that has written those conditional obligations into our individual action plan for APEC; it is only Labor that opposes regressive indirect levies—GST and tariffs—on the Australian working people; it is only Labor that recognises the economic benefits of internationalisation; it is only Labor that recognises that in most of these industries—cars and TCF—it is technology that is the destroyer of jobs, not free trade. In an environment where Australia has a floating exchange rate, there is absolutely no sense in keeping these regressive and destructive tariffs in place for the longer term. In fact, if we take seriously the notion of a global trading environment and global capital, we will recognise that a nation maximises its economic benefits by improving the skills of its people. Only a highly skilled population and work force can attract international investment to Australia.The problem with industry handouts and tariffs is that companies can soak them up for the medium term in Australia and then, with their new found mobility, move offshore when it suits, especially when some other nation gives them a better offer. Sometimes it is said Australia needs to match the subsidies other countries are putting around. I also noted in the Leader of the Opposition's speech a very good rebuttal of that argument.VH4McARTHURMr McArthur—It is a good policy.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAM—It is a great trade policy and I hope the member for Corangamite has a close look at it. Let me again quote from the Leader of the Opposition:A recent OECD study showed that Australia's producer subsidies as a percentage of farm income were 7% in 1998. That compares to the US at 22%, the EU at 45% and Japan at a stunning 63%. We have strong credentials to be pushing this case.We do have strong credentials for putting the case for free trade. Australia should also recognise that, if other countries are silly enough to waste their money on those sorts of subsidies, it frees up the opportunity, comparatively, for our country to put money into a highly-skilled, well-educated population. Let's train our people and attract international investment instead of putting money into the deadweight costs of industry subsidies and tariff protection.Mr McArthur interjecting—K26Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAM—The member for Corangamite has a lot of work to do on his side of the parliament on these issues. I started my speech by pointing out he is the rightful heir to Bert Kelly. He needs to advance those agendas on the Liberal side of politics but he can rest assured that all these points about free trade—its economic and social benefits, political responsibility and commonsense—are well and truly in safe hands on the Labor side.13:46:007439Entsch, Warren, MPMr ENTSCH7K6LeichhardtLP10—The government recognises the significant pro gress the automotive industry has made over a period of more than a decade and the industry's objectives to integrate interglobal markets. The labour productivity of our car manufactures has improved 40 per cent since 1991 and significant improvements in the quality of our locally produced cars have been recorded.Australian cars are comparable in quality with cars built in Japan. The core of the Australian automotive industry is represented by four motor vehicle manufacturers and over 200 component, tooling and service providers. The industry is largely concentrated in South Australia and Victoria and employed approximately 55,000 people in 1996-1997—mostly in those two states. It is a significant manufacturing industry with important linkages to other resources and manufacturing industries, with a turnover of approximately $15 billion in 1996-1997 and exports of about $2.5 billion in 1998. In recent years, the Australian automotive industry has established itself as a low cost, high quality source of design and engineering and has expertise in flexible, small volume manufacturing.Government assistance has helped the industry to position itself as a high-tech, globally focused, sustainable manufacturing industry. Continued government assistance will help the industry to secure its place in the global market in the context of increasing trade liberalisation. The ACIS Administration Bill 1999 , the ACIS (Unearned Credit Liability) Bill 1999 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (ACIS Implementation) Bill 1999 will implement two key elements of the government's post-2000 arrangements for the automotive industry. The legislation will establish the Automotive Competitiveness and Investment Scheme, the ACIS. Legislation will also reduce the automotive tariff from 15 per cent to 10 per cent on 1 January 2005. The stable tariff regime between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2004 will offer the industry vital breathing space to adjust and to integrate their operations into global markets.There is to be no doubt, however, on the government's commitment to reduce tariffs and to continue the downward trend in the automotive tariff which we have seen over the last decade. The tariff reduction in 2005 is in line with the government's commitment to trade liberalisation. It is a tangible step towards Australia meeting its APEC goal by the year 2010 and it will bring lower prices to consumers. It is appropriate to lock into this tariff setting now to give the industry the certainty that it needs to plan for its future in the context of a more liberalised market. The prospect of tariff cuts in the future will also be an important driver for future competitiveness.The industry requires certainty, not further reviews. This principle applies both to the tariff settings and to the ACIS. ACIS can be evaluated like any other government program to assess its performance against its stated objectives, say, in the year 2002-03, without the uncertainty generated by a full-scale review. ACIS will make $2 billion available to the industry over five years of its operation, from the year 2001 to the year 2005, making it one of the largest industry development schemes supported by the government. Funding for the scheme has been capped to maintain the government's commitment to fiscal responsibility—$2 billion over five years is extremely generous by any standards for an industry program. The level of support compares favourably with current support arrangements. Firms will be able to plan their futures with confidence, which will help secure employment in the industry.The ACIS legislation is a major plank in the government's commitment to the Australian automotive industry to provide transitional support in an era of trade liberalisation. ACIS represents the result of extensive policy design work, close consultation with industry and careful consideration of our trade obligations. The legislation is fully consistent with Australia's international obligations. The package has the support of major industry stakeholders who have contributed significantly to improve the ACIS package since the legislation was first introduced.The Federal Chamber of Automotive Industry stated on 3 May 1999:We fully support the ACIS legislation being tabled in the federal parliament and hope that such legislation is passed in the current term. The Federation of Automotive Products Manufacturers stated on 26 March 1999:It is good legislation, it is equitable and it will greatly support the government's objectives for the development of Australia's automotive industry.The ACIS is targeted towards the central parts of the motor vehicle manufacturing supply chain. It will improve the competitiveness of the vehicle manufacturing industry. ACIS will encourage the development of internationally competitive firms in the automotive industry through rewarding eligible production, strategic investment, and research and development.The incentive structure for the ACIS in relation to motor vehicle manufacturers is broadly consistent with the incentive structure currently applying to the duty-free allowance, namely, it depends on production levels. The long lead times and cyclical nature of investments by car manufacturers in relation to new models meant that an incentive structure, which relied on investment and R&D levels alone, could have led to serious inequities in the distribution of benefits between car manufacturers, depending on where each vehicle manufacturer was in its investment cycle. A scheme based entirely on investment and research and development could have seriously disturbed the competitive balance in the industry.Vehicle manufacturers can, however, still access R&D and higher investment incentives when they undertake component, tooling or automotive service production for third parties. Eligible motor vehicle producers, automotive component producers, automotive machine tool and tooling producers, and automotive service providers will be able to claim ACIS duty credits for relevant activities. The government recognises the importance of design and research and development activities to the future of the industry.The bill sets out the broad parameters for the automotive services which will be covered by the ACIS, including design, development, engineering or production services. Details of these will be further articulated in regulation. The scope of the R&D definition will also be elaborated through regulation. The government has created the right environment for growth and for a car industry which is dynamic, productive, optimistic and outward looking. These policy settings give the industry the certainty that it needs to plan for its future. It supports employment in this very important sector, and it goes forward with the full support of the industry.Amendment negatived.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.7441Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.13:56:007441McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—I move:Page 103 (after line 25), after clause 116 add the following part:Part 14—Independent inquiry117 Independent inquiry concerning automotive industry(1) Before 1 July 2003 the Minister must cause to be established an independent inquiry into the future of Australia's automotive industry. The inquiry must address, in particular, the most appropriate rates of customs duty to apply from 1 January 2005 on passenger motor vehicles and the categories of related componentry and products specified in this Act.(2) After the Minister receives the report of the inquiry established under this section the Minister may issue a written certificate stating that the Minister has received the report and is satisfied rates of customs should be amended from the inquiry certificate day as provided in this Act.(3) The Minister must arrange for a copy of the certificate under subsection (2) to be published in the Gazette.(4) Subject to subsection (5) the day on which the certificate under subsection (2) is published in the Gazette is the inquiry certificate day.(5) If the copy of the certificate issued under subsection (2) is published in the Gazette before 1 January 2005, the inquiry certificate day is taken to be 1 January 2005.(6) The Minister must cause copies of the report of the inquiry established under this section to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after receiving the report. I will speak briefly to the amendment now. On a subsequent occasion we will have a longer consideration in detail when I will say some more, but my colleague the member for Kingston, who has a particular interest in these matters, also wishes to have a say about this amendment at this stage. I simply want to say that we heard in the response of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources the government's case for not having an inquiry, which was that they are actually going to have an inquiry but they do not want to carry a motion saying so. This seems to be a rather bizarre extension of the argument that you just cannot agree to anything if the opposition propose it. Nevertheless, I have moved the amendment, and I will return to speak to it at a later time.13:57:007441Cox, David, MPMr COX83UKingstonALP00—I am absolutely incredulous of the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, at the table, that the government proposes to have a review without having a review and that the opposition's amendment would create uncertainty. The government is the one that is creating uncertainty. The government is not proposing any outline for industry assistance for the vehicle industry after 2005. It is not saying what is going to happen to tariffs after 2005. It is saying that it can leave that uncertainty on the basis of some small review that it is going to do internally. The review is not going to have proper public input. It is not going to be done properly by the Productivity Commission. It is not going to give all of the stakeholders in the industry an opportunity to make submissions. It is not going to have proper quantitative analysis of what the effects are going to be on the industry.The government is simply saying that it is going to do a little quick and cheap in-house review and then it is going to come out and make some far-reaching decisions on the basis of what tariff protection should be after 2005 and what should replace what it is calling the `transitional arrangements' that are contained in the ACIS bill to take the car industry after 2005 into the future.This is not an acceptable situation for the Labor Party. I hope that members opposite who have car industry seats and who are concerned about the long-term viability of the industry—and we have seen them popping up over the last 24 hours to give their contributions in this debate—talk to the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, Senator Minchin, in the intervening period before we come back to this issue. I hope they try to get some sense out of him on this issue, because we do need a full Productivity Commission inquiry into the vehicle industry to determine what the arrangements are going to be for motor vehicles after 2005.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 2 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 101A. The member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.Ministerial Arrangements744214:00:007442Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Mr Speaker, I inform the House that the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation will be absent from question time today. He is travelling to Bangkok to conclude signature of the memorandum of understanding between the Australian Stock Exchange and the Thailand Stock Exchange, which will further strengthen Australia's reputation as a leading centre for global financial services. I am sure it will enjoy the total support of the opposition.Questions Without Notice744274427442O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—My question is to the Treasurer. Treasurer, yesterday you told the House that South Australia has agreed to the $300,000 wine tax proposal in your deal with the Democrats. Are you aware that the South Australian Treasurer, Rob Lucas, told a South Australian estimates hearing in relation to your claim: `No, it is not true . . . We have not been consulted, so at this stage we cannot agree to anything'? Treasurer, did you mislead the House yesterday? If not, do you stand by your claim that South Australia has agreed to your proposal?7442Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—As I think I said yesterday, as part of the agreement between the government and the Australian Democrats, the government will ensure that the states continue to operate rebate schemes. As I think I said yesterday to the House, I understood that the South Australian government had already indicated that it would. You ask me why I said that. I said that because the Winemakers Federation put a submission into the Australian Senate saying that it had. I was relying on the Winemakers Federation—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Oh, I see—a reliable source!DT4CREANMr Crean—Ah, you rely on them!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The Treasurer has the call.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Oh, okay—you are not allowed to rely on the Winemakers Federation. When the Winemakers Federation says that South Australia has agreed, that is untrue, is it? The Winemakers Federation says to the Senate that the South Australian government has agreed to continue a rebate scheme and you are not allowed to say, `I understand they have agreed to continue a rebate scheme.' What an appalling thing, to actually believe a Senate submission from the Winemakers Federation! Today I still believe the submission from the Winemakers Federation.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—`I am never to blame'!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer is entitled to be heard in silence.CT4Mr COSTELLO—I have also indicated, as I told the House yesterday and as I assured the Australian Democrats, that this government has undertaken to ensure that the states will continue those schemes, and we undertook that by a letter which was signed 36 hours ago and we now have 12 months in which to get their agreement. I know the opposition thinks we can accomplish tax reform with the click of a finger and an instantaneous ray of light, but I will back us over the next 12 months and, having given that understanding and assurance 36 hours ago, I now have 365 days minus 36 hours to bring it off.74437443Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELINHV5GreyLP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware of any alternative proposals to those currently being progressed by the government to reform the tax system, increase job opportunities for young Australians, modernise environmental laws, strengthen choice for families, facilitate parental choice in education and enhance the growing sense of optimism in the Australian community?7443Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for Grey for what I think is a very, very appropriate question.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, my point of order is this: this is an abuse of question time. That is a ministerial statement. He has asked for an entire statement about the record of this government or what he thinks it to be and then demands question time for that. If he makes a ministerial statement, we would facilitate it and debate it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The chair has allowed the question to stand. The chair is not particularly fond of the question, but the chair hears a number of questions in this place from both sides which have at least as much of a wide ranging approach as did the question from the member for Grey. I call the Prime Minister.ZD4Mr HOWARD—The member for Grey asks the eminently sensible question: are there any alternative proposals to those currently being progressed by the government in a number of areas? I will take the areas that have been raised in the question by the member for Grey. He asks: is there an alternative to the government's taxation reform program? The answer to that of course is no. All we have had from the Labor Party are stunts, all we have had is negative reaction, all we have had from the Labor Party is negative criticism. The Labor Party, from the very beginning of the tax debate in this country in July 1997, has set out at all stages to obstruct, to destroy, to mislead and to behave in a negative fashion. On the eve of the passage of legislation through this parliament, the Labor Party stands bereft of any policy alternative to the tax reform agenda being posed by the government.I move on to the next issue, that is, job opportunities for young Australians. We had a marvellous opportunity this morning to witness just how negative the Labor Party has been about job opportunities for young Australians. We had tabled by my colleague the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business the report of the Industrial Relations Commission which essentially agreed with the philosophy that the government has been pursuing over the last three or four years. That shows in stark relief the absolutely negative approach of the Leader of the Opposition, who in May of this year boasted to the Australian public that the Labor Party had voted against a proposal to protect the jobs of a quarter of a million young Australians. Now we have the situation that even the Industrial Relations Commission has endorsed the approach being taken by the government.What do we have when we move to the issue of modernising Australia's environmental laws? All we get in the Senate is personal abuse directed by Senator Faulkner on behalf of the Labor Party against the Leader of the Australian Democrats. Instead of embracing the reforms to Australia's environmental laws, the Labor Party have gone down the track of narky, negative criticism. They have no policies. They have no alternatives. They have no vision. They have no alternative strategy. All they seek to do is criticise. All they seek to do is behave like the political narks that they are, Mr Speaker. All they seek to do is to engage in mud slinging and personal denigration.The list goes on, Mr Speaker; strengthening choice for families. In the last budget we did more than any government, I believe, in the history of this country to entrench the principle of parental choice in education. In the words of a spokesman for the Independent Christian Schools of Australia, this government has done more than any other to put choice within the reach of working class families when it comes to the education of their children.What is the Labor Party's response to that? The response of the Labor Party is to dredge up a decades old debate that we had put behind us in the maturity of the modern age, a decades old debate that attempts to draw a distinction between Australians according to whether they were educated at a government school or an independent school. Shame on the Labor Party for trying to revive such an old debate. Shame on the Labor Party for misleading the Australian public about the respective roles of state and federal governments. Shame on the Labor Party for being so negative.There is mounting evidence—and the latest is some very interesting research referred to in yesterday's issue of the Bulletin magazine—of a sense of optimism and hope within the Australian community; a growing belief on the part of the Australian public that we can in fact stare down the challenges that in the past it had defeated; the undeniable fact that we are living in an era of economic prosperity and strength that we have not seen since the late 1960s—in the face of all of that, we have a very stark contrast in this chamber.On the one hand we have the coalition party which is forging ahead with progressive policies to address the challenges of the day and the opportunities of the new millennium. On the other side we have a pathetic, irrelevant Labor Party whose only response in the absence of their own policy vacuum is to throw mud and engage in personal denigration.74447444Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is directed to the Treasurer.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—How is Michael Baume, your mate?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has the call. The member for Batman is not helping his own colleague.DT4Mr CREAN—Can the Treasurer confirm the GST will be payable for a cold chicken salad purchased and consumed on tables and chairs set up on the street as part of a cafe, but if the same salad was eaten on a seat at a bus stop adjacent to that cafe, no GST would be payable? Will the Treasurer be erecting signs saying `GST-free zone' as part of his further advice on GST tax avoidance?7444Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The questions get weaker and weaker. The agreement with the Australian Democrats is that food which is sold in restaurants and the like, food for consumption, is taxable.DT4CREANMr Crean—Is McDonald's going to buy a bus route?CT4Mr COSTELLO—But food which is not sold in restaurants or similar shops is not subject to the GST.DT4CREANMr Crean—A GST-free zone.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition.CT4Mr COSTELLO—You can dress it up in your rather immature way, but it does not alter the fact. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition then asks: will I be giving advice on tax avoidance? I think that is what he said. Of course, he alleged that when I referred to the rules in relation to imports on books—MG4LEEMr Lee—You did well on that. I would not go back there, Peter.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Dobell.CT4Mr COSTELLO—He said that if you put up the price of a book with GST, people would go overseas to buy it. I think that is what he said. Let's take a book which is probably not well read called Civilising Global Capital by Mr Mark Latham, which retails in my electorate at $24.95. If a GST applies to that book and that goes up by six per cent, it would go up by $1.50. Instead of retailing at $24.95, it would be retailing for $26.45. He says that, if that goes up from $24.95 by $1.50, everyone will go onto the Internet and buy it over the Internet.DT4CREANMr Crean—Don't you think they will?CT4Mr COSTELLO—They can avoid the tax. It goes up $1.50, and he says they will buy it on amazon.com.DT4CREANMr Crean—Why wouldn't you?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I will not tolerate conversation across the chamber.CT4Mr COSTELLO—We went to amazon.com to see if we could buy this book and the member for Werriwa will be very pleased to know that you can buy it through amazon.com for $US24.95, on an exchange rate of 65 cents. If you want to buy that on amazon.com and avoid the $1.50 of tax, you will pay—postage included, which will have it delivered to you in four days—$A91.DT4CREANMr Crean—Oh, yes. Here we go.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Deputy Leader of the Opposition!CT4Mr COSTELLO—Here is the great tax avoidance institution. The Labor Party will be out advising people on avoiding tax, and getting a $24 book for $91. When they say WTG, they really mean it.74457445Barresi, Phil, MPMr BARRESIZJ6DeakinLP10—My question is to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer advise the House what recent economic indicators reveal about the ongoing strength of the Australian economy?DT4CREANMr Crean—Here you are. Have a look at this newspaper report.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition!DT4CREANMr Crean—He should have a look at it, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition replies again to the chair, he will be warned.7445Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—Mr Speaker, you wonder how they said the budget was balanced when it was $10,000,000 million in deficit. It is the same crew that will avoid tax by buying a $24 book for $91.The member for Deakin asked me about recent indicators in relation to the Australian economy. The Westpac-Melbourne Institute leading index of economic activity was released yesterday showing that the current state of economic activity was 4.9 per cent in April above the trend of 3.6 per cent, and the leading index which indicates the speed of the economy in six months time surged during April to be 6.6 per cent. As the general manager of economics for Westpac commented: The index is even more clearly signalling that growth through 1999 and into 2000 will be well above long-term trend and overall the leading index for Australia continues to signal Australia's growth will be maintained at a healthy pace.Since the government came to office, inflation has averaged around one per cent per annum compared to an average of 5.2 per cent per annum under Labor. Because the government has had a policy of low inflation, that has meant that employees have had real wage rises. Real wages have averaged an increase of two per cent per annum under this government, compared to 0.3 per cent per annum under the Labor government.The Labor Party was a party of low real wages. Because the Labor Party could not control inflation, real wages under Labor were suppressed. I think this is the point that the member for Batman makes when he says that the Labor Party forgot about the working people when it was in government. It forgot about the working people because, although inflation was high, real wages grew slowly. The Governor of the Reserve Bank, in his testimony to the House of Representatives standing committee recently, said:Employees have seen that quite modest nominal wage increases have translated into decent real wage increases because inflation has been contained. They have not had to build anticipatory increases into their wage bargains to safeguard themselves against inflation getting away from them.So, low inflation, high productivity: real wage growth in a growing economy. It is true to say that it has been the big structural reforms that have helped Australia to get improved productivity.83UCOXMr Cox—Labor's productivity reforms.CT4Mr COSTELLO—The member for Kingston, who was part of the old guard that believes in economic responsibility, who was very much part of the Keating-Willis years, does talk about productivity.XW4KERNOTMs Kernot—But it is a good point.CT4Mr COSTELLO—But you should bear in mind—and the reason why the member for Dickson interjects now is that she says she joined the Labor Party because it gave away economic responsibility—a big change occurred.The member for Kingston made a speech earlier on saying that he wanted a Productivity Commission inquiry in relation to the automobile industry. The Labor Party opposed the setting up of the Productivity Commission.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Yes, we did.CT4Mr COSTELLO—`Yes, we did,' says the member for Canberra. The member for Kingston wants a full-blown Productivity Commission inquiry into the car industry from an institution that the Labor Party opposed setting up because it considered it to be part of economic responsibility. The Labor Party wants to take credit for improved productivity in the economy whilst opposing competition reforms, opposing tax reforms, opposing corporate law reforms, opposing industrial relations reform and opposing the macro-economic reforms.If the member for Kingston wants to position the Labor Party in economic responsibility, the first thing he must do is deal with his leader and deputy leader. They took a deliberate decision after 1996 to walk away from economic responsibility and, until the Labor Party walks back, there is no point in these backbenchers running around and saying, `Oh, this is just political opportunism. You can expect it from an opposition.' The Australian public deserves much more than that, and until the battle is fought and won in the Australian Labor Party no member of the Australian Labor Party can claim any credit or any responsibility in relation to economic policy.The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is still to make a major speech on the Australian economy. We run around with thermometers and chooks and salads, but not one decent policy. As I said yesterday, why would anyone want to lead a party that had no policy? Why would you have a party that had no policy? The failure of policy is a failure of leadership.74467446Sidebottom, Peter, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM849BraddonALP00—My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, Senator Newman. I refer to the minister's statement in the House yesterday that the states can fund the cost of the public housing measure in the revised GST package by:. . . retain stamp duties on non-quotable market securities.Can the minister assure the House that this statement is consistent with the letter written by Senator Newman to state housing ministers on 16 June saying:Additional funding in respect of the impact the agreement—that is, the agreement between the government and the Democrats—will have on state housing authority revenue has been agreed between the Commonwealth and the States.Minister, can you assure the House that Senator Newman's letter is completely accurate?7446Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—There is, of course, no confusion on this matter, other than in one or two idle minds on the opposite side. It is a fact that, at the 9 April Premiers Conference, the Prime Minister agreed with the states that additional money—some $269 million—should be provided to the states in recognition of the extra costs associated with the goods and services tax on their housing costs.R36ALBANESEMr Albanese—They asked for $730 million.GT4Mr TRUSS—The figure mentioned by way of interjection takes into account a lot more than the GST implications. It includes a whole lot of things that have got absolutely nothing whatever to do with the tax reform package, as he ought to well know. This $269 million figure was, incidentally, agreed with the states as the net effect of the GST, bearing in mind that at that particular stage there would be increases in rent payments to the states as a result of the higher pension payments that the Commonwealth is providing under the new tax arrangements.Under the arrangements with the Democrats, those increases in revenue to the state housing authorities will not occur. However, in the arrangements, the Commonwealth has provided to the states a number of areas of revenue—enabling them to retain stamp duty, as referred to in the question—which will more than compensate for the loss of revenue associated with this arrangement with the Democrats. So the information provided by the Treasurer to this House and by Senator Newman is entirely consistent and entirely appropriate.74477447Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, would you advise the House of any commitments which have been given by interested parties in relation to the findings of the junior wage rates inquiry conducted by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission? What is your response to these commitments?7447Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the honourable member for his question. This morning I tabled in the House a report by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission on the subject of junior rates. Mr Speaker, you might remember that this was the subject of debate back in 1996. It was agreed at the Senate level and through the House of Representatives that there would be an inquiry into this whole issue of junior wage rates—an issue which has been particularly difficult since 1993 when the Labor Party implemented certain changes to the industrial laws which established a non-discriminatory provision which has held out the prospect of the abolition of junior wage rates. The government has today tabled that report. We welcome that report.I am pleased to advise the House that the report vindicates virtually every proposition which the government has put to the commission and which has formed the basis of the campaign that we have been waging to protect the jobs of hundreds of thousands of young people and the campaign that we have been waging to give young unemployed people the chance of a job in the future. After the years of controversy that have dogged this issue and created uncertainty for employers about providing jobs for young people, it is about time that this issue was finally resolved and that we had a legislative framework to give young people the chance of a job and certainly the chance of protecting the jobs they have got.The Labor Party, all through this debate, have basically been in favour of abolishing junior wage rates. They are on the public record. If you go back to the last election, the then shadow minister for industrial relations said:As a matter of principle we do not support wage differentials based only on age. We do support wage differentials based on competency. Kim Beazley made this clear when asked about the issue in Perth yesterday.That has been Labor's policy position. In fact, they created the problem that we have had to solve in the time that we have been in office.Anybody with any commonsense can understand that, if you increase the wages of young people by 50 per cent, in a lot of businesses those young people, sadly, are going to lose the jobs they have. I think the Labor Party themselves have started to recognise the impossibility of their own position. So, when we did a deal with the Democrats to have an inquiry, they decided their best position was to hide behind the work being done by the commission and await the decision of the commission. In that sense, I have welcomed the fact that they basically committed themselves to the outcome of the inquiry. They have made that pretty clear. The Leader of the Opposition said in March this year:This is a test for the government. They should await the Commission report and study it carefully. Well, one party needs to be serious about the junior wages issue so it will be Labor—so he boasted in March. Since then, in February, the member for Batman said:The recommendations might even make tough decisions for the ALP.How right he was. Even the backbench were echoing this. The member for Lalor said:. . . and when it's completed that task to make the decisions operative through industrial relations awards and agreement . . .A clear commitment to the outcome of the report. The member for Canberra said:I implore the government to look very carefully at the outcome of the AIRC inquiry and to consider very carefully all views and look very sincerely at the evidence that will be and is available.It is about time that we had a serious look at the commission's report. It is about time that you stood up here and supported the conclusions brought down by the commission through a process which you have been publicly endorsing for months and months. You have been hiding behind this report.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—You tabled today and you are legislating this afternoon. How much consideration is that?WI4Mr REITH—Now the report is out for all to see. Now that this report is out, it is time for you to stop prevaricating, stop hiding behind the process and finally have a policy position that will give the young people who have jobs the prospect of keeping those jobs and the possibility of more jobs in the future. The umpire has looked at the issue. As my opposite number said, `They've done a fine job.'ET4BEVISMr Bevis—Tell the truth!WI4Mr REITH—They have done a fine job. It is time that the Labor Party—ET4BEVISMr Bevis—You want to nobble them!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Brisbane! The member for Brisbane is warned!WI4Mr REITH—today, here and now—stood up in this parliament and supported the conclusions of this inquiry and then went ahead to support the bill that we will reintroduce today. When that bill was defeated earlier this year, the Leader of the Opposition said he was chuffed at the capacity of the Labor Party to prevent young people having jobs. It is about time—young people ought to come first—the Labor Party supported the conclusion of this inquiry and thereby support the bill that we will introduce.744810000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition has the call and will come straight to his question.7448Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—You ought to study it, sport. You would see something like a decent position in it—which is not yours.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—My question is to the Prime Minister.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition was specifically asked to come straight to his question and deliberately ignored the warning from the chair.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—I apologise.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The chair is exercising a great deal of tolerance. In light of the apology by the Leader of the Opposition, I call him.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister recall his pledge to reduce small business red tape by 50 per cent? Prime Minister, will the GST not make it impossible to reach your 50 per cent red tape target? Wasn't Katie Lahey from the New South Wales State Chamber of Commerce right when she said today:The additional complications from the decision to exempt food make it imperative that extra funds be allocated to those small and medium sized businesses most affected.And wasn't Jeff Kennett right when he said this morning:My heart goes out to the small retailers, particularly in rural Australia, the family supermarkets, the small store where they sell everything. It is going to be a nightmare.7448Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I certainly do recall the statements I made about pursuing policies that would be beneficial to small business. I am extremely proud that we have in fact pursued those policies. We, of course, have delivered the lowest small business interest rates in 30 years. We are proposing to abolish the wholesale sales tax system, which is an enormous burden on small businesses in Australia. We have delivered more simple industrial relations laws. If the Labor Party would stop its mindless obstruction in the Senate, we could deliver—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Prime Minister will resume his seat. I call the Leader of the Opposition on a point of relevance.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, the question was specifically about the Prime Minister sticking to his commitment to reduce 50 per cent of the red tape on small business. That was the specific question.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I will rule on the matter of relevance. The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition asked a question about red tape as it affected small business and the Prime Minister, as I heard him answering the question, was talking about the multiplicity of regulations facing small business.ZD4Mr HOWARD—For the benefit of those who sit opposite—I know they do not know much about small business at all; they know very little about anything to do with the ordinary life of the great mainstream of the Australian community—I can tell them that there are a lot of things outside the taxation laws that involve red tape and multiplicity for small business. The industrial relations laws of this country and the multiplicity and complexity of the award system have been an enormous burden on small business. Which have been the parties that have been campaigning to reduce the red tape burden of the industrial relations laws on small business? The Liberal and National parties.As I was about to say before the point of order raised by the Leader of the Opposition, if the Labor Party would drop its mindless obstruction to our proposals to further reform the unfair dismissal laws of Australia, it would remove enormous small business complexity, enormous red tape and enormous constraints so far as small business is concerned.The government's taxation reform agenda will sweep away the absurdity of the existing wholesale sales tax system, which contains five—in some cases seven—rates of indirect taxation and is a source of constant concern to small businesses throughout Australia. Of course, in asking the question, the Leader of the Opposition has completely overlooked the introduction of the new pay-as-you-go taxation system which will be of enormous benefit to small businesses in Australia. It will dramatically simplify the payment of taxation. It will dramatically consolidate on to one form the various remittances that small business has to make.In looking at the overall impact of the taxation package on small business, Mr Speaker, you have to bear in mind that, in opposing this package, the Labor Party is opposing the removal of an enormous amount of red tape on small business, particularly in relation to taxation remittances.Of course, the Leader of the Opposition also overlooks the fact that a very large number of small businesses in Australia are not incorporated and are still sole traders or partnerships. He completely overlooks the fact that one of the other very pleasing elements of the government's taxation reform package is our commitment to abolish altogether provisional taxation. Provisional taxation has been the bane of the existence of farmers and of many small traders not only in country towns but also in the suburbs of Australia. Once again, in asking this question, the Labor Party demonstrates how completely and utterly out of touch it is with the needs and the aspirations of small business. As to the last part of the question—did I agree with what the Victorian Premier said?—no, I did not.74497449Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, are you aware of claims which have been made that abolishing junior rates of pay will have no effect on youth unemployment? Would you advise the House what effects the abolition of junior wages would have on youth employment levels, particularly in sectors such as the retail sector?7449Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for his question. Our concern in this issue from the very start has been the fact that, in our opinion, if you abolish junior wage rates, a lot of young people are going to lose their jobs. Through the inquiry process conducted by the commission, they have in an independent and impartial way attempted to weigh up the various competing claims as to the job impact of the removal of junior wage rates. The ACTU in the commission's inquiry attempted to downplay—to suggest that the job impacts were minimal, if not non-existent. When I say that that was the ACTU's position, you will appreciate that basically that has been the Labor Party's position through this debate all along.The commission went to great pains to look at the evidence. They invited, for example, the ACTU to contradict the evidence, to rebut it and to put different evidence on this particular issue. This is the conclusion in the commission's report. On page 165, it says:. . . an effective removal and non-replacement of the existing discounts for age against adult wages will involve relative adjustments of a dimension that will result in significant dis-employing effects for the class of employees now in receipt of junior rates, or . . . to be in receipt of the substituted pay rates . . . It could not be clearer. There will be a lot of job losses if we abolish junior wage rates. You mention the retail industry. There are a lot of young people employed in the retail industry. They put evidence to the commission which was not rebutted that something like 160,000 or 170,000 young people's jobs would be lost if we abolished junior wage rates.We have had an independent process to test it. The support which the commission provides now is for this simple proposition: it will cost a lot of jobs. We have also been making the point that if you had junior rates in some industries where they are not now available, then that would further provide opportunities that are currently not available. In other words, this is about not just protecting jobs but creating jobs. The commission examined this issue very carefully and said this in the summary of the document:Well designed junior rate classifications, framed to reduce capacity to exploit the use of them, may justifiably be used for creating or protecting employment opportunities for young employees.So here we have the umpire saying that it is not just about protecting jobs, it is also about creating jobs. The Labor Party lined themselves up with the shoppies, who were proposing a cut-off age of 18. Of course, the proposition with the shoppies proposal was there would be no job losses for people between the ages of 18 and 21. The commission did a thorough job on that proposition as well. This is what it said on page 170:Consequently for most 18 year olds and above, the application of full adult rates would cause an overvaluation of the work performed and be expected to reduce the employment prospects of the 18 to 20 years old age group.This report is absolutely clear and unequivocal: if you abolish junior rates, a lot of young people going to lose their jobs; if you have junior rates, you will be able to create jobs. The proposition which has been supported publicly by the Leader of the Opposition will mean the loss of jobs for people in that age bracket. This is the clearest, most unequivocal statement you could get from an umpire. It is further unbiased and impartial evidence supporting the simple proposition that the Labor Party should abandon its political posturing and its alignment with the ACTU on this issue and it should line up with the government and, more importantly, with young people and their prospects of having a job in the future.Distinguished Visitors745010000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I have just recognised in the gallery Professor Harry Edwards, former member for Berowra. I would like on behalf of the House to extend a welcome to him.UNKNOWNHonourable membersHonourable members—Hear, hear!Questions Without Notice745074507450Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—Harry was almost a permanent member of the opposition frontbench. You were a bit hard on him—what a great bloke—and most unjustifiably so. My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, do you recall the Treasurer confirming in the parliament on 7 June this year that the government is proceeding to implement the proposal announced in ANTS to tax trusts as companies? Are you aware that the Deputy Prime Minister advised his party room the night before this year's budget, `We'll kill this in cabinet'? Given this, will you now confirm, once and for all, that the government is proceeding to implement the proposal to tax trusts as companies? Or is this proposal still open to be killed by the lobbying efforts of Mr Tim Fischer or your cabinet secretary, Senator Heffernan?7451Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I, of course, cannot speak for the National Party party room. I occasionally have the pleasure of visiting the National Party party room at their invitation on social occasions, but I have thus far not been to any of their regular party meetings. But they, of course, attend ours. I have no idea what is said, but I can assure you that the resolution of the government to stamp out tax avoidance is evidenced in the proposals in ANTS and is also evidenced by other proposals that we have put through the parliament, which you opposed. But that resolution remains undiminished.74517451Hull, Kay, MPMrs HULL83ORiverinaNP10—My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade. Can the minister inform the House of any recent developments in Australia's vigorous campaigns to counter the threat of protection against our exports of prime lamb to the United States?7451Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNP10—This is one of the important issues which goes to the future of Australia's trade policy. I am pleased to update the House with a very interesting development in the House Agriculture Committee of the United States Congress this week when Congressman Dooley—Democrat, California—made an intervention which I think both sides of the House will be interested in. In hearings, Dooley made a statement which was in strong support of the proposal that had been made by Australia and New Zealand which avoided the need for trade barriers. He said that it was wrong for the United States to be challenging `our friends and allies, Australia and New Zealand' on the lamb issue. This man is a Democrat congressman from California. This represents further steps forward.DT4CREANMr Crean—Oh, this is a big point!DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—I am sorry that you mock this matter. I see the member for Dickson smiling. It really is a shame that they are light-hearted about this serious issue. I think I prefer the DPCK, the Democrats post-Cheryl Kernot. The ALPWCK—the ALP with Cheryl Kernot—is going nowhere.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Minister for Trade will come to the question.DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—I want to come back—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Come on; get on with it!DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—I want to just remind the House that I thought you were in bipartisan support of the stand we have made on behalf of the US lamb industry.XW4KERNOTMs Kernot—But you are getting personal. There is no need for that.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Prime Minister will resume his seat. The member for Dickson, the Deputy Prime Minister has the call.DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—This is an important issue. I further advise the House that yesterday I made further contact with Cheryl—Charlene Barchevsky, the US trade representative.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The House will come to order.DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—It's a long time since any of you went out to a lamb industry rally. Further, today I meet with Richard Fischer, Ambassador, deputy US trade representative—if you do not know. I did so here, in the annex to the cabinet room, to make the points that count on behalf of the Australian lamb industry.Opposition members interjecting—DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—Can you treat this as a serious issue?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members on my left will come to order.DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—We are pushing ahead in a range of directions. The meeting with the US Ambassador, Richard Fischer, visiting Australia at this time was a very constructive meeting; it was one, however, in which he advised that there is still no final decision in relation to the matter which is now before the President for decision—and we are now beyond the deadline of 60 days, which relates to that particular decision.I emphasise to the House in absolute terms that the Australian government remains opposed to any barriers being created to the Australian legitimate lamb exports and the New Zealand lamb exports to the United States of America. I emphasise to the House that that was a market won fairly, without subsidised production; it has been carved out by the dint of hard work by our lamb exporters who put many millions of dollars into finetuning their product so that they could win a share in that market.I emphasise further the point of Congressman Dooley that, in fact, what we are offering is the ability of the US producers to grow the market and create a win-win-win situation. In these closing deliberations by the US administration, I would strongly urge that they consider again the package which we have offered to help facilitate a win-win-win outcome. Once again Australia stands ready, as I said at Harden a fortnight ago, to take this matter to the WTO, if the need arises in the light of President Clinton's decision.74527452Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Can the minister advise the House what effect the collapse of negotiations between the government and the AMA about new payments for general practitioners will have on the budget of his department? Will the payments to general practitioners in the 1999 budget for coordinated care planning, multi-disciplinary case conferencing, voluntary assessments for the over-75s and retention payments for rural GPs still proceed without the agreement with GPs being signed? How will the $297 million in net savings—after making the incentive payments to doctors in pathology and pharmaceutical expenditure—be achieved without the cooperation of general practitioners? Is it not the case that the health budget is now in a shambles as a direct result of your inability to negotiate an agreement?Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister has the call.7452Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—That question really just shows how little about health the shadow minister understands. The first question is: what effect will it have on the agreement? It is hard to say as it only happened last night, but my gut feeling is none. The second question is: what effect will it have on the budget if there is not an agreement? The answer is that the government will save money, it will not cost money, because the GP agreement is a net cost to the budget and, if the agreement does not go ahead, money will be returned to consolidated revenue.Ms Macklin interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Jagajaga!8E4Dr WOOLDRIDGE—So the shadow minister is 180 degrees wrong, as she usually is. I told her this yesterday in the Main Committee, and she was yapping on there like she is yapping on now. If you had listened, you might have learned something.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will resume his seat. Has the minister completed his answer?8E4Dr WOOLDRIDGE—No, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister has the call.YU5TANNERMr Tanner—You can count to 10.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Melbourne is warned.Ms Macklin interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Jagajaga is warned as well.8E4Dr WOOLDRIDGE—The shadow minister asked about the pathology agreement and the agreement on pharmaceuticals. Again these were explained to her yesterday; clearly she was not listening as she is completely incorrect on both of them. The first is that the so-called savings in pathology are by an agreement with pathologists, not with general practitioners. So it is irrelevant whether there is an agreement with GPs or not. That is a very fundamental point that she clearly does not understand. And with pharmaceuticals, the savings there would probably not be achieved but lesser savings would. But the only reason they would not be achieved is if you did not have an agreement and then net savings would go back to the budget because you would not have to pay the GPs extra money.74537453St Clair, Stuart, MPMr St CLAIR84BNew EnglandNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Can the minister outline the benefits of the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme and enhancements to the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme, particularly for primary producers and people in country areas, such as my electorate of New England, who are so heavily reliant on transportation?7453Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for New England for his question. He has had a very real and long-lasting experience with the trucking industry in this country and understands that it provides the economic lifeblood or the veins and the arteries through which our economic lifeblood in rural and regional Australia flows. He is rather like the member for Eden-Monaro, who I note yesterday made the comment that Eden-Monaro, being an electorate that earns much of its income through rural industries—including wool, beef, fishing, dairy and forestry—will benefit enormously as a result of these reforms. The raw figures reflect that. There will be an estimated $1 billion slashing of road transport costs. Rail transport will be down by $160 million. All businesses will save at least 7c a litre on their diesel and petrol. We are looking at a $30 million a year upgrading program for the nation's bridges.As the member for New England would well know because of his familiarity with these issues, that will allow the more efficient loading of our trucks. There will be an estimated $840 million annual boost to gross domestic product as a result of that reform. That is worth having because economic growth equals jobs, and we need jobs in rural and regional areas. All diesel used for off-road purposes by primary producers will be excise free. Miners will get full credits for diesel fuel used off-road. Marine users, ferry users, charter boats, bush hospitals and nursing homes will all get the full benefits as well.The interesting point in all of this is that, to their credit, the Democrats were able to say to us during negotiations that they are not against growth. They are in favour of growth because that is where jobs come from. Unfor tunately, that cannot be said for those opposite who have consistently fought against the things that this government has done to recharge the economy. Now we have the member for Dickson speaking here as usual and also speaking out in the broader arena against the cutting of transport costs by billions of dollars a year.XW4KERNOTMs Kernot—I did not.4K4Mr ANDERSON—Do you know what she said yesterday in a press statement? I commend it to everyone in this place. It is a collectors item because, apart from anything else, it reflects not only the fact that the opposition is against a reduction in transport costs but also the fact that it does not understand that the transport task in a country like Australia grows not as a result of cheaper fuel but as a result of economic growth. That is why the transport task increases. This press statement says that what we have done is to give a multi-billion dollar boost to pollution.XW4KERNOTMs Kernot—Unfortunately you have.4K4Mr ANDERSON—Not a reduction in the cost of transport but a multi-billion dollar boost to pollution. It says that the scheme will deliver a multi-billion dollar pollution boost over the next three years. That is what it actually says.XW4KERNOTMs Kernot—It is the truth.DG4FISCHERMr Tim Fischer—It is not.4K4Mr ANDERSON—Then she says it is the truth. The reality is that the Bureau of Transport Economics, the BTE, says that in totality our package reduces pollution. Despite the fact that we will have a doubling of the transport task over the next 20 years or so, by the year 2015 not only will we produce all of the economic benefits of the tax changes and fuel it along the way by slashing transport costs but also we will deliver cleaner air in our cities. It is not a pollution boost; it is a win all around. It needs to be simply stated again that here is a press release which clearly shows that the opposition is against these valuable reforms. It is a collectors item, and I commend it to everyone.74547454Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Are you aware that the Entsch defence documentation which you delivered to me three minutes before question time yesterday contains a number of inconsistencies? What steps have you taken to satisfy yourself of the accuracy and completeness of the contents of the Entsch defence? Have you sought any further information from the parliamentary secretary on the issue? Do you stand by everything contained in the documentation which you tabled yesterday?7454Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has any fresh allegation to make, do so.74547454Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Is the minister aware of material being circulated by the Queensland Teachers Union, and what is the minister's response to this material? Is he aware of any other statements on school funding, and what is his response?7454Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the member for Petrie for her question. I am aware of claims being circulated by the Queensland Teachers Union as part of a vicious and divisive campaign in that state. This campaign is designed to mislead parents in Queensland about the Commonwealth's funding policies for government and non-government schools. I would assume that the disinformation will shortly be issued as a press release by the member for Dobell, so I felt it was desirable to inform members of this House about the facts of government and non-government school funding in the state of Queensland.Queensland government schools have done very well under the Howard government. Since 1996, government schools in Queensland have received nearly $65 million in additional funding from the Commonwealth government, a 24 per cent increase over the Labor Party's funding in that state. Today I want to correct a couple of selected highlights from this disinformation pack from the Queensland Teachers Union. Perhaps the most extraordinary claim that is being put around by the union is that some non-government schools are already receiving the same amount per student from the government as government schools. This is utterly false. When all sources of public funding are taken into account, Commonwealth and state governments spend on average $5,600 on a government school student, whereas the same figure on average for non-government school students is $3,500. For schools serving wealthier communities, the figure can be as low as $1,500 per student. The Queensland Catholic Education Commission, I am pleased to say, has entered the debate to set the record straight in relation to Catholic parish schools in that state. It has pointed out that, according to official Queensland figures, government schools in that state are receiving some $6,600; whereas when you total all income from parents and governments, parish schools have total resources of only $6,000 per student, significantly lower than the resources that are going to government school students.Yet the Queensland Teachers Union is out there telling parents that non-government schools are receiving more than government schools in that state. It is a disgraceful campaign. As Alan Druery of the Queensland Catholic Education Commission says, `The Queensland Teachers Union's criticism was unfair and pitting Queenslander against Queenslander.' This is a divisive campaign. This government's policies are designed to open opportunities for all young Australians. The member for Makin handed me a letter yesterday from the principal of Prescott Primary School, which is in her electorate. The letter states:Your government is to be commended for its commitment to principle and for delivering outcomes that enhance the choice of working-class families. Specifically, we wish to acknowledge your commitment towards the delivery of greater fairness and equity in funding for non-government sector and for working-class families in particular.This government's funding policies for schools are all about equity. The Labor Party and its fellow travellers in the trade union movement, the Queensland Teachers Union, are all about division, distortion and negativ ism, with nothing positive to say to advance educational equity in this country.74557455Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—Again my question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, are you aware that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources said in his letter of defence to you yesterday, which you have tabled and adopted, `There is no East Trinity development proposal'? Prime Minister, are you aware that there are, in fact, at least two development proposals for the controversial NatWest site at East Trinity and that one was billed on the front page of the Cairns Post as a new city and referred to as `the massive East Trinity project'? Are you also aware that there is a draft development control plan for the area? Prime Minister, your parliamentary secretary has misled you, he has misled the House and he has misled the Australian public. When will you sack him?7455Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—It is my custom when the Deputy Leader of the Opposition asks me questions of this kind to say that I will analyse the question, because often analysis goes very much to the heart of the veracity of the claims.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—What about this headline? How do you answer that?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the Manager of Opposition Business.ZD4Mr HOWARD—But even if you were to accept the claims made and the matters canvassed by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, they hardly go to substantiate the allegations of misbehaviour which have been levelled against the parliamentary secretary. The question of whether there is a development application in relation to a particular piece of land is, as I understand the local government practices of Australia, a matter of public record. Therefore, it is something that ought to be easily capable of resolution. But, as I did with his earlier question, I will analyse what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has put to me. I have no intention of doing more than that.74557455May, Margaret, MPMs MAY83BMcPhersonLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. Is it true, Minister, that the Australian government has effectively prevented an illegal smuggling racket from bringing over 100 people into Australia? Minister, how was this achieved?7455Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—I thank the honourable member for her question and her obvious interest in this important issue. I can confirm that 104 people were being gathered illegally in West Timor at Kupang for travel to Australia. We were advised by an Australian businessman of what was occurring, we engaged in discussions with the Indonesian government in relation to the matter and yesterday officers from the Australian embassy in Jakarta went to Kupang. There, with the assistance of local police, they interviewed the 104 people about their intentions. We were told they were intending to travel by Merpati Airlines to Darwin and that they had been provided with false references to obtain visas as part of the Northern Territory Expo to be held on 11, 12 and 13 July. They were expecting to receive visas. They had paid between $2,000 and $6,000 each to the organisers. Many had put up their life savings. They were told they would be guaranteed work in Australia for at least a year, earning between $15 and $20 an hour.Of course, they were properly informed by officers of my department that their efforts in relation to these matters were futile, that the actions of the organisers were unlawful and that they had been tricked and lied to by unscrupulous people-traffickers. It was obviously a very elaborate scheme, one which involved very significant financial rewards for those involved.It is important that we are able to deal with these matters effectively. What this demonstrates is that the placement of additional staff overseas in last year's budget has been very helpful in giving us effective intelligence information. Obviously there needs to be further efforts in relation to those matters. But if I can put it in the kindest way, it is also important that the urgency with which the issue of further enhancing the penalties for those involved in people smuggling is before us. The activities of those who are involved are significant. The penalties at the moment, which have been in place for a long period of time, are certainly not sufficient to discourage people from these heinous acts. If we can get that legislation in place as quickly as possible I think it would be to the benefit of the nation.74567456Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—Again, my question is to the Prime Minister. Have you seen today's report in the Sydney Morning Herald in which the head of CSIRO, Dr McIntosh, had no problems with the comments of Dr Rob Fitzpatrick that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources had publicly `misconstrued' the CSIRO report, and that the CSIRO was `hurried along' by Mr Entsch to release that report? Given that the Prime Minister is already aware that the parliamentary secretary used the report to promote the NatWest development and that he used his ministerial office in that role, isn't this a clear conflict of interest? And hasn't he misled you over the existence of the development proposals for the NatWest site? Why won't you sack him now?7456Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I have seen that story in the Sydney Morning Herald . Given the track record of that newspaper in relation to this particular matter, I am not disposed to believe it.DT4CREANMr Crean—Oh, you're not!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition!ZD4Mr HOWARD—I say that very deliberately. It is a track record in relation to reporting of this matter stretching back to when it was first raised in the parliament when the frontpage lead story on this item—UK6THOMSONMr Kelvin Thomson—Why did you put the pressure on the CSIRO?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Wills is warned!ZD4Mr HOWARD—can refer to a legal opinion tabled by the Leader of the Opposition, can have a whole front-page story reporting the debate over the application of section 44 of the Constitution, yet utterly fail to report the fact that the government received advice on the constitutional position from none other than the Acting Solicitor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia.This goes very directly to the question asked by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. He asked me whether I had seen the Sydney Morning Herald report. I have seen it. He then asked me whether I accepted it and I am explaining why on first blush I do not. I have given him some good field evidence in relation to this very issue which would lead anybody prudent not to take much notice without further inquiry.I will go further, Mr Speaker. The question relates, as does the Sydney Morning Herald article, to the attitude of the head of the CSIRO, Mr Malcolm McIntosh. It happens that Mr Malcolm McIntosh wrote to the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources. Can I say that Malcolm McIntosh is one of the most respected senior public servants in this country. Malcolm McIntosh has not only served with great distinction as the head of CSIRO but also sat on a number of government inquiries, including the Defence Efficiency Review. He has also served the government on the Supermarket to Asia Council and also the Prime Minister's Science, Engineering and Innovation Council.Relevantly, he wrote to the minister on 23 June. I want to read carefully what his letter said, and it goes very directly to the question asked of me by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. He said, inter alia:The letter was dealt with—and that is the letter that Mr Whitney wrote to Mr Entsch—in the normal way by sending it to the CSIRO for a draft response. At no time—I repeat, at no time—did Mr Entsch or his office contact us about the content of the reply. The draft letter from Mr Entsch to Mr Whitney was delivered to Mr Entsch's office on 31 March 1999. We also provided an executive summary of CSIRO's work to be sent to Mr Whitney with the letter which noted that CSIRO was writing up the research as a formal report but that it had not yet been peer reviewed, part of our internal quality control.DT4CREANMr Crean—Read the next paragraph.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition!ZD4Mr HOWARD—I am going to read the next paragraph. It says:Following the delivery of the letter and summary Mr . . . Zagar contacted CSIRO about the timing of the report's publication.DT4CREANMr Crean—And it goes on—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is now warned!ZD4Mr HOWARD—It says:Neither Mr Zagar nor Mr Entsch made an attempt at any stage to influence the final report or its findings. Mr Zagar was, however, keen that the report be available for a meeting of the East Trinity Ratepayers' Association on about 21 March 1999 and asked if CSIRO could attempt to finish the final report by then and make it available to the meeting.What a shocking thing to do! What an outrageous abuse of office! I am ashamed that he should have done such a thing! To have used his public office to get something out of the bureaucracy to take to a meeting of his constituents—shame on you, Warren! You must never do that again! It is an absolutely shocking thing for you to do!So in answer to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, yes, I have seen the report in the Sydney Morning Herald. I prefer the words of Malcolm McIntosh contained in his letter to the minister than the interpretation placed on the behaviour of people by the Sydney Morning Herald in relation to this particular issue. I am encouraged to say that by the track record of bias of the Sydney Morning Herald in reporting this particular issue. I make no apology whatever for saying that. I believe that particular newspaper's reporting of this particular issue—at this stage I do not make this as a general observation but in relation to this particular issue—has lacked balance and has been totally biased.The worst example was its total failure to include in its lead story any reference to the advice of the Acting Solicitor-General. How on earth a newspaper of record can give a report on a matter as serious as a claimed breach of the Constitution without reporting that the government of the day had received advice from the Acting Solicitor-General that there was no breach utterly and completely escapes me.74577457Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, as you would be aware, it has been suggested that junior rates of pay are discriminatory. Would you advise the House of any feasible non-discriminatory alternatives which could be implemented in place of junior rates of pay?7457Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for Herbert for his question—5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I refer to the anticipation rule. We have had two questions about this matter already today and we have let it go, but this is the third on a matter which is on the Notice Paper for debate this afternoon.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Manager of Opposition Business draws my attention to the anticipation rule. The reason I would suggest that the rule has not thus far been invoked is that the minister in his last two replies, because I have of course been conscious of it, has not in fact moved into the question of the legislation. It is not only a matter of the legislation but also a matter of the report that was tabled this morning. I am alert to any movement of the answer into the areas covered by legislation. That has not as yet occurred. For that reason, I have not moved the minister out of order.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, I just want to clarify my point of order. I was actually referring in this instance to the question being out of order. I accept that in the past the minister has been trying to avoid the answer. But, in my view, in this instance, unlike the other two, this question is out of order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I thank the Manager of Opposition Business. Obviously I was, as you would expect, alert to the question as well. The question focused on indicating alternatives to what the minister was proposing. For that reason, the question was in order because the alternatives presumably will not be covered by the legislation.WI4Mr REITH—One of the central aspects of this whole debate about the existing system of junior wage rates is whether or not there was some feasible, practical alternative which was non-discriminatory. The whole thrust of the opposition's campaign against junior wage rates was to raise the prospect of, `Don't worry. When we get rid of junior wage rates, there will be a practical alternative.' It was part of the terms of reference, in fact a sort of primary question, for the Industrial Relations Commission to answer that basic question—namely, is there an alternative? The commission spent a lot of time looking at it, and I refer members to paragraph 2 of the report where the full bench said:The essence of our report is that none of the identified non-discriminatory alternatives most closely examined by us were feasible.That is an absolutely critical finding.One of the good things about this commission inquiry was that it did give everybody a chance to put up an alternative. This question of whether there is an alternative has been debated now for about 10 years. For years and years and years, no-one came up with an alternative, but the opposition have claimed that there really was one and all you needed to do was ask the commission what it was. The commission examined proposals from the CFMEU, from the shoppies union, from the ACTU and from other parties and came to the conclusion that the existing system was a clear, simple to administer system. The commission basically supported its continuation in all that it said, in particular in coming to that conclusion.The Labor Party have sought to use this commission inquiry and the process as a blind to not themselves have a policy on this issue, even though we know their basic proposition has been to get rid of the junior wage rates system that we have today—in fact, they themselves created the problem back in 1993. The incredible thing is that they created the problem, the parliament set up an inquiry to see what the solutions would be and they are now still opposed to the only solution to the problem—namely, the passage of the legisla tion which the government has before the parliament. The Leader of the Opposition said—5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We appreciate your tolerance, but the House of Representatives Practice does say that, during question time, ministers cannot canvass legislation. That was what he was doing then; explicitly saying attitudes to do with the legislation which is being debated this afternoon.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. I concur that the minister was straying into the area of legislation. I was in fact, as the Manager of Opposition Business would have noticed, answering a question from the member for Dickson and for that reason did not intervene. I call the minister.WI4Mr REITH—In September the shadow minister said, `We do support wage differentials based on competency.' I think most people would say, `That sounds like a reasonable thing,' so the commission had a close examination of that particular issue. Paragraph 7 of its summary said:Competency based classification of entry level juniors is difficult, a low priority and not even the best option.The unions all put up their alternatives, and none was found to be practical or feasible. The opposition supported the shoppies position; that got knocked out. The Leader of the Opposition put up his in principle competency based approach; that was looked at by the commission, and that was knocked out.Opposition members interjecting—WI4Mr REITH—They examined that issue as well. Don't you understand? You supported the report; you supported the inquiry process. They have pulled the rug out from beneath your feet. You have been blown away by this process.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—Read the rest of it!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Brisbane has been warned.WI4Mr REITH—You have no policy position whatsoever, and you do not have the decency on behalf of young people to stand up and say, `Okay. We now will accept the report, we will provide security for the jobs you have got, and we will let this legislation go through.' Oh, no: you are chuffed that young people will have their jobs thrown away on the ideology of the ACTU and the Labor Party.DT4CREANMr Crean—There he goes again!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order!WI4Mr REITH—I accept your point, Mr Speaker. Whilst the government has policies and we are getting on with implementing those policies, what do we have from the opposition? Nothing other than mudslinging, down in the gutter, attacking people over triviality. Whilst that is going on, we have the members for Batman, Barton and Dickson all being directors or shareholders of public companies without making the appropriate declarations to parliament. Your hypocrisy is incredible!The member for Batman is a shareholder in ACTU Building Pty Ltd. In over three years, he has never disclosed his role with this ACTU investment company. For nearly eight months after being elected in 1996, the member for Barton was a director and, in all probability, a shareholder of two companies linked to Turner Freeman Solicitors. He never declared it, and he has been a chief accuser. He has been attacking the member for Leichhardt.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will resume his seat. The minister will bring his remarks back to the question he was asked, which was about alternative policies in terms of wage rates. I fail to see the relationship between the reference he was making and the question.WI4Mr REITH—There is a reference, Mr Speaker. That is, the government has a policy position on junior rates to protect young jobs, and all we have is hypocrisy from the other side, including from the member for Dickson who has also been in breach.The reality is that the report of the commission is now out. Your cover is gone. It is time we had a policy. It is about time for once in your life you stood up and had a policy. I say that the young people of this country deserve a statement of policy from the Labor Party.Business7459745915:22:007459Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I therefore move:That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business and the Leader of the Opposition, and 2 other speakers, from immediately making a statement, for a period not exceeding 10 minutes each, outlining to the House their party's policies relating to junior wages as well as their commitment to accepting the recommendations of the inquiry by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission on junior rates.That is our motion. Time for you to put up or shut up.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—To the motion: we will support it provided it is a full debate and a debate on the issues.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.Mr Beazley interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat or leave the chamber. The question is that the motion be agreed to.15:23:007459Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—I move an amendment, Mr Speaker. I move:That the motion be amended:(1) by omitting "10 minutes" and substituting "normal debating times"; and(2) by removing the limitation on the number of speakers.Let's get into it.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Deakin is warned. I will not tolerate that sort of childish behaviour from members on either side of the House. There is a matter for debate in the parliament. I have an amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition. Is the amendment seconded?DT4CREANMr Crean—I second it, and this gutless mob over here should pick it up.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.VU5GRIFFINMr Griffin—Bring it on! Come on!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Bruce is warned.WI4REITHMr Reith—The government will be delighted to spend as much time debating young people and their job prospects as is available for the balance of this afternoon. It is about time, and I am pleased, that we are going to have a policy statement from you in respect of young people and their jobs.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The question now is—Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Having already made my position perfectly clear in the House, I now issue a general warning and I will not hesitate to interrupt the debate to ensure that anyone in this House is appropriately warned or named under standing order 304A or 303—anyone. The question before the House is that the amendment be agreed to. All those of that opinion say aye, the contrary no—Honourable members interjecting—XW4KERNOTMs Kernot—Ah! Got you!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Dickson will excuse herself from the House under the provisions of standing order 304A.The honourable member for Dickson thereupon withdrew from the chamber.Amendment agreed to.Motion, as amended, agreed to, with an absolute majority.Business746010000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I call the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, and I remind all members of the general warning.15:26:007460Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—There could be no more important issue for this parliament to debate—JT4BAILEYMs Bailey—They're moving! Look at this!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for McEwen will leave the House under the provisions of standinng order 304A.The honourable member for McEwen thereupon withdrew from the chamber.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—The opposition leaves the chamber today in droves when the parliament now has an opportunity to discuss something that really is important—that is, of course, the job prospects of young people. In this political divide, this side of the House, the coalition government, stands for doing all that can be done to protect the jobs of young people and for creating job opportunities for young people. In the three years that we have been in, we have demonstrated that good policy provides jobs for people, whether they are young, old or otherwise. Over 400,000 jobs have been created since March 1996. Today we have the lowest level of unemployment that Australia has had for eight or nine years.But that is clearly not enough, because the rate of unemployment for young people is far too high. In the words of the commission's report, the state of the employment market for young people is a parlous one. That is a very important statement for the House to focus on because it demonstrates and reinforces the simple point that we have long made—that is, that whilst the reforms we have introduced have already helped to provide a climate to create jobs we need to do more by way of reform so that more jobs will be created in the future.The labour market is but one aspect of this whole issue, a critically important aspect it is however. In terms of the government's policy, we are pro-small business. Why? Because if small business is going well it will create jobs. We are in favour of reforming the tax system. Why? Because if you have a better tax system you lower the costs on business and you create greater incentives for people to work, and that creates an employment framework within which jobs can be created. We are in favour of and have introduced one of the great reforms of the first Howard government—namely, Job Network—because it helps people get into jobs. It helps with the identification of job vacancies and then filling those vacancies. Job Network has created 50 per cent more jobs filled than the old government monopoly, the CES system.We are in favour of supporting small business not just in tax but in reducing their red tape. There have been a lot of questions about compliance costs for small business. But in our tax package we are doing something which the small business sector has asked for, called for and demanded for years and years and years to reduce red tape—namely, to establish a new simplified administration for tax compliance. We are doing that in our tax policy so that in future small businesses will have to spend less time on tax compliance and more time running their businesses and creating jobs. That is an integrated approach.We have cut government spending in key areas. Why? Because we inherited a budget deficit of $10.3 billion. By getting into a situation of a balanced budget, we have taken the pressure off interest rates and that has reduced costs for business. Why is that good? That is good because they have more money in their pockets and they can spend that money on employing people, growing their business, and that is good for their customers, too. With house mortgage rates down by $330 a month, they have more money in their pockets. That is more buying power. That is good for our businesses and that means more jobs. Wherever you look in the government's panoply of policies we are working at, driving at, creating a system that will see more jobs.When we came into office in March 1996 we inherited a problem that was established by the previous Labor government back in 1993. That was a provision in the industrial laws of this country that would see the end of junior wage rates in 1997. If you abolished junior wage rates overnight, that would be a disaster for young people. We really need to focus on the extent of the catastrophe that that would be. There are about 400,000 young people—namely, people under 21—who are employed on junior wage rates in the system. It is a good system. Gee, it is a good system. There would be a lot of people in this chamber today listening to these proceedings who got their first job as a junior and it gave them a chance to put their foot on the first step of the ladder. Okay, they might have got only 50 per cent or 60 per cent of the adult rate, but it was a job—it was a chance to show what they could do, it was a chance to get some experience, to mature. One of my colleagues the member for Cowper has his hand up.Junior wage rates is a system we have had for a long time. It is a good system and we would be crazy to get rid of it. About 400,000 young people are employed under that system today. The figures show that if you abolish junior wage rates then something like 160,000 or 170,000 out of 400,000 jobs—so that is nearly half of the jobs for young people—would be lost. For the economy as a whole, it would actually mean fewer jobs as well because for every two young people who lose a job then in some businesses one adult might keep a job or be employed in the future. So there would be a mass loss of jobs throughout the economy, but young people would bear the brunt of the abolition of junior wage rates.We inherited a system from Labor that would have seen the end of those junior wage rates in June 1997. We said to the Democrats, `We ought to just legislate to keep the system.' They said, `No, no.' They were concerned about discrimination on the grounds of age and they persuaded us to hold a commission inquiry into the whole issue. We said, `Fair enough, but the report should focus on the disemploying effects of the abolition of junior wage rates.' We were prepared to go along with the report, but it was on the condition that the abolition of junior wage rates would be deferred for three years. That is how we have got to where we are today.We established the inquiry through amendments to the Workplace Relations Act, and the Industrial Relations Commission have gone off, brought all the parties together, called publicly for submissions and sat down over a six- to nine-month period and examined every last aspect of this issue. I pay tribute to the commission for the professionalism and the comprehensive nature of their report. They have looked at absolutely everything that has been discussed on this issue for years. It is not a new issue.The trade union movement and the Labor Party are basically opposed to junior rates. The unions' idea of a job is a full-time job basically for an adult and usually for a male. That is basically how the system has been constructed. The world has changed. There are a lot more women who want to be in the work force, so we have been making changes to make it more flexible so they can have a job that particularly allows them to balance work and family responsibilities. As time goes on, the blokes will take, and are taking, more family responsibilities. So we need a system that helps them as well—not just the mums but also the dads—in balancing work and family responsibilities. The world has changed, but the system of junior wage rates has continued to provide a very useful opportunity for young people to have a job. The commission took submissions from a wide range of parties and looked at each of the issues.The government have been mounting the case. In fact, we took our policy position to the people in the 1998 election. Back in 1996 we did not know when the next election was. We still were of the view that we should keep age based junior rates and we said to the Democrats, `We are happy to set up this process of report. But understand that we have a policy and we are not budging from our policy because it is too important for young people.' So in the 1998 election we had an absolutely clear, unambiguous policy: if we were elected, we would keep age based junior rates.So we introduced that legislation, and then we were attacked by the Labor Party for trying to implement a policy that we took to the last election. They attacked us on the basis that we should await the commission's report. Well, we now have the commission's report, and when you go through each and every element of the commission's report it comprehensively supports virtually every aspect of what we put to the commission and which we have argued in this place and publicly. I just want to run through the principal elements and refer you to the actual specifics in the commission report that substantiate these particular propositions. These are the conclusions of the commission. Firstly, they say:There is an indisputable relationship between junior rates, their potential abolition and the employment prospects of young people. I refer you to pages 157 and 165 and others if you would like the detail. That should not be an extraordinary proposition, but it is one that the Labor Party has basically been opposing—certainly the ACTU has. It is a commonsense conclusion for the commission to come to. If you get rid of junior wage rates, there will be job losses. Secondly, they say:A discounted pay rate for entry level work continues to be necessary in the areas in which employment under junior rate classifications is most concentrated and that well-designed junior rate classifications may even create or protect employment opportunities including in the building and construction industries.This is, again, an absolutely critical point. It is not just about protecting jobs; we are trying to create jobs. For heaven's sake, we have a high youth unemployment rate: it is 23 per cent or 24 per cent—that is a level that is far too high. Everything we can do to create jobs we ought to. And here is the commission saying in their independent report that junior rate classifications can actually help young people get a job that they cannot get today. Thirdly, they say:The system of junior rates has been used as a wage reference for young people for decades. It is simple to understand and administer and has active employment under it.Those two centre points are very important: `it is simple to understand and administer'.In the labour market, if you are running a corner shop and you have to give somebody a job, you do not want to have to read a book to explain what the wage rate ought to be. It has to be a system that ordinary people can understand. The junior age base system is a system that people understand. It is pretty straightforward. It has been used, it is effective and we know it works. The commission makes that point. It is a pity the Labor Party still fails to understand that very simple point but a terribly commonsense one for anybody running a business, particularly a small business.They go on to say that none of the proposed alternatives to junior rates are feasible because they are either more complex, overvalue the work of employees, are themselves discriminatory or have considerable adverse cost effects. This conclusion by the commission is sweet irony, because the Labor Party is going around saying, `We want to get rid of these shocking, heinous, discriminatory provisions and we will set up an alternative that is non-discriminatory.' The Leader of the Opposition has been publicly signed up to the shoppies position, but the commission looked at what the shoppies were saying and found that it is actually discriminatory. In other words, the Labor Party is saying, `Get rid of junior rates because it is discriminatory and here is our alternative,' but now we know the alternative is discriminatory.What does that mean in practical terms? It is hard to know which is the Labor Party's policy but, taking the speech that he made not so long ago on this issue, for them to implement their policy they need our legislation because our legislation removes this anti-age discriminatory provision. You cannot have the shoppies position unless you support our legislation. Yet they voted against our legislation and he was chuffed about it. He boasted about the fact that they prevented our legislation passing the Senate and yet, to get to his policy, he has to have our legislation. This is just crazy. It is an absolute nonsense. This reduces the Labor Party to a laughing stock, which I think they fairly deserve.The commission then looked particularly at whether or not it would be a good idea to have adult rates at age 18 instead of 21. This is another part of the Labor Party's public position. They said that the removal of junior rates or the introduction of adult rates at 18 years would significantly disemploy young Australians, that is, lead to large scale job losses. The Labor Party has been arguing this proposition. It has been examined. It has been found to be wanting. It has been found to be job destroying. It cannot possibly continue to support that position, and when the Leader of the Opposition gets up today I would like him to now abandon the position which he put publicly not so long ago.They then go on to say that the current legislative scheme, unless amended by the parliament, amounts to a rebuttable presumption that junior rates be removed from June 2000. This is another key point. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to address this when he gets up because it goes to the heart of his position. The shadow minister has been going around this morning saying that it is a good report and they have done a fine job. That is something, I suppose. Then he says that the Labor Party's approach is a case-by-case approach.Mr Beazley interjecting—WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—Yes, the commission. That is what they said. Thank you for repeating it. Listen to my point and then see if you have a real answer, instead of just the clumsy, empty rhetoric that we usually hear from you. The point here is that the commission is saying that the legislation as it stands today establishes a presumption that junior rates will go. That is the basic legislative presumption. In fact, if we go to the detail in the commission's report on page 88 at paragraph 3.1.3, they say:Read together, the provisions of the Act approximate a scheme whereby provision for junior rates in awards is deemed prima facie discriminatory on grounds of age, and should not be made, or where made should be removed.That is the legislative position today.Mr Beazley interjecting—WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—I heard your confused meanderings this morning.Mr Bevis interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—It would be very inconvenient for the member for Brisbane to find himself outside the chamber for an hour.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—Why don't you just listen to a point for a change and see if you can actually answer it?Mr Beazley interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—And for the Leader of the Opposition.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—The point I am making is that you say that the issue ought to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. That is what we say. We say it should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis in the same way that the commission did all the way up until 1993. What paragraph 3.1.3 means is that the commission has its hands tied behind its back. When it looks at the issue on a case-by-case basis, it is constrained by the existing legislation uniformly across any industry when looking at the issue to accept the presumption against junior wage rates.That is the point. The commission cannot look at it on a case-by-case basis when there is a uniform presumption. That is the finding of the commission. That is the whole point, and what we are trying to do is remove that presumption. The test for you and the test for your leader is to stand up and say that you are happy to remove the presumption, because that is basically what we have been saying.We also say to the commission that they should look at the inclusion of age based junior rates in awards that do not have it. Why do we say that? Because the commission says this is a way of creating jobs, and I reckon that is fair enough. But the Labor Party's answer is, `No, this is telling the commission.' They ought to understand the constitutional position. We are not allowed to tell the commission what to do when it comes to making an award. They always have a discretion. That is the law of this country. That is the constitutional requirement which limits what the parliament can do.Our legislation simply says to the commission, `You have a discretion. We would like you to exercise that discretion where appropriate—namely, in the discretion of the commission—so as to provide job opportunities for young people.' This is hardly a major difficulty for the commission. The parliament has a view. Our view is that junior rates provide job opportunities for young people, and we say so in our legislation. That does not deny the commission its discretion. As I say, constitutionally we cannot deny their discretion.Mr Beazley interjecting—WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—Do you understand the Constitution? It is a fairly simple point. This is the slippery tactic that we get demonstrated here by the interjection. You have a simple national responsibility today to young people, and that is not to slip and slide—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will recognise the chair does not have a responsibility to anybody.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—The chair doesn't have a responsibility to anybody?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—No, in the context of the debate.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—He does have a responsibility, Mr Speaker, and that responsibility is not to slip and slide around this issue, as was just done with the interjection. He has to face up to the simple fact that, on each and every point that we put to the commission, they accepted what we said. The only way in which we can achieve a fair deal for young people in this country is through the support of the legislation that we have currently before the chamber.They also said that if young people are to secure entry level employment and progress to economic self-sufficiency through paid employment they more than ever need to be competitive in the labour market. The Leader of the Opposition ought to support that. They also said junior rates are often a useful bridge to full-time employment, especially for the educationally better qualified. When the Leader of the Opposition stands he should support that. Then the report goes on to say—it makes an obvious point, I suppose—that the government's submissions on the youth labour market and on the adverse consequences for young people of the abolition of junior rates have been broadly adopted and that similar conclusions by bodies such as the Productivity Commission are supported. Of course they are supported.The evidence on this is completely overwhelming. There is no alternative evidence to the propositions that have been put to the commission. They have spelled it out in black and white. That is another test for the Leader of the Opposition. Compare the test he now faces to the test Tony Blair faced. Tony Blair and the Labour government in the UK faced this issue. They got a recommendation for a junior wage rate so they accepted the basic proposition and, when the amount was put to them, they actually reduced the recommended amount because they were so worried about the job prospects of young people.The fact is that all the political posturing has now been revealed for what it was—empty rhetoric, bolstered by the ACTU. There is a real urgency in this matter. Employers employing young people today need to know what the rate will be next year. We have had far too much political posturing on this issue for years. The parliament asked for a report; the parliament has got a report. It is absolutely crystal clear. There is no slipping and sliding to be avoided. It is time that this parliament saw fit to do something for the benefit of young people and their job prospects. (Time expired)15:46:007465Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—I intend to rehearse this issue in precisely the same way as did the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. He started with a bit of history, went to the generality of his industrial relations position, concluded with an assessment of this particular report and invited us to consider his legislation. I intend to respond in precisely the same way. We heard him in silence, and I expect the same as far as my remarks are concerned.Let me first rehearse the history of this and the starting point response of this government. Until they were stupid enough to accept my amendment in the chamber here, they were of course going to introduce the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment) Bill 1998 during this afternoon. They will now not have the opportunity to introduce this bill—either that or they have reneged on the agreement to the amendment that we put forward—because this parliament is going to debate this motion for the rest of the afternoon.Mrs Crosio interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Prospect will excuse herself from the House under the provisions of standing order 304A.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—If you do not debate this motion for the rest of the afternoon you will have ratted on your agreements in this place, so we will be testing you on this. Well might we take vantage of this brief period for delay. Contrast this: those Oakdale miners that were out there during this week have a proposition seeking protection of the justly awarded conditions that they have lost and moneys that are due to them. These issues have been before the government for several years now with a promise for their consideration that is two years old. Have we seen anything? Not one word out of this government, apart from an undertaking for consultation. I will tell you this: if ever there is a proposition that defends workers' wages, if ever there is a proposition to use competency and skills to enhance workers' wages, if ever there is a proposition for workers to be able to defend themselves collectively and advance their interests collectively, this government will defend none of it.The minister says he stands shoulder to shoulder with the workers. Eighteen months ago he said that about people in a similar situation to those at Oakdale. Eighteen months on, it is a very weak shoulder for the workers to rely on. Contrast that delay—when we are actually dealing with decent terms and conditions for working men and women—with the government's performance on this: they get a report, a 330-page report, in the morning. They legislate on that report in the afternoon. This is the deliberation that the community is to be permitted on a 330-page report. I suppose what the minister would say in answer to that is, `Trust me.' This man has been identified as the least trustworthy of ministers in this government, and that is world best practice in untrustworthiness. The least trustworthy minister, courtesy of his last great foray into industrial relations—his utter defeat in the waterfront dispute. The MUA was finally obliged to take on his conspiracy and his manoeuvring to deprive them of their own legislated right—legislated by him—to choose to join a trade union. When it comes to slipping and sliding, this is a bloke who is prepared to conspire to overturn his own legislated arrangements. For him to come in here and challenge us on that particular front is a case of him using an old Stalinist technique, which some very old members of the Left will be very used to around this country: if you are guilty of something, immediately accuse your opponents of the offence and hope they stay on the backfoot and do not expose you. They might in this regard.Let us now look specifically at the history of this promise. Why was the Industrial Relations Commission considering this? They were considering this because the minister entered into an agreement with the Democrats. He entered into an agreement with the Democrats that he would not move on this issue until he had a report from the IRC. He reneged on that agreement, so this whole thing before us is a massive piece of slipperiness on his part. It is no wonder that, some months ago now, Senator Murray, the Democrat spokesman—given high accolades these days by our political opponents; the honourable people with whom they wish to enter into coalition—spoke about this. What did he say about it? He said:The rising shrillness of Peter Reith's doctoring of the truth adds to my growing lack of faith in any agreement or assurance entered into by this government.He should have reflected on that a couple of weeks ago when he started talking to the coalition about GST matters, because that quote is directly related to his experience in dealing with them on this youth wages issue. Then Senator Harradine said that it was now clear to him:One could not take at face value what this government has said. That is my experience now in respect of certain ministers of this government.The senator was referring to him. Senator Harradine said that the government's credibility was in tatters and it was a serious matter when at least half of the Senate did not take at face value what this government says.Again, related to all of this, a completely and utterly untrustworthy government. What is the urgency? The urgency is this: these matters do not come to fruition for another 12 months. This government hoped—until they fouled their tactics—that they were going to oblige us to start the discussion of this three or four hours after production of this report for a problem which will occur 12 months from now. They ask us to accept their bona fides when they want to rush a piece of legislation into this parliament.When we look at this report we see precisely why it was necessary to get it. The speed with which those opposite want to legislate on it arises because they do not want the community to absorb what the report says before there is an opportunity for the Senate to vote on it, and so that they can continue to erect straw men around their particular proposition and say, sight unseen—or hard to read—that it is endorsed by the IRC. It has not been, of course. The IRC has come to a set of conclusions with which we can agree.Mr Reith interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the House should be aware of the general warning. He will be treated as the Leader of the Opposition would be treated if he exercised the same discourtesy.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—But they are not the conclusions that were drawn by the legislation of this government when it was previously introduced. They are fond of quoting, let me go to the whole paragraph. What the IRC says is:The essence of our report is that none of the identified non-discriminatory alternatives most closely examined by us were feasible. We give our reasons in Chapter 7 in the body of the report. We do not close off the possibility that there are feasible alternatives. We explored the possibility of developing our own proposal but did not persevere. We were already persuaded that in the design of replacement of junior rate classifications no one size fits all. The fit of an alternative is a matter of attention to detail and the merits in particular circumstances. The industrial parties and other interested parties would need to be involved, and that procedure fell outside the statutory limits of our inquiry.In other words, all those particular propositions in relation to competency based arrangements fell outside their inquiry. They had to give it a `once over lightly' but then came to the conclusion that no one size fits all. We agree.We agree with the propositions of the IRC as far as this matter is concerned. We agree that the issue of junior wages ought to be considered on a case-by-case basis. We agree that the presumption on changing junior rates should be a presumption that is exercised by those advocating the change. We think there should be no automaticity in that regard. The IRC agrees with us on this matter. We agree that there will need to be change in relation to the legislation, where there is an automatic end. We agree with that proposition. We do not see the urgency, but we agree. That was stated by our spokesman this morning, whose position was lied about in this chamber during question time—but that is just par for the course these days. We pointed out that we agree.In this chamber there is now only one party that disagrees with the IRC. That is the government, because the proposition of the government is not the IRC's proposition. The proposition of the government is that there will be an automatic extension of junior rates to all areas where it is possible to employ a junior. That is the meaning of their legislation—an automatic extension to all areas where there is the possibility that a person under age can be employed. We say: no; the onus of proof should go the other way. The onus of proof should be that, if you wish to establish a junior wage in a particular area where, potentially, a person with junior wage status may be employed, then you should argue your case. It is your job to establish that case. You do not have it established by a fief and a direction to the IRC to arrive at that conclusion.The IRC has asked to be empowered on a case-by-case basis. We agree with the IRC. They should be empowered on a case-by-case basis. We will go through your bill, and if you fail that test, old son, we will be moving the appropriate amendments—don't you worry.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition knows that the chair is also not planning to fail any test. He will address his remarks through the chair.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—Mr Speaker, that is our response. They are getting a very clear-cut response to the slithering and sliding that the minister has managed in the remarks as far as this is concerned. But we also say this. The poor old IRC had to confess that they did not have the capacity and skills to consider competency based wages. They did not have the capacity to invite all parties in for a discussion on what ought to be done about awarding value on a training outcome. They did not have the capacity to do that.Well, they darn well ought to have. They ought to be given the capacity to do that. Because this is yet another example of how this man, with his slip-sliding deceit, has one agenda—and one agenda only. It is not an agenda for families and it is not an agenda for security in the work force. It is not an agenda for high skills. It is not an agenda for high wages. It is an agenda to deprive workers of rights. If he is faced with a test where he has to defend them, he fails. If he is faced with a test where he has to defend them, he obfuscates, he confuses and he walks away.He was invited to do that by the Oakdale miners. He said, `Well, we will introduce legislation at some point in time to deal with the sorts of activities that were undertaken by Patrick—with my personal encouragement—during the MUA dispute. We might actually do something about that.' But what about the situation of workers in a circumstance where the company fails? The company may fail in an environment where it is not necessarily the fault of the management, or even if it is the fault of the management, the deprivation of workers rights and entitlements is not a product of the interesting arrangements of the companies to avoid their due obligations by hiding assets. What about those circumstances?Every other country in the industrialised world protects people in those circumstances—every single one but Australia. If you had an opportunity to stand shoulder to shoulder with a few people around this place, we might see a bit of a defence of that. And when it comes to the issue of competency based wages, it is not that the IRC has difficulty and that they draw attention to that. How about endorsing it? How about supporting it? How about encouraging people to skill themselves? You are the only government in the Western world where expenditure on education and training is actually decreasing. You are the only government in the Western world where expenditure on R&D is actually decreasing—the only one. What sorts of jobs are there going to be in the next century if the people of this nation are not skilled and if our businesses are not encouraged when they are inventive? What sort of future will there be for the security of the employment of our people?What will you give the young people of this country if you want to impose on the commis sion a presumption—not allowing the commission to conduct its affairs on a case-bycase basis but telling the commission that they will produce a junior wages level if a young person is employed in an area, with no obligation on the employer to argue why that should be so. Are we going to see junior rate policemen? Are we going to see junior rate politicians? Are we going to see junior rate teachers? Are we going to see junior rate soldiers? Are we going to see junior rate airmen? Are we going to see junior rate sailors? Because such a rate is not applied on those at the moment. But you will be obliging the commission to arrive at a few conclusions in that regard without the obligation on the employer to argue. So we throw the challenge back to you lot. How about you support the IRC's report and come up with a piece of legislation on it? (Time expired)16:01:007468Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—In this debate, the government threw down a challenge to the Labor Party.Mr Beazley interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I remind the Leader of the Opposition of the general warning.BT4Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMP—They asked the Labor Party to tell the Australian people why they are supporting policies which are destroying youth jobs.Mr Beazley interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will excuse himself from the House.BT4Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMP—I think we have just seen how panicked the Labor Party has been by this resolution of the government. We see that the Leader of the Opposition has now been suspended from the House.MG4LEEMr Lee—Mr Speaker, could I ask you to clarify your ruling. Have you suspended the Leader of the Opposition from the House for an hour? If you have, I ask you to reconsider that.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I believe the Leader of the Opposition would concur that his remarks were inappropriate and, if he is prepared to apologise to the House, I will withdraw that ruling.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—I apologise.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I thank the Leader of the Opposition, and I call the minister. I remind all members of the existing standing orders.BT4Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMP—We have seen how panicked the Labor Party has been by this resolution of the government and the suspension of standing orders because, if there is one thing the Labor Party does not want to be asked to do, it is to state its policy, because there is no policy on the other side of the House. In this area of youth employment, the Labor Party knows that it has a record of abysmal character, a disgraceful record and a record which has deprived tens of thousands of young Australians of employment opportunities.The Australian people probably ask themselves: why is it that the Labor Party took to itself attitudes and policies when it was in government which were so damaging to youth employment? Why does the Labor Party shut its eyes to the employment plight of so many young Australians? There is a reason for that, and the reason is the nature of the Labor Party itself. Young people are off the radar screen in the Labor Party. The Labor Party's whole focus is on the policies put to it by the trade union movement and the ACTU. In government, it pursued in every area of policy—and particularly in the employment areas—policies which were deeply damaging to the employment prospects of young people.In 13 years, the Labor Party completely failed to address the changing structure of the Australian economy, which led to many of those low skilled and semiskilled jobs that school leavers used to be able to get, even up to the early 1980s, evaporating. The Labor Party failed to make the adjustments to young people. They tuned in to the ACTU, which says, `Look, we've got an ideological position on employment, and this ideological position is that everybody should be paid according to a particular competency or qualification. That's got to apply to young people regardless of the consequences of that policy for the employment of young people.' And no-one worked more than the member for Hotham, on the other side of the House, when he was secretary of the ACTU to abolish junior wage rates, to get rid of the wage rates which created opportunities for young people.When the former Prime Minister Paul Keating and the present Leader of the Opposition as employment minister presided over the recession we had to have, we saw a devastation in employment opportunities for young Australians. We saw youth employment soar to record levels of 34 per cent at the time when the Leader of the Opposition was actually employment minister. At the behest of the ACTU, we saw training policies adopted which devastated the apprenticeship system in this country when, in the last year of the Labor government—after 13 years—the number of young people in apprenticeships and traineeships as a proportion of the work force was the lowest for three decades. And why was that the case? Because the Labor Party said that the trade union movement was entitled to have the dominant say in the training system in this country, and the trade union movement and the ACTU were not interested in youth employment. They were interested in continuing to pursue their campaign against junior wage rates. When we came to office, we found that 30 per cent of young people in this country did not have adequate literacy and numeracy skills. After 13 years in government, 30 per cent of young people coming out of school could not read and write properly.When this government had its first consultations with the business community and asked them why there was a problem in taking young people into employment, it is no wonder that at the top of the agenda was the problem of literacy which had grown up under young people. The Labor Party when in office gave Australian young people the message that if you were not going into university you were not going anywhere. They failed to face up to the fact that 70 per cent of young people leaving school were not going from school to university. There were virtually no opportunities for young people in school to do quality vocational courses that would lead them on to jobs. Because of the ACTU's industrial policies, schools found it almost impossible to work with businesses in their communities to provide proper pathway programs where young people could learn on the job the skills they needed to get jobs when they left school.So when we came into government in 1996 we found that the Labor policies—the policies that the ACTU had foisted on them—had devastated youth employment. Many young people in this country were desperately disadvantaged by those policies. We found many young people homeless and at risk, dependent on getting good advice to get back into school, to get skills, to learn how to go and get a job—dependent on a program which the Labor Party was abolishing, the one program that worked. Instead, the Labor Party spent in its last year of office $500 million on a program which had a net employment success rate of three per cent and cost $143,000 a net job. It set up a merry-go-round of short-term labour market programs which did not give skills and which demoralised a generation of young Australians.This government, for the first time, has put into place a comprehensive range of programs which are opening up for young people horizons and opportunities which they were denied for the 13 years that the Labor Party was in office. As a consequence of that, we are now seeing youth unemployment falling. It is still too high, but it is 10 per cent lower than it was when the Leader of the Opposition was employment minister. It is dropping because of the comprehensive range of policies that we have put in place.Let me just mention some of the most important initiatives of this government. In the first place, we have recognised that the literacy and numeracy skills of young people have to be addressed in the early years of schooling. It is this government—against union opposition; against the opposition of the Labor Party—which has put in place the first national literacy standards against which every child in years 3 and 5 is now being assessed. It is this government that has a commitment from the states and territories that every child leaving primary school will have the basic skills in literacy and numeracy that they are going to need to get a job.The Australian Education Union has fought this every inch of the way. As a consequence, the Labor Party has never committed itself to sustain and support these policies. In its election education policies it devoted four lines to literacy and numeracy. So it is totally neglecting the foundations on which successful job opportunities for young people are going to be built.When we turned to the later years of schooling and we looked at the devastated apprenticeship system—the ruins of the apprenticeship system which the Labor Party had left—we realised that a massive rebuilding job had to be done. So, in industry after industry where there were no apprenticeship opportunities and in industries where there had been traditional apprenticeships that had been devastated, we had to have a training system not dominated by the ACTU but delivering the skills that businesses were looking for, that small business needed so they could innovate, so they could improve their productivity, so they could improve their bottom line and so they could create more jobs. That is what this government has put in place.We now have a new national apprenticeship system, with record numbers of young people in apprenticeships. In December of last year the latest figures were 206,400 young Australians in apprenticeships and traineeships—some 70,000 more than when the Labor Party was in office—a fantastic expansion in opportunities for Australians to get the skills they need for employment. What about those young people coming through the senior years of schooling, that 70 per cent that the Labor Party totally neglected? It is not just our rhetoric that says that; a former member for Sydney, when in this parliament—a member of the Left faction, but an honest person—said that the Labor Party had neglected that aspect of education. He admitted that the Labor Party when in office had neglected that, and it is still neglecting it. In 1995, across Australia there were only some 26,000 young Australians in vocational courses in schools; this year there are some 130,000 young Australians in vocational courses in schools.We have built a program—the Jobs Pathway program—which is now applied in half of the high schools of Australia, which is making schools proactive in looking out for job opportunities for their school leavers. For the first time, school leavers are moving down these pathways that this government has built, directly from school into jobs. Schools and small businesses across Australia are now working together to make sure that young people in these programs are learning industry recognised skills. Young people can now get certificates which are recognised by industry, which they can build into apprenticeships and which they can take on to diplomas and degrees, if that is what they are minded to do. What we have done is rebuild opportunities and hope for young Australians. In the TAFE system in Australia this government has created 70,000 additional places in the last two years.Last week ministers from the states and the Commonwealth all met together in the Australian National Training Authority Ministerial Council. A joint resolution was passed by those ministers. Labor ministers in three states and coalition ministers in the other states and territories all agreed on this resolution:. . . confirming the success of the common efforts of the Commonwealth, States and Territories to deliver a quality training system for Australian industry, Ministers agree to continue to work individually and together to deliver quality training.That is a historic statement from the ministerial council, agreeing on `the success of the common efforts of the Commonwealth, states and territories' to build for the first time a quality national training system. That is the record of this government over three years. Compare that with the disastrous record of the Labor Party in relation to youth unemployment.In this debate the government threw down the challenge to the Leader of the Opposition, `Tell us your policies'—and they were not forthcoming. The Labor Party, as it knows, has constantly supported a policy which, as the commission has now laid down authoritatively, will destroy youth jobs. It has no alternatives. It is no good for the Leader of the Opposition to get up in this House and say that the Labor Party will continue to pursue alternatives. There are no alternatives. The only alternatives are the policies that this government is putting forward—and we will create jobs for young Australians. (Time expired)16:16:007471Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—We have just heard from the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, a minister who has not even read the report. In fact, I suspect that he has not even opened its cover to read the executive summary. But for 15 minutes he did a good job in trying to support the indefensible actions of the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business.The Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business has tried, over the last few years, to establish a reputation for being some sort of great political tactician—a person who, through his guile and ideas on industrial relations, has developed a great aura. I would say that his performance today, after watching it, rather ranks with the pinnacle of his strategic coup with the Patrick dispute. That Patrick dispute was months in the making, with the minister and his ministerial colleagues involving themselves in discussions on plans as to how they could bring it off, spending taxpayers money to engage consultants to try to provide ways through it and culminating in one of the greatest botched political exercises in the history of Australian politics.But today the minister has done himself proud as a tactician. This morning he came into the parliament, thinking he was very clever. Contrary to the normal arrangements, he decided that he would not make a ministerial statement after question time when these matters are normally dealt with. He was going to be very cunning about this. He was going to do it first thing in the morning and then drop the legislation he wanted done into the parliament in the afternoon. That brilliant tactician, the Leader of the House, the minister for workplace relations, then went ashen white in the flurry of the moment when the Leader of the Opposition said, `Okay, we'll have the debate, but none of this 10 minutes either side. Let's have a full-blown debate, with normal standing orders, and let's get into it.'White faced, the Leader of the House, the minister for workplace relations, said, `Yeah, all right, I'll sign up to that,' and, in the process, just wiped out this morning's brilliant tactic of getting his legislation into the parliament this afternoon—because I can tell you that there are plenty of people on this side of the House only too keen to engage you in debate on the question of junior rates of pay. So that brilliant tactician, the minister for workplace relations, who parades around here as Leader of the House, has just done himself and his government out of his best efforts of this morning.The Leader of the Opposition made some reference to the comments made by the minister for workplace relations and, indeed, the Prime Minister in trying to express some sympathy with the Oakdale workers and others. As the Leader of the Opposition referred to that undertaking to stand shoulder to shoulder, I thought to myself—and members of the government in their honest moments will know what I mean—that if you were looking for someone in this parliament to stand shoulder to shoulder with in your time of trouble it would not be the minister for workplace relations. Ask the Treasurer; they stand shoulder to shoulder really well!There are not too many people on the other side of the parliament who would want to stand shoulder to shoulder with the minister for workplace relations—let alone invite the workers at Oakdale to stand shoulder to shoulder with Peter Reith. So not only is he an appalling tactician, as demonstrated by his blunders today, but also his exhortations to people with whom he wants to stand shoulder to shoulder with draw more mirth than anything else.In no way does the government come to this debate with clean hands. The issue of junior rates of pay has been before this parliament for some time, but let us quickly have a look at what happened in the conduct of this Industrial Relations Commission inquiry. The inquiry was set up as a result of a deal done at that time between the Democrats and the Liberal-National coalition and, as the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out, the Democrats have since gone on the public record to express their concern about how they got doublecrossed by the minister for workplace relations.But, not content with that, let us just recall what this minister did in the parliament when the commission sought to conduct the inquiry. He introduced into this parliament legislation which made absolutely irrelevant the inquiry which he now heralds. He introduced legislation which would have required the Industrial Relations Commission to ignore the evidence before it, to ignore its own findings and which would have obliged it to insert into every award in this country where a junior person could be employed a junior rate pay scale. It obliged the commission to retain junior rates of pay in every award that currently has them. That piece of legislation was moved by this government in the very month that the Industrial Relations Commission began hearings into the matter.Why was the commission hearing the matter in the first place? It was hearing it because this government and this minister did a deal to put through legislation that required it to do so. The Industrial Relations Commission did not ask for this job. The minister for workplace relations and this parliament instructed the commission to do it. He voted for a law to tell the commission to do the inquiry but then, when it started the process, he did his best to undermine it. He has made public comments endeavouring to intimidate the commission on this and other matters. He now turns around and says, `I have to report that I can construe to satisfy my needs. So now we should all pick up that report.'In actual fact the Labor Party does endorse the principal thrust of the recommendations in the report. Unlike the government we do not come to this debate with dirty hands, having tried to undermine the inquiry over the course of the last six months. However, the government even today is continuing to show contempt for that very report and for the commission.Members of parliament had access to this 350-page report at about half past 10 this morning. If the minister had his way, we would now have in the parliament the bill to actually enforce the government's agenda; that is, the government would have us believe that somewhere between 10.30 this morning and 3.30 this afternoon they sorted out what was their policy. They considered very carefully those 350 pages of the report and wanted to introduce legislation this afternoon to enact their political agenda. The simple fact of life is that this government have given no regard to the report—none whatsoever.The government have their bill on the Notice Paper, which is the same bill they tried to steamroll the commission with a few months ago. When this minister and other people on the government benches hop up and try to talk positively about this report, we should understand that at no stage have they given the report, its findings, its process or any of the evidence presented before the inquiry the time of day. They have not even bothered to read the report in the six or seven hours since it was available. We just had a minister burbling on about his portfolio because he did not have a damn clue about the report that was before the parliament. I will guarantee that the members sitting opposite now, some of whom might want to get into the debate, have not bothered to read it either.Let us look at what the report says. There is a sentence in the report that the minister has been fond of quoting in every nook and cranny he can get into today. It says this:The essence of our report is that none of the identified non-discriminatory alternatives most closely examined by us were feasible.The minister quoted that again today. In the parliament he said that is proof positive that there is no alternative to junior rates of pay. That is not true; that is not what the commission said. In fact, if you read that sentence properly, they point out that they are talking about only those handful of options which they considered.The minister refused to accept my invitation during question time, which nearly got me an early exit out of the parliament, that he should read the rest of the paragraph. If he had read the rest of the paragraph to the parliament and been honest with the people of Australia, he would have gone on to note that the commission said this also:We do not close off the possibility that there are feasible alternatives.They went on further and said:We were already persuaded that in the design of replacement of junior rate classifications no one size fits all. The fit of an alternative is a matter of attention to detail and the merits in particular circumstances.Exactly right. It is that position that the opposition has welcomed; it is that position that the commission put. The minister has been extremely selective in the way in which he sought to go about presenting the findings of this report.This is what the commission has said, `We had a look at the options that were presented in our inquiry. We did not have the resources or the time to go through the full list. We had a look at some of them. We don't think they will work but we're not going to rule out the others. In fact, we think the solution is in looking at multiple options in different situations—not one size fits all. The way that you progress that is to look at them case-by-case, industry by industry, award by award.' That is precisely the process which should now be followed.The minister has argued that that is exactly what his bill does. In politics there is a famous saying, `Read my lips.' It is meant to indicate, `I am telling the truth this time. Read my lips and you can see what I am saying.' But when it comes to Peter Reith it is `watch his hands'. It is not what his lips are doing; it is what his hands are doing. Don't listen to what he says, watch what he is doing, because what he says and what he does are two different things.The simple fact of life is that the bill that this government sought to pursue in the parliament today but managed to torpedo by their own stupidity ties the hands of the Industrial Relations Commission. It does not allow a case-by-case assessment. It will require the industrial commission to retain junior rates scales in every award that presently has them. But it goes further—in typical Peter Reith fashion, one bridge too far—and says that the commission has to insert into every award that does not have a junior rates pay scale such a junior rates pay scale. That is, if there is no junior pay scale in it already, you have to put one in.The only proviso is contained in the explanatory memorandum to the bill. The minister likes talking about the fact that it says `if it is appropriate'. That is, the commission has to put a new junior pay scale clause in if it is appropriate. Most people hear that and think the commonsense interpretation of `appropriate' is what the government means—not so. In another example of watch his hands rather than his lips, the simple fact is that what is defined in the explanatory memorandum to the bill as `appropriate' is any area in which someone under 21 years of age could be employed. It does not matter whether they are employed there now, if someone under 21 could be employed there, then it is appropriate that there should be junior pay rates in the award. The explanatory memorandum gives a situation in which it is not regarded as appropriate. These are the exact words:For example, under some awards the employment of people under a certain age is effectively precluded for reasons such as legally imposed age barriers.They cite restrictions such as the legal driving age or the qualifications for nurses or engineers. The practical effect of what the government is saying is that, as long as the law allows someone under 21 to do the work, the commission has no choice. We do not intend to sign up to an arrangement that nobbles the commission. For the last four years this government has set about nobbling the commission at every opportunity: it has done it in its 1996 legislation; it will seek to do it in the second wave next week; and it was seeking to do it here today in the legislation it wanted to pursue concerning junior rates of pay. We want to see cases genuinely assessed on their merits individually and without bias.The Leader of the House seemed to have some difficulty in understanding the position the Labor Party has put today. This morning I made it clear in the debate following the presentation of this matter that we would support changes to the existing law. I said: `Necessarily, to have case-by-case decisions undertaken in which the onus of proof rests with the party wishing to make the change, such a situation would require an alteration to the existing laws.'We have said we support a change to the existing law. I may have to resort to picture cards to get it across to the Leader of the House, but I will endeavour, in monosyllabic terms, to make it plain even for him. We take the view that in dealing with junior rates of pay from this point on the commission should be free to look at each case on its merits and the onus of proof should rest with that party seeking to alter the status quo in that award. That is plain enough. It is not a complex concept to understand. I would hope that after a day of debate even the Leader of the House could comprehend what that means.We will not stand for a situation in which this government persist with the tactic they have used from the outset in this debate; that is, to bully the Industrial Relations Commission at every turn, to try to steamroll it with legislation—as they were endeavouring to do this very day—to tie its hands to prevent it from considering matters on its merits, to tie it up in the act so it had no choice. We will not tolerate that nor will we support it. We will, as I said this morning, support changes to the act if the government is willing to do it decently and properly. But we have a minister and a government that understand one way of dealing with this matter—that is, divisive, biased politics. Their whole approach to industrial relations has been to divide Australian workers, one against the other. It is the hallmark of this minister. It is the hallmark of this government. We won't tolerate its further intrusion into junior rates of pay.16:31:007474Abbott, Tony MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPEmployment Services10—I would like to congratulate the member for Brisbane, the shadow minister for industrial relations, for at least trying to bring some significant policy questions into this debate. In this he was a complete contrast to his so-called leader, the Leader of the Opposition, who talked about anything but the issues of substance. He talked about Oakdale colliery. He talked about the trustworthiness of my senior minister. He talked about freedom of association in the work force. He talked about research and development at the end of his comments. He talked about everything but junior wage rates and employment policy. The Leader of the Opposition is demonstrating that he has no ideas—and no future, frankly, as a leader. His colleagues are starting to realise that as well.Let us be clear about what this report says. The report says that Australia should retain its system of junior rates. Indeed, we should make our junior rate system more widely available. It says that any move to abolish junior rates would cost young people jobs. It says that the introduction of adult wages at 18 would have significant disemploying effects. The reason why we are seeing so much unhappiness opposite is that that institution that they thought they could rely on, that institution they thought they had in their pockets, has finally discovered the simple truth that junior rates are the way to go.The commission in its report has said that there is an indisputable relationship between junior rates, their potential abolition and the employment prospects of young people. It says that a discounted pay rate for entry level work continues to be necessary. It says that none of the proposed alternatives to junior rates are feasible. It says that the removal of junior rates, or the introduction of adult rates at 18 years, would significantly disemploy young Australians and lead to large-scale job losses. The report also says that junior rates are often a useful bridge to full-time employment, especially for the educationally better qualified. So this report is a four-square endorsement of the government's approach to the problem of junior wage rates and the employment of young people.On his travels around Australia, trying to get to know those whom he has abandoned, the Leader of the Opposition would be well advised to take some time to visit the trade union holiday camp at Currawong on Pittwater, which Michael Costa wishes to sell to the transcendental meditation people. What the Leader of the Opposition needs to do above all else is learn to calm down. This opposition leader is running around the country like Pagliacci, the sad clown—bring on the motley, the paint and the powder—but the people know that his heart is not in it. The people know that this Leader of the Opposition, by his conduct today and over the last few weeks, by his constant obsession with dirt and distractions, is losing his grip on the substance of policy leadership.This government is giving leadership. This government is providing the nation with the policies it needs to address its problems. What we are trying to do this afternoon is to bring the parliament back to the issues of substance, back to the issues which the Australian people want to see debated. I am proud to be part of a government which has brought youth unemployment down to the lowest levels since 1990. Youth unemployment is still too high—we all accept that—but it is lower now than at any time since 1990. Not only that, but the absolute numbers of young unemployed people are at their lowest level since the records were first kept in the late 1970s.We have brought in a number of policy measures to try to ensure that youth employment rises and youth unemployment falls. We have brought in the principle of mutual obligation so that young people in particular come to recognise that there is a social contract out there—yes, we will do the right thing by them and yes, we will provide them with every assistance to find work but they have to do their part, too. The chief engine, if you like, of mutual obligation is the Work for the Dole program. I am delighted that this government is significantly expanding that program. The numbers will rise to 50,000 in the next financial year. This program is getting results. Thirty-four per cent of participants, young people, in Work for the Dole are going into paid employment, earning wages and learning the habits of work and the work culture which they need if they are to have a decent life. We on this side of the House are on about policy. Members opposite are on about dirt and distraction. It is interesting that Laurie Oakes this week, speaking of an unfortunate incident that befell the Leader of the Opposition last week, said, `The incident can be seen as symbolic.'10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The honourable member for Fraser on a point of order.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—Sit down, you jerk.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The honourable member for Batman should be very careful about that sort of provocative interjection. I would ask him to withdraw.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—Mr Deputy Speaker, I withdraw the suggestion that the minister is a jerk.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—No, the honourable member will withdraw unconditionally.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—I withdraw unconditionally the suggestion that the minister is a jerk.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The honourable member is testing the chair's patience and will not behave like that.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Mr Deputy Speaker, my point of order is that this is actually a debate about junior wages and the motion which introduced it said that it was to give speakers a chance to outline their policy about junior wages. I had no objection when the minister was straying very widely to talk about youth unemployment, even Work for the Dole, et cetera. We can make political points about that, and that is not a question of standing orders, but this point that he is now getting to is clearly way beyond the reasonable bounds of that debate.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I am sure that the minister is aware of the motion that put this discussion into place. The honourable member for Fraser acknowledged that he felt the minister had been in order thus far. I cannot quite pre-empt what the minister might do, but I hope that he keeps in mind the spirit of the motion.EZ5Abbott, Tony MPMr ABBOTT—This has been a wide-ranging debate. The Leader of the House ranged widely in his remarks, the Leader of the Opposition ranged extremely widely in his following remarks and I intend to range a little way in my remarks because that is the nature of these sorts of debates.I can understand the shadow minister for employment being in a bit of a foul mood this afternoon. I have a lot of time for the shadow minister for employment. I think he has a fine record of service to the Australian community. I did not much agree with his policies when he was the President of the ACTU, but the fact is that, by his own lights, he did the right thing. Is the shadow minister for employment morally suspect? Of course he is not. Is the shadow minister for employment incompetent? Of course he is not. Nevertheless, it is worth pointing out that, since 1991, the member for Batman has been a shareholder in an ACTU investment company called ACTU Building Pty Ltd, and it has never been declared. His pecuniary interest declarations for both 1996 and 1998 state that he has nil shareholdings in public companies. ACTU Building Pty Ltd's 1998 annual return, lodged with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission on 2 November 1998, shows that the member for Batman still holds 20 per cent of the shares, or one in five shares, in the company. The ACTU Building's 1997 annual return shows the company's activities are as an investor.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Quite clearly, the standing orders cannot be in any way interpreted to say that this matter comes within the parameters of the matters we are discussing. The discussion of issues about employment ranges widely but can be acceptable. This is absurdly away from the point.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The motion under which we are operating states:That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent . . . speakers from immediately making a statement for a period not exceeding 10 minutes each, outlining to the House their party's policies relating to junior wage rates as well as their commitment to accepting the recommendations of the inquiry by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission on junior wage rates.I remind the minister of that. I was cautious in not pulling him up as I thought that the honourable member for Batman had opened himself up to some sort of comment. But the minister might be stretching the broadness of the debate by continuing in this vein.EZ5Abbott, Tony MPMr ABBOTT—Mr Deputy Speaker, I accept your chastisement in this matter. As I said, I do not wish to imply by any of this that the member for Batman and shadow minister for employment has been morally culpable. I do not wish to imply in any of this that he has made a heinous mistake, that he is disentitled to serve in the parliament, that he should not be a frontbencher—not at all. I simply wish to place on the record that it is easy to make inadvertent errors of this type.When the Leader of the Opposition tries to parade this kind of stunt through the parliament day in and day out, he reveals the fact that he is completely and utterly disqualified from any high office in this country. Frankly, I believe that the member for Batman has had a lot to say recently which is right and true about our country. He has had a lot to say which is right and true about his own party. He has had a lot to say which is right and true about the great traditions in which he wishes to stand and which have been so badly betrayed by so many of his colleagues.The fact is that his party has sold out the working class. It has gone over to Balmain basketweavers, it has been taken over by middle-class trendies—the dregs of the middle class, as the Leader of the Opposition's father once so famously said—and the member for Batman and others are right to try to take it back. But, if they are serious about trying to take it back, they will support the thrust of this report on junior wages because this is about giving decent young Australians the start they need in life.What we are witnessing opposite is the slow disintegration of the leadership of the current Leader of the Opposition. His stunts in respect of Senator Heffernan and in respect of the member for Leichhardt are a sign of someone who is seriously losing his grip. I would like to quote something that the Leader of the Opposition said many years ago:One of the things I want more than anything else is for that man to get peace in his heart.He was referring to that great of the Labor Party, Mr Arthur Calwell. The Leader of the Opposition said:There is not enough time left for bitterness in this country, only just enough time for cures. I think that was a great thing for the Leader of the Opposition to say. I think what we were seeing then from the Leader of the Opposition were high sparks of honour, high sparks of greatness, instincts which could have been created to leadership of real stature. Unfortunately, that has been betrayed in recent days by a man who could do better, by a man who has let himself down, by a man who has let his party down.We are seeing, as I said, the disintegration of the leadership of the Leader of the Opposition, and we are seeing the Labor Party racked by more division than at any time in recent decades. They oppose Work for the Dole, they oppose the Job Network, they oppose junior wage rates, they tax first and think later, they spend first and think later. The fact is that the Labor Party members opposite, the opposition as a corporate entity, are in serious trouble.First of all, we had the member for Werriwa trying to come up with decent policy. I do not agree with most of what he said, but it was a serious attempt to come up with the sort of decent policy which could take the Labor Party into the next century. Then we had the member for Melbourne with his book make his effort to come up with decent policy. The member for Melbourne had the decency to admit that what were sneeringly described as `Mac' jobs by so many of his colleagues were just what so many young people needed. `Mac' jobs that are paid at junior rates are just what so many young people need, but these are precisely the jobs that will be taken away from those young people if members opposite are not prepared to support the thrust of the report that has been brought down by the Industrial Relations Commission.Then most recently we had the member for Batman and shadow minister for employment support the Thomson thesis in that splendid piece of polemic against the entryists who have taken over his party. If John Curtin and Ben Chifley were alive today, they would not be sitting opposite, they would be sitting on this side of the House, as so many of the heirs of Chifley and Curtin are sitting on this side of the House.This Labor Party has forgotten its beliefs, forgotten its ideals. This is a Labor Party that thinks success is becoming a trade union advocate or being appointed an antidiscrimination commissioner. This is a Labor Party that has forgotten the decent, honest virtues of hard work and that real success comes from creating a business, helping to employ people and making a decent contribution to the Australian economy.16:46:007477McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—That speech by the member for Warringah clearly showed that the attempt to bring on this debate was a stunt, because the government has no substance to contribute to the debate. We have just had the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business and the Minister for Employment Services one after the other make speeches for 15 minutes as they were desperately looking at the clock and running through all the things they could talk about—except youth wages. They were thinking: `Only seven minutes to go, where is another red herring? Only 10 minutes gone, how can I make something else up to talk about?' There was nothing about youth wages because they have nothing to say.Neither of them have read the report; that much is crystal clear. If they had read the report, they would know that there is nothing to say that can link this report to the legislation which the government are proposing to bring in this afternoon. It is a stunt, and I hope the backbench of the government enjoy the fact that this stunt might lead them all to miss their planes this evening. But it was not us who introduced this stunt. We were quite happy to go through the normal processes of the day, but the government introduced this stunt, they mishandled it and the consequences will fall where they may.Clearly, we could have had a substantive discussion about this matter today under other procedures. For example, if the government had acted competently, we could have had a debate about the report and they could have introduced their legislation. But why did they not want the legislation to be before the House before we discussed the report? Because it would have been crystal clear to everybody that the legislation does not reflect the report.Unlike the government, the opposition welcomes the report. The government waves the report about but says, `Don't open it.' The government says, `This is a wonderful thing but we will not act on it. We will do something that flies in the face of what this report says.' This report reinforces one thing very clearly—that is, why the parliament was correct to reject the government's attempt to legislate before the report came in. The parliament correctly rejected that legislation. The government should never have introduced it, and it is appropriate that it was rejected.The opposition supports the view expressed in the report that there should be a case-bycase assessment. We have had some wonderful selective quotation from the report. The Leader of the House quoted some sentences from page ix of the report in question time but somehow forgot to mention some of the other sentences, even after a very forthright invitation from the member for Brisbane to quote the rest. I thought the member for Brisbane was fairly crystal clear that he would have liked the rest of it quoted. He was so crystal clear he nearly got thrown out. The report says:The essence of our report is that none of the identified non-discriminatory alternatives most closely examined by us were feasible. We give our reasons . . . We do not close off the possibility that there are feasible alternatives.I didn't hear that part of the quote, did you?UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—No.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN—It says:We do not close off the possibility that there are feasible alternatives.He forgot that bit. It continues:We explored the possibility . . . but did not persevere. We were already persuaded that in the design of replacement of junior rate classifications no one size fits all.We agree. Does the government agree? No, you do not. The report continues:The fit of an alternative is a matter of attention to detail and the merits in particular circumstances.We agree exactly. Why don't you? Why won't your legislation reflect that report? That is why we were so keen to debate it. We could not believe you were so stupid as to propose this, and we said, `Let's not have a little debate. Let's have a big debate.' If you want to negate the adjournment and have a longer debate, there are all these people sitting behind me who would love to talk about it. How many volunteers have you got? You had two conscripts who did not want to talk about it at all. The report goes on:The industrial parties and other interested parties would need to be involved and that procedure fell outside the statutory limits of our inquiry.Exactly! The report says: `Let us have a case- by-case approach.' I say, as the Leader of the Opposition said very passionately, and as the shadow minister for industrial relations also made crystal clear: if the legislation reflects that case-by-case approach which clearly emerged from the executive summary of the report, then we will support it. There will not be a political impasse. There is no need for a crisis, except a political need because the government do not want to change the law. They want an alibi for failing.The government know that their furphy about the extent to which youth wages affect unemployment is entirely untrue. What would be their excuse for failure if their law passed? They would have to think up a new alibi. They were horrified when their health insurance rebate passed because their excuse for failure in health collapsed. Now they are going to have to live with their tax package. Oh, doesn't that fill their backbench with joy! You can all go out and campaign in all your small businesses for a GST. What they want is an alibi for failure.But we make it clear: instead of legislating provocatively, instead of legislating by seeking to proscribe that there must be youth wages in every award irrespective of the views of the parties or the merits of the case, if that is what you seek to do, we will not support it. If you legislate to enable the commission to deal on a case-by-case approach, then we have somewhere to go. But if you say, `Everywhere that that's appropriate,' and define `appropriate' as being only those places where the law prescribes that people under 21 cannot work, you will get no support from us nor from the Australian people.That is not a case-by-case approach. That is proscribing and making mandatory youth wages, even where it does not now apply. I know it is unique. Mr Deputy Speaker, I almost feel like apologising to you for referring to this report. I know that is what we are supposed to be debating, but the last two speakers for the government forgot to mention it. So I just thought I would throw it into the debate and mention this report. I apologise to the members of the government if it causes them shock and grief, but it is supposed to be a debate about that. The commission expresses grave doubts about extending junior rates to the construction industry. It makes it clear that it thinks there is a better approach. Wouldn't that horrify the minister for workplace relations if he had to do that? How would he go about provoking disputes in the construction industry? He has just got all these unemployed rottweilers. Where will he use them if he cannot stir up a blue in the construction industry? If he were to apply this report and its clear intent in the construction industry, he would not be legislating as we believe he intends to legislate. He would be saying that the approach should be application based.There was a bit of a reaction when the shadow minister for industrial relations made it clear that our view is that, in an application based system, the onus of proof should be on the applicant for change. What a shocking suggestion that the onus of proof should be on the application for change. That is the standard procedure. That is what happens in the Industrial Relations Commission on every application. It has been, I am happy to say, a while since I was an advocate in the commission. There are a lot of workers who are very pleased about the fact that it has been a long time since I was there too, I am quite sure. Nevertheless, even then that was the way the procedure was. If your application failed, the status quo remained. That is what happened. It is not a blank sheet where you both walk in and have a go and they write a new clause for whoever wins. You apply to change the status quo. If the commission rejects your application, the status quo remains.Of course, all those buffoons who laughed simply proved one thing: they know nothing about the matter. In many instances, that approach will put the onus of proof on the unions. There are junior wage rates in many awards. If you want to take them out, the onus of proof will be on you to do so. If you want to amend them, the onus of proof will be on you to establish the case to amend them. If there are no youth wages such as in the construction industry and you want to put them in, then the onus of proof should be on you to argue the case for why they should be put in. What is remarkable about that, except that you cannot think of what argument the people are going to put? Nor can I. Nevertheless, if the law reflects the view that people should have that right to make such an application, that is not a problem for us. But we do not expect that to be the case.The Leader of the Opposition dealt with this matter very comprehensively. There was a bit of concern that he was passionate about it. I am very proud that my leader was passionate about this. It is a matter that deserves a bit of passion. We are talking about the rights of young Australians. We are talking about how and when people's wages and conditions are determined, and that is a matter about which we care. It is not a desiccated matter which you can come in here and make a few jokes about, as the Minister for Employment Services did, and try to throw a bit of a smokescreen up and talk about anything but the question. It actually matters to people. There are people out there whose lives are going to be affected by the way we do this. It is appropriate to be passionate about it. Everybody on this side of the parliament is very proud that our leader stood up here and made a passionate and firm commitment on this matter, and we support him on that. His heart is in it. What is crystal clear from this debate is that yours is not.The shadow minister for industrial relations reinforced the detail of the matter, as he did perfectly adequately, I might say, in the response to the report this morning. The reason we have this motion is that the mem ber for Brisbane did so well in the debate this morning the minister did not have the PR line he wanted so he had to come back and have another go. Well done! Got it wrong again. He is almost performing worse as Leader of the House than when we had the member for Gippsland standing in for him last week—and do we all remember that!Opposition members interjecting—5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN—He has not quite got down to that standard yet, but it is a pretty close contest. He has had a bad week, nearly as bad a week as the Treasurer had in question time. Do we remember? We are having a wonderful time in here, but we are not playing games. This is a serious matter and everybody deserves to deal with it seriously and sensibly. I challenge whoever is going to speak next for the government to do one thing—and that will be a change from their predecessors—and that is talk about the report. Make it clear you have read it for a start. Make it clear that you think the case-by-case approach is appropriate. Say that if the legislation does not support a case-by-case approach you will not vote for it. Why don't you try that for a change?This is a debate about our views on youth wages. Our views are clear: we think it should be a case-by-case approach. We support the statement of the commission in paragraph 2 on page ix and we will support a change in the law that facilitates that to take place. If a change in the law does not do that, if it goes as far as you have sought to go before, if it reflects those attempts to mandate an outcome other than on an application based system, we will not support it, and then everybody in Australia will know why we have an impasse. It is because you are looking for a dispute in the area of industrial relations, not for a solution. You are looking for a problem, not for a solution. That is what we expect. That is what we have had every time from this minister.As the minister for workplace relations, his objectives have been exclusively political. They have not been industrial, they have not been economic; they have been exclusively political. His response to this report procedurally in this parliament, substantially in the legislation he has proposed in the past and the way he has spoken about it today, has been only about the politics of it, not the substance of it. Let us get to the substance. Let us get before the Industrial Relations Commission, deal with it on a case-by-case basis and make sure the legislation that is passed between now and June 2000 when the changes need to be made—not now and tomorrow but now and June 2000—reflect those principles, and we will be able to proceed effectively industrially instead of politically to resolve this matter. (Time expired)17:01:007480Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH2K6LongmanLP10—At the outset I would like to put the record straight that not one member of the opposition has yet spoken about a policy. This was to be a policy debate, a policy debate about which the Leader of the Opposition said, `Bring it on!' and his face blew up like a big cane toad. He stood there and said, `Bring it on!' and then he said not a word, not one word of policy from the Leader of the Opposition, the shadow minister or now the Leader of Opposition Business in this House. They looked at the clock for 15 minutes and could not wait to scuttle out of here.I will address the substance of what is in this report and how it is damning of the opposition and the stance that they have taken for the last 10 years. Right at the outset though let us look at what the opposition have been about. We know what they stand against. They stand against debt reduction. They have opposed every measure in this House. They stand against tax cuts for average middle income earners. They stand against pension increases.Opposition members interjecting—2K6Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH—For those over there who are shouting, they stand against it. They stand against lower diesel fuel prices. They stand against increases in the family payments.4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—Mr Deputy Speaker, my point of order is this: the motion that was passed by the House was to allow people to outline to the House their party's policies relating to junior wages as well as their commitment to accepting the recommendations of the inquiry by the Australian Indus trial Relations Commission on junior rates. The member just speaking is absolutely irrelevant to that and I ask you to bring him back to the matter before the House.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—I thank the honourable member for Watson, but perhaps he has not been listening to the whole debate. I certainly have and it has been very wide ranging. There is no point of order.2K6Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH—I reiterate: we know what they stand against; we do not know what they stand for. They stand against unfair dismissal. They stand against untimed calls for remote and rural Australia. They stand against youth employment because they opposed the bill put before this House to protect youth jobs by having youth wages protected. They also stand against responsible government. They know what it is they stand against, we know what they stand against, but what do they stand for? On this side we stand for the youth of Australia. We stand for giving them job opportunities.So why was this report by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission on junior rates actually necessary? It goes back to 1993, as the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business said. At that time the Keating-Beazley government put in place a statutory scheme which prima facie declared junior rates to be discriminatory and not to be made or, when made, to be removed. When you think about that, where is the economic sense in it? There is none. Where is the statement that this is about creating jobs or creating assistance for anybody? There is none.But many of us have forgotten that back in those dark days of the early 1990s political correctness was the phrase that came across everybody's lips. It was a phrase that the thought police were on the lookout for. Political correctness is what led to this disgusting piece of legislation, which has put into the hands of those opposite—that they do not want removed—the chances of young people getting employment in this nation. Political correctness—we wanted to see it wiped off the face of the earth and see some commonsense in this place. Commonsense is not something those opposite are too much endowed with.Let us go to the report itself. Let us turn to its terms of reference. If you want to know what the report is about, what it was designed to do, then let us look at the terms of reference as a basis from which to start. The commission was to report on junior rates of pay. Point (2) states:The report must include assessments of:(a) whether it is desirable to replace junior rates with non-discriminatory alternatives;You would think that if it has to do that someone would have to put up some alternatives for it to measure against. I think everyone accepts that. Some people did put some alternatives. The people who put them up were: the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union; the shoppies' union; the ACTU, of which some of those opposite obviously were the boss and probably wrote half of their submission; ACOSS, the Australian Council of Social Service; the Queensland government; and the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union. They all put up proposals to be evaluated. We all know that everybody opposite is a member of a union, so therefore everybody opposite supports one or more of the proposals that were put forward before the commission. I think that is a pretty reasonable assertion to make. So an independent body has assessed whether or not these measures, which are not discriminatory alternatives, could in fact replace junior wage rates without hurting employment opportunities.Did they do that? Let us go straight to the guts of this in the summary page. Point 2 says:The essence of our report is that none of the identified non-discriminatory alternatives most closely examined by us were feasible.Not the CMFEU, not ACOSS, not the Queensland government, not one of them. What did the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Beazley, say about that when he came in here? Nothing. He puffed himself up like a bullfrog as he has been doing time and time again today. In fact, he has undermined this House so badly today that, on two separate occasions, he has been forced to apologise to the Speaker simply to save his backside from being kicked out of this place. They are the sorts of standards that he has had to uphold. Why? Because, right now, the Leader of the Opposition is under so much pressure from those sitting behind him that he has to come in here with confected indignation and give himself a blood pressure problem so that those opposite will somehow support him for another week or two.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The honourable member for Longman will resume his seat. I call the honourable member for Paterson on a point of order.UU5HORNEMr Horne—Like you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I have listened to the whole of this debate, and I would say that now the member is being extremely wide ranging. He is not addressing the debate. The important thing is that he is wasting an enormous opportunity to tell us what the policies of his party are in relation to youth wages.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—You are not going to debate the point of order. Resume your seat. I certainly do agree that, while it has been a very wide-ranging debate, we should try to concentrate a little more on the direct substance of it.2K6Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH—Not a problem, Mr Deputy Speaker. I understand his sensitivity. He obviously knows which faction he is in, so he has to put his plug up. He invites me to say what our policy is. We put our policy into this parliament; you rejected it. It was set aside; it is now coming back before this parliament. We had a policy that went to the people in 1996. We told them that we support youth wages. We support a discriminatory—positively discriminatory, I might add—piece of legislation which will allow people to be able to get a start in life—something that the Labor Party is not interested in. There is any number of productivity reports and other reports that fully support that—I will turn to those shortly. Those opposite are the ones who stand condemned.The member for Brisbane, who is the shadow minister on this particular subject, and the Leader of the Opposition have both stood here today and misled this House by saying that the government will insist that the Industrial Relations Commission must—I repeat, must—ensure that any industry which does not have junior wage rates must legislate for them. That is incorrect. That is a furphy, in military terms. It is a beat-up. It has no basis of fact whatsoever.The point that we are making here is that there are many industries. You have pointed out the construction industry. The member for Bowman, who I debate with every Friday afternoon on radio up in Brisbane, said last week, `If you had the choice of an 18-year-old and a 30-year-old who could both do the same job, why shouldn't they get the same pay?' In the construction industry, if they could get the same pay, why aren't there any 18-year-olds? It is because people choose the 30-year-old. They choose the person who has more experience and more stability. You do not seem to understand that. You are condemned by the fact that there are so few juniors working in the construction industry. There should be more people in the construction industry. There are more jobs to be created in the construction industry, and we have the legislation which we have already had before this place and which we will reintroduce into this place. What we want to hear and what the public wants to hear is where you stand. We have not yet had one constructive point about what the Labor Party stands for.I turn back to the 1998 election. When this issue was brought up, what did the Labor Party say? They said, `We want to wait for the Productivity Commission.' You would have got into government. You would have had two weeks in which to give some sort of a report to the commission. If that is not legislation or policy on the run, I do not know what is. The fact is that you do not know where you stand on this because you are condemned. You are locked in by the unions who have all put up their proposals. They have all been knocked on the head and so you are caught between the devil and the deep blue sea.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Actually, the chair is not caught anywhere. You might address your remarks through the chair.2K6Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH—I agree, Mr Deputy Speaker; you would be far from caught on any occasion. Those opposite are in fact caught between the devil and the deep blue sea because, on one hand, they have the unions trying to carry on and tell them that we want to get rid of youth wages, but they know in reality that it is going to destroy 200,000-odd jobs in the retail sector. It is going to ensure that people do not get jobs in the construction industry and many other industries. There is any amount of information in this report and in others which actually points to that. I turn to page 163 of this report, which refers to the Productivity Commission. Point 5.6.8 states:That study, "Youth wages and employment" , examined numerous minimum wage studies particularly those carried out overseas and concluded that . . . Many of the studies that argue for a limited effect on employment are focused on the short run . . .Isn't that typical of the opposition? It continues:. . . but it is important to also consider the longer run implications of minimum wages. There are substantial lags in the adjustment process and it takes time for capital-labour substitution to take effect. Finally, studies that focus on minimum wages—set at low levels and affecting only a small proportion of the workforce—are likely to understate significantly the employment effects of wage changes affecting much larger groups.In 1995, there was a survey of employees from 1,800 workplaces. It states:. . . the balance of evidence presented here suggests that a large increase in relative wages of teenagers could be expected to have a negative impact on their employment.How much more evidence do you need? I turn to a further conclusion, which says:The purpose of the study was to examine the determinations of youth employment in order to shed light on the possible implications of abolishing junior rates of pay in State and Federal awards. To the extent that replacing such awards with non-discriminatory alternatives—which have all been examined by the commission and have been found to be wanting—would lead to an increase in youth wages, the results of this analysis would suggest quite strongly that there would be a more than proportional reduction in youth employment. Everything points to the fact that what you have been supporting for 10 years would, in fact, lead to greater youth unemployment. Ten years ago this was floated. We have had any number of state governments put up propositions and yet not one of them has been able to come to a conclusion.If you want to look overseas, look to the UK. The Leader of the Opposition just loves talking about Prime Minister Blair and what a great bloke he is, saying, `There's someone you can follow.' In the UK the Low Pay Commission was established by the Blair government.84HZAHRAMr Zahra—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. This is supposed to be about outlining to the House the positions of each of the parties.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—What is your point of order?84HZAHRAMr Zahra—I do not think the speaker is being relevant, Mr Deputy Speaker. He is not outlining his party's position; he is talking about the international experience. I think he should be relevant to the debate.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The honourable member for Longman will continue his remarks. I think it has been quite obvious throughout this debate that espousing one's own policies has certainly taken on the atmosphere of looking at the other side's policies as well.2K6Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH—As I said, in the UK the Blair government went further than just accepting the recommendations of the Low Pay Commission; they actually recommended a minimum junior rate but then proceeded, by their own motion, to further discount that recommended minimum out of a concern for the youth labour market. The Labour Party of Great Britain is concerned about youth jobs. The Labor Party, those opposite, simply are not. Ireland followed with the Irish National Minimum Wage Commission and maintained the youth wages.Let us turn to other Labor governments here who could also do something about it. Every state, every territory, has it within its power today—and always has—to legislate to remove junior base wages. Has Peter Beattie in Queensland? Has Carr in New South Wales? No. Does Bacon in Tasmania? No. They hide behind their rhetoric as Beazley, the Leader of the Opposition, hid behind his today. But they know in their heart of hearts it will do one thing and one thing alone—that is, destroy jobs. When they get out from behind the unions that continually throw up these stupid ideas—which have been proven to be so by the commission—and come up with decent policy such as the policy which this minister has put before this House, we will not only see junior wages protected, we will see youth employment in this country protected so that it can grow into the future.17:16:007484Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—I rise to speak in what I consider to be a very sad debate. I say that because this afternoon the Australian Industrial Relations Commission challenged the Australian community—and, more importantly, this House—to consider, in a non-political and constructive way, where we go on one of the most complex issues confronting the Australian community at the moment. It does not just relate to the issue of youth unemployment, it also relates to a serious problem on the employment front in general. It is in that context I am pleased to say that not only has the Australian Labor Party's opposition welcomed the Industrial Relations Commission report but, more importantly, it has left the door open for us to proceed with a constructive debate with the government with a view to trying to ensure that we all, as a community, face up to the challenges laid down by the Industrial Relations Commission in its report today.That to me is exceptionally important. I am pleased to say that we on this side of the House do not consider that we have all the solutions. We have made progress in the past, but we must also learn from some of our mistakes in the past. That is why it was the parliament itself that asked the Australian Industrial Relations Commission to consider what is a broad ranging debate on the issue of junior rates. The commission has, in a non-ideological way, brought forward a report which challenges us all. The report challenges us all because it does not endorse the position of the government, nor does it endorse the traditional position of the union movement and nor does it endorse the traditional position of the Australian Labor Party. Debate is about us facing up to the fact that we have to endeavour to take on board the ideas and the suggestions of the Industrial Relations Commission and try and work out—for the sake of our young people, for the future of this nation—how we create a highly skilled work force, involve our young people and give their mothers and fathers some hope for the future.Let us go to the report of the Industrial Relations Commission. Why is this government so afraid of allowing the Australian community to take on board a report which is not only a report of substance but one prepared over six months? It is a report that encouraged all in the community, irrespective of whether they are union representatives, community representatives, employer representatives or representatives of political parties, to put forward their ideas, on the basis of which, the commission would bring forward a report which laid out the ideas and, in essence, said, `It is now our responsibility to consider an application, by whatever party the Australian community so chooses, to go forward and determine these matters on merit.'I agree with the Industrial Relations Commission. The report ought to be a catalyst for the resolution of major political and policy issues in the Australian community today. It ought not be the intention of this government—as it was this afternoon—to close off debate in a knee-jerk, short-term political response; a debate which the Australian community expects to go on with a view to trying to put in place decent solutions.I also want to say in considering the report of the Industrial Relations Commission that no jobs will be destroyed. The Industrial Relations Commission can proceed to consider the future of junior rates on the basis of merit in the current legislative framework. There is nothing to stop the Industrial Relations Commission from considering an application as to where we go on a broad range of suggestions that are laid out in the report. But I suppose from the government's point of view it is all about excuses: excuses from a government that is treading water on the issue of unemployment, excuses from a government that is not serious about the issue of unemployment.I want to touch on a few issues. We currently have unemployment in the order of 7½ per cent. If this government was serious not only about reducing youth unemployment but also about reducing unemployment in general, I would have thought that it would have put before the House a budget strategy to ensure that the level of unemployment in 12 months time was reduced instead of remaining the same. I would have thought that the government would be consumed with trying to ensure that the reduction in unemployment in the last three years was related more to jobs growth than to a fall-off in the participation rate. I would have thought that the government would have some ideas about how we overcome the fact that youth unemployment in Australia still is over 23 per cent and, more importantly, that 70,000 young unemployed people in Australia do not have a job, do not have a training opportunity and do not have any hope for the future.But, when you look at the nature of the seats that this government represents, it is not a government that is actually concerned with these issues. Let us go, for example, to the Prime Minister's seat in the lower northern Sydney area. It is interesting that, with respect to his constituency, we are talking about a youth unemployment rate of 2.1 per cent against a national youth unemployment rate of over 23 per cent. I really wish some of these people were prepared to debate these issues in a constructive way and, in doing so, visit some suburbs and regions such as Canterbury-Bankstown, Fairfield-Liverpool, Hunter, Newcastle, Richmond-Tweed and the mid-north coast of New South Wales, the western districts of Victoria, the Mallee, Gippsland, the outer north and west of Brisbane and northern Adelaide where youth unemployment is normally way above the national average of 20 per cent. That is the crux of the debate. If you were actually concerned about the plight of those young people and the worries of their parents in those suburbs and regions, then you would not be seeking this afternoon to shut off the debate in a knee-jerk reaction to what is a constructive report by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission.That takes me to the thrust of the report by the Industrial Relations Commission. It says to all of us, `Stop and consider this issue in a constructive way.' It says in essence that, `Having prepared this report, our responsibility is to now consider, industry by industry on the basis of test cases, what is the appropriate framework for the employment of young people throughout Australian industry in the future.' That is what it says. It is a report; it is not a decision. The issues have not been resolved—because we, this national parliament, did not ask the Australian Industrial Relations Commission to resolve the issue of whether juniors, be it on the basis of age or on the basis of experience of work, be paid an appropriate rate of pay. We asked the Industrial Relations Commission to consider the arguments and then work out how it might, with the support of this parliament, go forward to consider these issues in a constructive way with a view to maximising employment amongst the young people and, more importantly, where a case is established in some industries—be it hospitality, retail or perhaps even in some sections of the building and construction industry—in return for accepting a lower rate of pay than adults, those young people be guaranteed some quality training which guarantees them a better career opportunity in the future. That is what the debate is about. Our young people—be they employed or unemployed at the moment—know their responsibilities. But they are also pointing the finger at both sides of this parliament to ensure that we throw the rhetoric out the door, walk away from our traditional ontological position and allow the commission to now consider these matters on merit. I fully support that position. That is the position of the Australian Labor Party and that is the position that we are putting forward to the Australian community at the moment.Another exceptionally important point this parliament has to acknowledge is that in considering an application for change—be it in the retail industry, the hospitality industry or the building and construction industry—the burden of proof for change should be on those proposing change, whether it be the government or the industrial parties. That is what the commission said today. There is a framework to go forward. If you want to argue for a change in a given industry, then it is up to you—the government or the industrial parties—to make out a case and to ask that the Industrial Relations Commission consider your case on merit.I am not afraid of such a debate. That is that nature of the political processes. It is the environment in which I grew up for 20 years as a trade union official, representing workers all around Australia. In order to win the support of the Industrial Relations Commission for an argument I put forward, I had to have merit on my side. But this afternoon we have an endeavour by this government to strangle the independent Industrial Relations Commission that this parliament asked to prepare a report to be debated in the parliament, in the Australian community, in the churches and the community organisations and by the mums and dads and the industrial parties.Let the debate go on. It will be 12 months before we run into problems with the application of the current act. The Industrial Relations Commissioner has told the minister in no uncertain terms, `Enough is enough. Stand back and allow us to consider these matters on merit. Stand back and allow us to ensure that the industrial parties and the government of the day are forced to put up or shut up.' They either have a case or they do not have a case. I am not afraid of the debate, the Australian community is not afraid of the debate and, more importantly, Australia's 70,000 young unemployed and their mothers and fathers are not afraid of the debate. Those unemployed people who are, unfortunately, more and more concentrated in particular suburbs and regions expect more of this political debate.We have a way forward on the issue of unemployment. It is about quality training—a new and a better deal for the unemployed. It is about giving incentives to employers and to young people to get them back to work. It is about a national skills strategy that actually rewards young people if they are in some instances required to accept lower rates of pay than adults. It is about fair and flexible workplaces. It is about addressing the new geography of the labour market. It is about ensuring—as is the intent of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission today—that we as a community cope with change by assisting people in making the necessary transitions from school to work or, in some instances, from one job to unemployment and back to work.I simply adopt this approach: this afternoon we should be renewing our commitment to a constructive debate in this parliament about ensuring that we as a community face up to our responsibilities to do something to create even better training and employment opportunities, with the assistance of the independent Industrial Relations Commission, to assist our unemployed.Debate interrupted.Adjournment748610000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 5.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn.748617:30:007486Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JENKINSHH4ScullinALP00—On the adjournment tonight it is appropriate, with the Minister for Employment Services at the table, to speak on some of the policies that the government claim they have in the area of employment services. The minister comes in here and parrots in question time and in every debate that is going the Work for the Dole scheme. But what the minister has not done is come into this place and had a full debate on the evaluation done by the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, which he released at the end of last month. One of the important suggestions that was in the evaluation by his own department was that the program's name should be changed from Work for the Dole to such things as `Work for the Future' or a scheme called `Volunteers for Australia'. It is understandable that the government, with their penchant for penalising the victims of certain things in Australian society, continue to champion the name Work for the Dole. In an article in the West Australian , it is stated that a spokesperson for the Minister for Employment Services said that the Prime Minister is keen on the name Work for the Dole. Shame on you, Prime Minister. The only reason that anybody would suggest that the name Work for the Dole was appropriate is that it indicates in some way a malevolence on the part of those proposers that this scheme should be seen as being some form of punishment.As I have said all along, we on this side of the House could agree with an employment program that has some basis of mutual obligation if it were in fact fair dinkum and if it had an element of training way beyond what is proposed by the Work for the Dole scheme. If we compare the type of Work for the Dole scheme that the government has with the programs that were produced under Labor governments, the element that is missing from Work for the Dole is not the work experience—and everybody understands the value of that. It is not the work experience that there is any argument about; it is the fact that there is no add-on. There is no value adding in the scheme; there is no adding that gives proper training to the participants. There is no training that then gives skills that can be transferred to other employment. The real problem with the way that the debate about this program has gone is that it is seen to be one of those subjects where it is us and them, that the government has some sort of virtue on the basis of the program that they have in place and that any programs that we proposed previously were wrong.If we look at the evaluation produced by the department and we look at the outcomes of the Work for the Dole scheme, it is not any better than the programs that Labor had in place; in fact, in the cases of most other programs Labor governments had better levels of positive outcomes. If we are going to have debates about giving opportunities to young Australians to get employment and we are going to have the sorts of discussions that we are having now on youth wages, we have to be fair dinkum. We have to look at the alternatives, and we have to not go into debates that are just based on ideology. Just as we have seen in the discussion that we had this afternoon—when there was a proper discussion of what the commission has actually said in its report—we should be looking at ways in which to encourage young people into employment, and youth wages should not be seen as the problem.I have said, and the minister knows, that I would be willing to give support for an employment program based on the notions they have in place with their so-called Work for the Dole if it were improved. I dispute the notion that the minister put—I think it was in the last sitting week—when he criticised the Brisbane City Council's attitude to this program. He did not recognise that the Brisbane City Council would support an employment program where there was mutual obligation and where government was offering more than just work experience. And that is the case. The notion of mutual obligation being something that only the government has championed is nonsense. We need to have a proper debate on what is required for governments to offer young people to give them a chance to have positive outcomes from any employment programs offered by the government. That is what the young people of Australia are looking for; young people of Australia are looking for opportunities. They produce positive work, and they should be given opportunities. (Time expired)Motion (by Mr Nairn) put: That the question be now put. The House divided. [5.39 p.m.](Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 ——Voting details are recorded in the Votes and Proceedings .Question so resolved in the affirmative.Original question put: That the House do now adjourn. The House divided. [5.44 p.m.](Mr Speaker—Mr H.A. Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 ——Voting details are recorded in the Votes and Proceedings .Question so resolved in the negative.Business74887488Motion (by Mr Reith)—by leave—proposed:That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the routine of business for the remainder of this sitting being as follows without any interruption:(1) Notice No. 5, government business, being called on and proceeded with forthwith;(2) At the conclusion of the Minister's second reading speech relating to the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment) Bill 1998 [No. 2], the debate being immediately adjourned, and the resumption of the debate being made an order of the day for the next sitting; and(3) The question—That the House do now adjourn—being then put immediately, without amendment or debate.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The question is that the motion be agreed to. All those of that opinion say aye—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Hang on, I wish to speak to the motion. Mr Speaker, we oppose this motion. This is a suspension vote where there may be two speakers, one in opposition—and away I go. Mr Speaker, I absolutely oppose this motion. This is a product of `completely wreck' tactics.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition does not—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—He has to move that I be not further heard.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition did not have the call.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I was putting the question.WI4REITHMr Reith—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. My point of order, Mr Speaker, is that you put the question, and upon your putting the question I put, `That the question be put.' That was the motion before the chair. Under the procedures of the House, once the motion has been put and the motion `That the motion be put' has been moved by, in this case, the Leader of the House, under the standing orders there is no alternative course of action available to the Speaker and that question must be put without delay, without interruption. On that basis, Mr Speaker, that vote should now be conducted.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, on the point of order: there is a provision in standing orders for the suspension of standing orders, that is true, and we would not dispute it. There is a specific set of standing orders associated with that. It says that the mover of that particular proposition, should he seek to exercise it, has 10 minutes, the seconder has five, and the alternative point of view has 10 minutes to be put.I assume that there was nobody on the other side jumping to speak; I was on my feet. When you call a particular proposition, Mr Speaker, there is an obligation upon you to follow through with those standing orders and call the people who were entitled to speak under it until the debate is concluded according to standing orders. I was on my feet, Mr Speaker, as you started the process of putting the question—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—That is quite right.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Which is, when the person who has moved or spoken to a motion sits down, you read the motion that is before the House and then people get up to speak to that motion. I was on my scrapers to do precisely that, there still being time under the 25-minute requirement associated with a suspension of standing orders for me to be able to put a case against the suspension.Mr Speaker, I would argue that I was on my feet, I was in a position to be recognised and you did recognise me, after seeing that I was on my feet, and I began to speak on the basis of your recognition of me. Then the Leader of the House came in. He is not entitled to put a motion that the motion be put. All he can do in those circumstances is move that I be not further heard and then, at some subsequent time, he can do so. But he has not done it up to this point. Therefore, Mr Speaker, I was legitimately on my feet and I am entitled to the call to the completion of my remarks.WI4REITHMr Reith—Mr Speaker, on the point of order: the standing orders on this are quite clear. Just to explain it to the former Leader of the House, we regularly have situations where motions are put and then the effective gag motion is that the member be not further heard. That is what usually happens. The reason that that happens in that way is that you cannot put the procedural motion—namely, that the question be put—until the question has been moved and seconded and the question before the chair has been stated by the chair.Once it has been stated by the chair, then the procedural motion that the question be put can be moved at any time either prior to a member standing and speaking or, alternatively, in the situation where a member has the call. In this particular case, the member had the call but that is irrelevant.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members on my left seem to have forgotten, including the member for Prospect, that there has been a general warning issued to the House.WI4REITHMr Reith—The simple point is that, once you have stated the question, any member may move under the standing orders that the question be put. That was the motion put to you; I put it to you. Under the standing orders there is no other course of action available to the chair but to put that question to the ballot. That is what you were doing. I put it to you, Mr Speaker, you have no choice but to proceed accordingly and conduct that ballot.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, on the point of order: whatever the convention of the House is, the standing orders are clear: a motion to suspend standing orders must be moved and seconded. That is what the standing orders say.It is different from another motion that is there to be moved by a minister. A minister can move any motion before this House without a seconder but not the suspension of standing orders, according to the standing orders. Therefore, for a motion such as that—namely, that the motion be put—to be legitimately before you, it will have had to have been appropriately seconded. If the minister is going to be in a situation to gag me, the only motion that he could move on me was a motion that I be no longer heard, not a motion that the motion be put. Therefore, Mr Speaker, I should still be on my scrapers addressing this House on this vital matter and I should still have a few minutes left of my time in order to be able to do it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—If I can rule on the point of order.WI4REITHMr Reith—Mr Speaker—Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I am getting a little tired of having to remind members of the conventions of the parliament. Is the Leader of the House seeking to make a comment on the point of order?WI4REITHMr Reith—Mr Speaker, on the point of order, just to put the matter absolutely beyond doubt, I refer you to standing order 93, which makes the point:After any question has been proposed from the Chair—which you did—either in the House or in the Main Committee, a motion may be made by any Member, rising in his or her place, and without notice, and whether any other Member is addressing the Chair or not—which is the point that the Leader of the Opposition failed to appreciate—"That the question be now put", and such motion shall be put forthwith without amendment or debate.That is exactly the point I have made, and I invite you to proceed accordingly.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I will rule on the point of order. The House needs to bear in mind that the House has spent much of this afternoon debating a motion moved by the minister that standing orders be suspended, which was, by the way, not seconded. I have, as the minister said, proposed the question that the motion be agreed to and I now put that question.Question put: That the motion (Mr Reith's) be agreed to. The House divided. [6.00 p.m.](Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 ——Voting details are recorded in the Votes and Proceedings .Question so resolved in the affirmative.Bills7490r8657490Bill presented by Mr Reith, and read a first time.QJ4THEOPHANOUSDr Theophanous—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Calwell does not have the call. I have an obligation to point out to him that the resolution as carried by an absolute majority allows the Leader of the House to present this bill without interruption. There is no provision for interruption. I cannot recognise the member for Calwell and I call the Leader of the House.749018:04:007490Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment) Bill 1998 [No. 2] will amend the Workplace Relations Act 1996 and the Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendment Act 1996 to remove the uncertainty surrounding junior rates of pay by exempting junior rates, on a permanent basis, from the age discrimination provisions of those acts. The bill will also amend the principal object of the Workplace Relations Act to include within its scope the protection of young people's competitive position in the labour market, the promotion of youth employment and the reduction of youth unemployment, and these will also be objects to which the Australian Industrial Relations Commission must have regard in making and varying awards. In particular, the bill will require the commission to support youth employment by ensuring that, where appropriate, awards that apply to work that is or may be performed by young people include junior rates of pay.This bill is identical to the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment) Bill 1998 which was introduced in the House of Representatives on 26 November 1998, passed by the House of Representatives on 10 February 1999 but rejected by the Senate on 8 March 1999. Members who are concerned about the welfare of the young employed and of the young unemployed should match that concern with support for this bill.The bill is about supporting and enhancing the job prospects of young people. It does this by maintaining the existing system of junior rates and by making junior rates more widely available. The bill is not about cutting junior rates; it is about protecting jobs for young people by protecting junior rates. Junior rates have been a feature of the wages system in Australia since early this century. Over 400,000 young people under 21 are paid junior wages—this represents over half of all employed young people.But junior rates are under threat. Under the existing provisions of the Workplace Relations Act, the continuation of junior rates in awards cannot be guaranteed after 22 June 2000. Until then, junior rates in all awards are exempted from the provisions of the anti-age discrimination requirements of the Workplace Relations Act. But this across-the-board exemption that protects junior rates expires on 22 June 2000.Because of the importance of junior rates for getting young people into jobs, this government's preferred position has always been that junior rates should be allowed to continue indefinitely—a position reflected in the Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1996 as originally introduced into this parliament. However, following discussions with the Australian Democrats when the bill was before the Senate, the government agreed, as a temporary measure, to limit the exemption to a further three years and to put in place a mechanism for the commission to review the feasibility of abolishing junior rates of pay. This reflected a compromise position only agreed to by the government as a way of avoiding the legislated removal of junior wages. The coalition agreed to the review on the clear understanding that our policy would continue to be for the retention of junior rates and that we would seek a mandate for this legislation at the next election. We are now seeking to implement that mandate.It is also the government's view that, in order to provide support for youth employment, junior rates should be more widely available. The government's support for the retention and extension of junior rates was articulated in a ministerial discussion paper that I issued in June last year entitled `Protecting job opportunities for young people'. More importantly, it was a policy specified in black and white in the coalition's pre-election workplace relations policy, `More Jobs Better Pay', and publicly debated during the recent election campaign. That policy has now been endorsed by the Australian electorate. This bill gives effect to that policy.Under the provisions of the bill, the way in which junior rates would be introduced into any particular award would be a matter for the commission. It would be open to the commission to include transitional `grandfathering' provisions similar to the way the commission has dealt with transitional issues of this nature in the past, as evidenced by the way it dealt with the conversion of paid rates awards to minimum rates awards. I emphasise again that this bill is not about cutting the wages of existing employees.A number of members who spoke against the initial bill said that the bill should not have been brought forward until after the tabling of the commission's report on junior rates. Their initial opposition to the bill was determined by timing and process issues rather than by the merits of the bill itself. This perceived difficulty has been resolved. I have tabled the commission's report. The parliament can now proceed to assess the youth employment bill on its merits. I hope the opposition appreciates—as a result of today's handling of this legislation and the report—that this government is very determined to see this matter settled once and for all.In summary, the commission's report finds that junior rates are important for getting young people into jobs, that none of the alternatives put to the inquiry are feasible replacements for junior rates, that any move to abolish junior rates would cost young people jobs, and that the introduction of adult wages at 18 would have significant disemploying effects. The report of the commission adds to the case in favour of junior rates. It is a case that is already overwhelming. Any move to abolish junior rates would be a highly irresponsible move, particularly given the delicate labour market situation that confronts young people.The bill will also address the concern expressed in the commission's report that some aspects of the anti-age discrimination provisions of the Workplace Relations Act are ambiguous and vague. The report suggests that these ambiguities will eventually have to be addressed in parliament, in the commission or in the court. We agree that it is essential to remove any uncertainty about how the anti-age discrimination requirements of the Workplace Relations Act apply to junior rates.Any uncertainty about junior rates does not create a stable environment for the employment of young people. Young people and the employers are entitled to know that their jobs and employing rights are secure. The youth employment bill will provide this certainty by permanently exempting junior rates from the age discrimination requirements of the Workplace Relations Act. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum. 10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—There is no need for me, as is the normal practice, to call for the adjournment of the debate because, according to the resolution before the House, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Personal Explanations749210000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Before I proceed to put the question that the House do now adjourn, I intend to extend to the member for Calwell some indulgence because he has indicated there is a matter of some personal urgency that he wishes to bring to the attention of the House.18:10:007492Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellALP00—This will not take long, and I have been waiting since 3 o'clock. In today's Sydney Morning Herald and Melbourne Age there is a story about me which makes a number of serious and false allegations. This story is a malicious smear on me. It is an attempt to destroy my parliamentary reputation and especially my many years of work in the areas of immigration and multiculturalism. I completely deny the allegations in these two newspapers. In particular, the claim that, `On one occasion it is understood that around $20,000 in cash was handed to Dr Theophanous,' is an outrageous lie which is intended to create the maximum public damage to me. Ever since the decision in 1993 to allow the Chinese students and their dependants to stay in Australia, I have been subjected to continuing false attacks. Two investigations have cleared me. Today's newspaper story is part of a further systematic and scurrilous attack on me.However, there are many issues involved in this latest matter. Some of these issues will be of grave concern to members of this House when they are released. They are issues that go to the very heart of the question as to whether members of parliament can confidentially serve their constituents, especially people facing a crisis and needing our help.In conclusion, I repeat again that I am innocent of these alleged misdeeds. However, I have been advised by my lawyers to make no more comment until further events unfold. In the meantime, I will continue to perform my parliamentary duties albeit under difficult circumstances.18:13:007492House adjourned at 6.13 p.m.Notices7492The following notices were given:Mr Speaker to present a bill for an act to provide for the establishment and management of the Australian Parliamentary Service, and for other purposes.Mrs Crosio to move:That the House:(1) notes with concern that the Environmental Impact Study (EIS) of the Badgerys Creek Airport proposal does not contain an examination of the extent to which a very fast train link between Sydney and Canberra—and eventually from Canberra to Melbourne— would reduce domestic air traffic at Sydney's Kingsford-Smith Airport and therefore negate the need to make an immediate decision on building a second international airport in the Sydney basin;(2) recognises that building a 24-hour international airport at Badgerys Creek will attract an estimated 77 000 extra daily vehicle movements on western Sydney's already congested roads and the disastrous economic, social and environmental problems that such a traffic explosion would cause;(3) notes with concern that the EIS auditor, the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation (SMEC), has revealed that a cost-benefit analysis of the Badgerys Creek Airport proposal does not support the construction of an airport at this site;(4) acknowledges that building a 24-hour international airport at Badgerys Creek will endanger the Greater Blue Mountains area being declared a World Heritage site; and(5) recognises that 10 of the 11 councils that will be affected by the proposed Badgerys Creek airport and both the NSW State Government and Opposition are against the airport's development.Mr Price to move:That the House:(1) notes with concern the Government's apparent lack of concern regarding the economic, social and environmental impacts of the proposed development of a 24-hour airport at Badgerys Creek; (2) recognises that the residents of Mount Druitt, Rooty Hill, Whalan, Tregear, Emerton, Dharruk, Hebersham, Oxley Park, St Clair, St Marys, Plumpton, Doonside, Minchinbury, Shalvey, Willmot, Bidwell, Blackett, Hassall Grove, Glendenning, Marsden Park, Lethbridge Park, Colyton, Erskine Park, Eastern Creek and Blacktown will be adversely affected by the construction of the airport;(3) notes that the State Government, State Opposition and 10 Western Sydney Councils are opposed to the construction of an airport on this site;(4) acknowledges that alternative sites for an airport have not been fully investigated;(5) acknowledges that alternative options for a more efficient use of existing Sydney airports have not been fully investigated;(6) acknowledges that the draft Environmental Impact Study (EIS) is fundamentally flawed in regards to its terms of reference and its outcomes;(7) recognises that the full EIS has not been an open and transparent process; and(8) regrets the failure of the Government to release the final EIS.Mrs Irwin to move:That the House:(1) notes that during the 1996 election campaign, the Government promised the people of Western Sydney an open, transparent and accountable process in determining the future for the Badgerys Creek airport site;(2) notes with concern that the release of the final Environmental Impact Study (EIS) of the Badgerys Creek airport has been continually delayed by the Government, despite its stated intentions to release it, in clear breach of their election promises;(3) acknowledges that the residents of Ashcroft, Bonnyrigg, Busby, Cabramatta, Cabramatta West, Canley Heights, Canley Vale, Cartwright, Edensor Park, Green Valley, Heckenberg, Hinchinbrook, Lansvale, Liverpool, Miller, Mt Pritchard, Sadleir, St Johns Park, Warwick Farm and Wakely have the right to be fully informed of the impact of the construction of a 24-hour international airport at Badgerys Creek;(4) recognises that 10 Western Sydney councils, the State Government and the State Opposition are opposed to the construction of the Badgerys Creek airport;(5) acknowledges the growing concern by the people of Western Sydney about the potential impact of the airport and their falling confi dence levels in the EIS process and the manner in which the Government is handling the development of Sydney's second airport; and(6) recognises that the Government has failed to examine in detail alternative proposals to Badgerys Creek for the second airport's location and alternative proposals for more efficient use of existing airport infrastructure in Sydney.Mr Laurie Ferguson to move:That the House:(1) recognises that building a 24-hour international airport at Badgerys Creek will unfairly shift many of the environmental and social problems currently facing the residents living in the vicinity of Sydney's Kingsford-Smith Airport on to the residents of western Sydney;(2) notes that by the time an international airport built at Badgerys Creek is fully operative, the population in Sydney's greater west that will surround the development and be affected by its operations will have reached close to 2 million;(3) notes the already high levels of air pollution endured by the people of western Sydney and the increasing rates of respiratory illness suffered by the area's population and that a 24-hour international airport at Badgerys Creek would only exacerbate the problem; and(4) questions the suggested job growth figures that will eventuate following the development of an airport at Badgerys Creek.Mr Mossfield to move:That the House:(1) notes the ongoing opposition by local residents to the building of an airport at Badgerys Creek by many Western Sydney MPs including Government and Opposition parties and local government groups;(2) notes that opposition to the proposed airport was made a key issue in most Western Sydney electorates by all party candidates during the last federal election;(3) recognises that the serious and justifiable concerns expressed by residents of inner Sydney to the noise and pollution effects caused by Kingsford-Smith Airport cannot be solved by simply moving the whole problem out to and onto Western Sydney residents;(4) acknowledges that both the NSW Carr Government and the Chikarovski Opposition oppose the building of an airport at Badgerys Creek;(5) challenges the claim of massive job creation by any such building of Badgerys Creek and declares that existing employees would merely transfer their worksite from Kingsford-Smith to Badgerys Creek; and(6) calls on the Government to quickly abandon the Badgerys Creek airport proposal and place any new second airport outside the Sydney basin.Mr McGauran to present a bill for an act to amend the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, and for other purposes.Mr Reith to move:That standing order 399 be suspended for the remainder of this period of sittings, except when a motion is moved pursuant to the standing order by a Minister.1999-06-24Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Nehl) took the chair at 9.40 a.m.Statements by Members749574957495Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—Page 1 of yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald , under the banner headline `The "great Australian dream" Mark 2 up for grabs', championed the Howard government's announcement that the $16 billion sell-off of Telstra `would see a new generation fulfilling the new "great Australian dream" of owning shares'. Further, the Sydney Morning Herald reported:Telstra shares may be on the shopping list of most leading stockbrokers, but they say there are many other shares worth considering before spending $5,000 or $10,000 on the phone giant.I ask: how many battlers have a spare $5,000 or $10,000? When I last spoke in the Main Committee about the first one-third sale of Telstra, on 26 November 1998, I highlighted the fact that the float price was undervalued by 50 per cent. In other words, we, the taxpayers and the owners of Telstra, were the victims of daylight robbery by the Howard government's first float.Most galling of all, the taxpayers and the owners of Telstra are going to be robbed again with the latest 16 per cent sell-off. Day after day I have had to suffer the Prime Minister and the Treasurer seducing the Australian people with the line about how wonderful it will be that more and more mums and dads can own shares in this great, profitable national asset. But I ask: at what cost? The people of Australia already own two-thirds of Telstra—and it should be 100 per cent. But worse, 35 per cent of Telstra can be foreign owned.What we have here is a typical coalition government bribe which appeals to the rich and the greedy. Once again the Howard government is robbing the poor to reward those in our society who are already better off, so that they can feel warm and cosy as the value of their Telstra share portfolio blossoms. Those who already own Telstra shares can also look forward to a better deal if they buy more shares. This is disgraceful.With the first one-third sell-off, we witnessed massive job losses and a marked reduction in services. It is obvious that this scenario will continue with the latest sell-off. Once again, the public interest has been massively kicked in the guts. If the public think that out of this they will be able to get their telephones installed or serviced quicker, they had better think again. After all, we know that the shareholders will demand profits, and Telstra management will make sure that the value of the shares increases at the expense of services to the Australian people.It is outrageous to read in the Sydney Morning Herald that the brokers and merchant bankers will be the biggest winners in this latest float. The Sydney Morning Herald estimates that they stand to reap an estimated $240 million in fees. This is appalling. The tragedy in all of this is that the Howard government does not intend to stop here. The government has made it quite clear that it wants to fully privatise Telstra. Sadly, once this great asset is sold it can never be bought back by the legitimate owners—the Australian public.74967496Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH2K6LongmanLP10—I have tried three times to give this three-minute speech but, unfortunately, due to the attitude of those opposite, the limited time available to members has been reduced in the last couple of weeks. I would like to raise the issue of youth and youth homelessness and the whole issue of young people in the community. In my electorate of Longman, a couple of weeks ago the local paper put out a headline `Youth in despair'. I think it is those sorts of headlines which really stereotype people's opinions of young people which are quite wrong. The fact is that the majority of young people in the electorate of Longman, whether they be on Bribie Island, at Caboolture, Deception Bay, Maleny or Beerwah, are high achievers. They are people who are representing their country and their state in sport; they do very well in school; they participate in debates.But there is a small group of people who, for whatever reason—through family breakdown or through some other form of disadvantage—have found themselves falling through the cracks of society. I am very pleased that the government, through its initiatives yesterday and also through an earlier announcement this week, is going to introduce two more JPET programs, which address these very needs, into the electorate of Longman.In Deception Bay, which is an area of depression with high unemployment, where young people certainly need greater assistance, the youth workers of that district are going to be funded by this government for an additional 50 places for young people who are at risk—helping them to get the education they need, the services they need, the homes they need and the love and the support which will enable them to become fuller members of our society.A number of young people come to Caboolture and Morayfield, which are areas on the northern rail line. They are not locals; they are basically dumped there. When they arrive, they get off the train wondering where they are going to go. The local Salvation Army will now be providing 100 places—funded through the JPET program—to people in greatest need.These are responsible policies of this government which acknowledge that not everybody is being well served by their family, by the community, by government and by the schooling system. That is why these innovative and extended programs are important. I commend not only the government for doing this but also those who provide the services on the ground. This initiative will ensure that young people get not only social and economic sustenance but also a feeling of wellbeing that the rest of us take for granted—on both sides of the House. These two initiatives will go a long way to addressing that small group of people—the youth at risk—in the Longman electorate.I reiterate that the overwhelming majority of young people throughout the Longman electorate are in fact high achievers who are doing very well. They have good prospects and do us all proud. The media should not attack young people by saying, `Youth in despair'; they should champion those who are doing such a very good job in our society.74967496Sidebottom, Peter, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM849BraddonALP00—I rise to congratulate the Christian Brethren Assemblies of Tasmania on the opening of their new recreation stadium at Camp Clayton Camping and Convention Centre. Situated at the coastal end of the beautiful Forth Valley—my home valley—Camp Clayton offers a comprehensive program of holiday activities for young people, leadership courses for over 100 volunteer young people every year, the hosting of special needs groups, the provision of retreats and family based ministry, and structured camp activities for over 50 Tasmanian schools.Started in 1950, Camp Clayton is fully booked all year round and has established a state-wide reputation for providing quality accommodation and programs. There is something very special about Camp Clayton, and I sought to isolate this quality when I had the privilege of opening the new stadium last Friday. I highlighted four Ps in my endeavours.P for place. Camp Clayton is situated at Turners Beach on 26 hectares, bounded by Bass Strait and incorporating prime agricultural land. Valued at over $3.5 million, it can accommodate 250 campers at any time in unsurpassed natural and landscaped surroundings. Its units are of excellent quality and its recreational facilities are first class. Although this is very important, this does not make Camp Clayton special.P for programs. I have highlighted the extensive programs above, and these respond to a variety of needs, both community and personal. But these alone do not make Camp Clayton special.P for people. Now this is getting closer to my search. Camp Clayton is the result of countless thousands of dollars of donated materials and thousands of hours of volunteer labour since 1950—the generous donation of time by camp leaders, youth workers and the board of management. This generosity of people leads me to the complementary key factor defining Camp Clayton.P for purpose. This is the essential meaning to Camp Clayton—the provision of programs to young people in a secure, safe, innovative environment, based on the Christian value of loving, nurturing and caring for our young people. Camp Clayton personifies this value in every sense—from the physical environment to its extensive person-oriented programs. Camp Clayton incorporates its community in its programs and presence in every sense of the word.I was very proud to open the new stadium valued at something like $800,000, yet in a sense I was a little embarrassed. You see, Camp Clayton does not use government funds or grants. Wonderfully, it is a great example of self-help based on the principle that in self-help there is genuine ownership, fellowship and a sense of belonging. Indeed, self-help is a purpose in itself.On behalf of the people of Tasmania, and my region in particular, I wish to congratulate all those involved with Camp Clayton and to thank them for their excellent ministry. I know all members in this chamber would be proud to have such a total concept as Camp Clayton in their electorate. I certainly am. (Time expired)74977497Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—In my electorate of Gilmore, there are many people whose kidneys are in trouble. A number of these people are on dialysis, whether it be home or hospital based treatment. The nearest dialysis facility is at Wollongong—an hour's journey to the north. For those who take the ambulance to Wollongong hospital, it is a very long day. They start off at about 10 o'clock in the morning, and they are often not home until 1 or 2 o'clock the next morning. A long day indeed when you are already not feeling well, but made even more intrusive by the fact that the trip is made three times a week, each week. They dare not miss a trip: miss three trips and you are dead; it is that serious.This is an exhausting process that prolongs life but adds no quality to it. Upon hearing of the plight of these people, our local community sprang into action. Although they did not know the people or the machinery that they were going to fund, our local Lions clubs joined together to stage an enormous appeal. Others gained agreement from the health authorities to assist in the design and fit-out of a dialysis ward in the Shoalhaven area. Many organisations and individuals banded together with the expertise and organisational skills of the local Lions clubs. The target was set at a seemingly impossible $500,000 and the fundraising began.Just about everybody in my electorate went to an event of some sort, bought raffle tickets, sold raffle tickets or made donations, cakes or fools of themselves just to help raise money for the dialysis ward. Some groups had golf days, race days, dances, fetes and festivals. Other groups and businesses challenged one another to meet or better their fundraising efforts. Some people got their hair cut, others cut their pocket money, and on and on it went, seemingly forever without let-up.When walking the streets it became difficult to dodge those avid dialysis dollar demands. We were not safe in our homes either. The local radio personality, Barry Mac, urged us to greater effort and made the journey more pleasant by providing positive messages and regular updates on the total sum raised so far. He also MCed events, and his radio station, 2ST, allowed him to run a couple of his famous Saturday night rock-and-roll segments at local clubs where his entertainment was greatly appreciated. Franz Mairinger, Lions Council Chairman, and his band of merry Lions did not limit their fundraising efforts to the local area. They went right to the top and petitioned Lions International to help, which they did very generously. The federal government also assisted with a donation of $100,000.So our community raised the $500,000 in less than 12 months. The new ward should be operational in the next couple of weeks. Our dialysis patients will then have less travelling time added to their day and, when they are finished the treatment, they will be able to go straight home instead of having to wait for everyone else to be finished as well. It is so heartening when this sort of joint effort demonstrates the word `unity' in the word `community'. The people of my electorate know how to look after one another, and that is why Gilmore is such a great place to be.74987498Ripoll, Bernie, MPMr RIPOLL83EOxleyALP00—I rise to speak on an issue of vital importance to not only my electorate of Oxley but also neighbouring electorates. This issue, the appalling condition of the Ipswich motorway, is one which I have brought to the attention of the House previously. The motorway is now a national disgrace. It is part of the national highway system and is the main arterial road available for people travelling from Brisbane to Ipswich and further on to Toowoomba, in the seat of Groom, and to Warwick, in the seat of Blair.In 1997, the Queensland state government conducted a safety audit of the motorway and found that the road system was in desperate need of safety repairs to the tune of $42 million. To date, only $6 million has been spent with $36 million still required. These repairs are not for beautification or for political point scoring; these repairs are required to correct serious safety problems with the Ipswich motorway, in particular the sections between Redbank and Wacol.About 75,000 vehicles a day use the motorway and, at peak times, it may as well be a car park with average speeds estimated at around 19 kilometres per hour. At other times, when the speed limit of 100 kilometres per hour is reached, the road becomes a death trap. It has claimed many lives and has caused many accidents. It affects not only the constituents of Oxley but all travellers who use this road system—who are, as I said earlier, many. It affects many electorates, the economic growth of the region and, in the end, all of Queensland. Regardless of the political divide between electorates, it is imperative that Queensland receive the funding it needs to carry out urgent road safety repairs and maintenance.I would like to join the member for Groom, Ian Macfarlane, and the member for Blair, Cameron Thompson, in their calls for the federal government to support the provision of funds needed in this region. I also support the statement by the member for Blair in this House on 17 February this year when he said:My agenda . . . is the issue of roads . . . I want to look at what is being done to appropriate money to make sure those roads are at the highest possible standard.Not a day goes by without government members from both the Liberal and National parties saying that they care about rural and regional Australia, and that only they understand the needs of rural and regional Australia. Here is your opportunity to prove it.I can no longer tolerate picking up my local paper and reading of the carnage on our main road system through this region. I also know that many accidents are not reported because of their frequency. When will the government decide that it is time to act? Will it be when a bus has a head-on with a family on its way home from an evening out? Or will it be when a car-load of tourists careers off this inadequate highway into a minibus full of holiday-makers? How many lives must be lost before the imperative for the repair of this road is greater than the imperative for penny-pinching? This government's allocation of $25 million for the whole state of Queensland represents exactly what they think of rural and regional Australia: very little. (Time expired)74997499Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—This is not the first time I have raised the issue of biotechnology and the government's efforts to begin to tackle the implications of the great strides being made both here and overseas in biotechnology engineering and commercialisation. It is an area of enormous opportunity, an area where our lives will be changed in a way that we cannot even forecast right now. But there are some implications and considerations our country needs to address surrounding the impact of genetic manipulation, ownership of gene technology—in particular, who should own the intellectual property associated with gene technology—and the potential for genetic pollution.I was terrified to read in the US that Harvard University has secured patent ownership over not only the genetic technology used to develop a cancer-susceptible mouse—the `oncomouse'—but also the mouse itself. So they own the technology and the mammal. After having secured that patent ownership in the US, they then thought `We'll head north' and they went up to Canada. Thankfully, the Canadian Federal Court has rejected the claim of ownership over the mammal. In his decision, Judge Marc Nadon stated:They have created a method to inject eggs with a myc gene but they have not invented the mouse.The thing that concerns me about this is the aggressive pursuit of intellectual property ownership as evidenced in the case with Harvard University. This is just the tip of the iceberg. At the end of the day, who is going to decide when and under what terms genetically enhanced organisms will be released and made available? What price will we pay if other nations or other multinationals who are not friendly to our interests own those patents and decide when we can have access to them? That potential impact on our nation would be quite significant. That is only one area.Another area relates to the testing of genetically enhanced organisms. We have lamented, over many generations, our efforts to modify the environment with the introduction of cane toads and rabbits. Now there is the prospect of having genetically enhanced organisms released. That of itself should not terrify us, as long as we do our homework first. In the next decade there may well be a proposition before this parliament to create a biosphere-controlled environment where we can test some of these organisms before we release them into the environment.One side of politics will be ready to address those challenges: the coalition. In the budget, there has already been funding earmarked for a comprehensive new biotechnology strategy. We have heard about the development of the office of gene technology regulator, and funding has been made available for that. Again, the coalition is at the front end of these important policy issues. Unlike the opposition, this government recognises the major technological advances that have been made. But, once again, where is Labor? AWOL—absent without leadership on this important issue. We are looking to the coalition to again do what is needed for the country. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! In accordance with standing order 275A the time for members' statements has concluded.Bills7500r7717500Debate resumed from 3 June, on motion by Mr Vaile:That the bill be now read a second time.10:00:007500Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—The Damage by Aircraft Bill 1999 seeks to improve compensation arrangements for third parties on the ground who suffer death, personal injury or property damage as a consequence of an air accident. As the shadow minister and previous opposition members who have spoken on this bill have already indicated, the Labor Party supports the government in these efforts. This bill makes a pleasant change from the usual air transport legislation which this government develops and puts forward, and which is usually unclear, inept, surrounded by secrecy and generally mismanaged.The current compensation arrangements for third parties affected by air accidents are entirely inadequate and need revision. Compensation for third parties on the ground in the case of an air crash in Australia is currently determined by our being a signatory to the Rome convention of 1952, the details of which are given force of law by the Civil Aviation (Damage by Aircraft) Act 1958.The Rome convention was developed to harmonise compensation payments between countries when international aircraft cause damage to parties on the ground. However, a number of holes exist in the convention, and subsequently in the act as it currently stands. While attempting to bring harmony to international compensation arrangements, the Rome convention actually falls far from it. Only 38 countries are party to it and only seven of the signatory countries are licensed to operate in Australia at any one time. Countries that are not signatories to the convention include the United States, Japan, China, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and the United Kingdom. Indeed, the majority of international carriers that operate in Australia are not covered by the convention.This lack of consistency means that different and sometimes inadequate levels of compensation can be available to parties on the ground suffering the results of aircraft accident. This depends on the aircraft involved and whether a carrier is covered by the convention or not. For example, if an international aircraft registered in a country that is not a signatory to the Rome convention were to have an accident and cause damage to people and property in Australia, the third parties would not have to prove that the aircraft—the defendant—was at fault, nor would they be limited in the amount of compensation they could seek. However, if the aircraft were from a country that was a signatory to the convention, while the plaintiff would not have to prove the defendant was at fault, their compensation would be limited.The Rome convention limits liability because, when it was drawn up in the 1950s, the air transport industry was in a fledgling state and compensation claims without limit could have spelt its ruin. The industry is no longer in need of such protection, and it is unfair to limit compensation claims on these grounds.In the case of the compensation available involving signatories to the Rome convention, there is a real concern regarding the adequacy of such payments in the current climate. The Rome convention sets the level of compensation available by relying on a formula based on current gold prices. As we all would know, gold prices the world over are at record lows. Under the convention's gold based formula, third parties conceivably face the possibility of receiving as little as $4 million in compensation following an air accident. Even the most generous conversions of the formula would result in a payment of no more than $40 million, a figure that would prove entirely inadequate should an accident occur approaching the scale of the El Al disaster which occurred in Amsterdam in 1989, destroying two apartment blocks and killing 43 people.Confusion with the current act also exists due to anomalies between the states and the territories and their arrangements in regard to aircraft accidents. If an accident occurs in New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia or Tasmania, an airline is subject to strict liability, meaning that the plaintiff need not prove that the defendant was at fault, and unlimited liability, meaning that there is no prescribed limit to the amount of compensation available. However, should an accident occur in either of the territories or in South Australia or Queensland, the airline is subject to common law liability, meaning that a plaintiff or third party on the ground needs to prove negligence or fault in order to receive compensation. Also, there is currently no legal requirement in Australia for aircraft owners or operators to carry insurance cover for their liability to third parties on the ground in the case of an accident.Obviously, Australia needs to extract itself from the Rome convention and set up a legislative framework that allows for blanket, strict and unlimited liability which applies in all states and territories and to all foreign owned aircraft operating over Australian territory, all Australian aircraft operating internationally, all domestic aircraft or air carriers and all private aircraft owner-operators. That is what this bill, I am pleased to say, endeavours to do. The bill also covers damage to third parties on the ground, not only in the unfortunate event of an aircraft crash but in the event of part of an aircraft, or something from inside an aircraft, breaking free and dropping to the earth.As for Australia withdrawing from its membership of the Rome convention, there is precedent for this. Canada renounced its membership of the convention in 1976 when it encountered the same problems as we in Australia now face. Australia's participation in the convention will be formally renounced before the new act comes into practice.Importantly, along with the opposition's support this bill has the support of the Australian aviation industry. The aviation insurance sector and both Ansett and Qantas agree that there will be little or no financial impact on them from the repealing of the current act and the passage of this bill.It is well known that the vast majority of aircraft carriers and owner-operators already carry enough insurance to cover third party liability. The major advantage of the bill is, therefore, that it will bring some certainty and consistency to an area where there has been confusion for some time. It is also timely of the government to make these changes, considering that the cabinet has recently accepted a more liberal air services policy which allows foreign air carriers greater access to our regional international airports.For the people of my electorate and for the 1.4 million people living in Western Sydney the thought of aircraft accidents and the extensive damage that could occur in the event of such a mishap has been at the forefront of their minds as the government has continually delayed coming to a decision over the proposed Badgerys Creek airport development. While all of the evidence would suggest that going ahead with the building of a 24-hour international airport, big enough to handle 360,000 movements per year, on the doorstep of Australia's most densely populated area, is complete and utter madness, the government seems intent on pursuing just such an option, only it does not have the courage to make the announcement and face the wrath of the people. As long as this madness goes on, as long as the government obfuscates and puts the decision off month after month, the people of Western Sydney will continue to view with concern the prospect of jumbo jets screeching over their heads 24 hours a day, with all the safety questions that such a prospect raises—questions which this bill surely reflects.We were told that a decision would be made by December of last year. When that did not eventuate, we presumed then that the government was merely being tardy and that we would hopefully get a result early in the new year. Then we found out in early February that Western Sydney residents, and particularly the voters in the New South Wales state election which was held on 27 March, would not know the result of the EIS until May this year at the earliest. Then, a few weeks ago, the news came that a final decision would more likely be made some time around July or August.In one of my local papers this week a spokesperson for the minister for transport said the final supplement for the environmental impact study was expected `any day now', but then there is another two months wait before cabinet will review the document. And who knows whether the government will decide to make a decision then, or whether it will put it off for just another few months, or maybe several months? Who knows? We certainly do not.Members who have been following debates relating to air transport and airports in this country, particularly in the Sydney region, would know that time and time again I have made it my business to represent my constituents whenever legislation related to this subject makes its way into this parliament. Indeed, when bills such as today's present themselves, it is the strong desire of my constituents that I spend part of my time focusing on the planned development of Sydney's second international airport at Badgerys Creek, an airport related matter that worries them greatly, believe me.We are seeing at the moment a government proceeding towards the development of an airport that carries real safety questions for the 1.4 million Sydneysiders who would reside under the flight paths of any airport being built, or being considered to be built, at Badgerys Creek. Despite this, the EIS has made no attempt to quantify the risks associated with the development, nor the economic and societal losses that any air accident in the vicinity of an airport at Badgerys Creek might cause.Therefore we are debating a bill that gives accident victims on the ground certainty in regard to compensation but refuses to consider the accident risk associated with building an international airport in the first place. That the government has continued to champion the Badgerys Creek EIS process, despite the fact that it is riddled with weaknesses and inefficiencies, has been well documented. It has chosen to plough ahead rather than take on board the criticisms of a number of organisations as diverse as the New South Wales state government, the Western Sydney Alliance of Councils, the NRMA, Integral Energy, the University of Western Sydney, the Hawkesbury-Nepean Catchment Trust and the National Trust, all of which condemn the EIS process and the proposed development of Badgerys Creek.Even the independent auditor's report on the EIS said that the document was deficient, limited and ambiguous. The report further stated:As a result of . . . time and cost restraints imposed by the Department of Transport and Regional Development, the draft EIS generally does not go into the degree of detail that could reasonably be expected for such a major proposal.Since Badgerys Creek was originally chosen as the site for Sydney's second airport, the area of Western Sydney that surrounds it has grown dramatically. Both the population numbers and the amount of housing and industry in the area have exploded. With the unfortunate lessons we have already learnt at Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport in relation to air and noise pollution, in regard to safety concerns and the blight on people's standards of living, do we really want to revisit those same problems again if Badgerys Creek were to be built? The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry in his second reading speech on this bill said:Recent air accidents in Australia have seen six houses damaged in one accident and five members of the public killed in another. Recent accidents overseas have demonstrated the potential for considerably more loss of life and property damage—Those are the minister's own words in the second reading speech of this bill.Accidents, however rare and unfortunate, do occur. Do we really want to increase the chances of such an accident causing more loss of life, causing more property damage, by building Badgerys Creek airport on Western Sydney's doorstep? Do we really want to increase the chances of an Amsterdam El Al type disaster occurring somewhere in Western Sydney? Isn't it better that an airport be built away from built-up residential areas, away from important industries, away from essential services so that the chances of air accidents devastating all of the above are reduced? Isn't it better, with this in mind, that we look at sites for Sydney's second airport outside the city's basin—whether they be places already considered such as Wilton or Goulburn or new sites that might have been overlooked 15 years ago?The EIS's failure to consider accident risks and the economic and societal losses that would result from an air crash associated with an airport at Badgerys Creek is a major flaw of the document. In this regard, let me turn to the submission of the Western Sydney Alliance in regard to the draft EIS. It makes it quite clear that there are a number of facilities in Sydney's west, which, if lost through an air accident, would lead to individual losses approaching or exceeding over $50 billion—and yet there is no assessment of this risk in the EIS.In particular, air crashes into the following facilities were not addressed in the EIS: firstly, the Warragamba and Prospect dams. Some attempt is made in the EIS to calculate crash frequencies in regard to Warragamba Dam, but the impact of the loss of either of these facilities is not discussed, nor is the impact of dumping massive loads of fuel—and jumbo jets carry 155 tonnes of fuel—within Sydney's water catchment area in case of an air emergency. This was not covered, nor discussed.Secondly, the chlorine treatment plants at Prospect and Orchard Hills are of particular concern because they hold a considerable quantity of chlorine gas which, if released into the atmosphere, would have a devastating impact on the Fairfield, Greystanes, Pendle Hill and Blacktown areas. Thirdly, the Transgrid main distribution substations at Kemps Creek and Eastern Creek are the two main electricity distribution points for the Sydney Basin. Can you imagine the billions of dollars that would be lost to businesses in Sydney if either of these stations were to be destroyed by a crippled jumbo jet?Fourthly, of course, there are the hundreds of factory sites in the Fairfield, Penrith, Blacktown, Liverpool, Holroyd and Campbelltown areas stored with significant quantities of dangerous goods—large deposits of insecticides being just one of the stored dangerous substances that come to mind. Fifthly, there is the defence communications network centred at Glenbrook. Finally, there are our hospitals, our schools, our universities and other designated sensitive sites within this area.In addition, the Badgerys Creek EIS does not consider the risk other airports in Sydney may present in contributing to an air accident around Badgerys Creek, nor the impact of bushfires and burn-offs in the Blue Mountains area on aircraft engine failure, nor the consequences of adverse weather, nor bird strikes—a major contributor to air accidents.The time for building international airports on the boundary of heavily populated areas has passed. There are other options; there are other choices. It is simply up to the government to have the gumption to show the courage and the leadership to address them. The opposition is supporting this bill, but we do not support the way in which the government handles the majority of its airport policy. Quite frankly, as I said earlier, on the whole its airport transport policy has been inept. It has been secretive and it has been arrogant. Its handling of Badgerys Creek is certainly a case in point.What is the use of taking the admirable step of improving the compensation arrangements for third parties in the event of air accidents when at the same time this government is considering ruining—or perhaps have already decided to ruin—the lives of thousands of Western Sydneysiders by building Badgerys Creek airport and exposing them to the risk of air disaster, fall-out and unnecessary levels of air and noise pollution?Of course, a second airport needs to be built. The risks of air accidents affecting the people of Marrickville and Sydenham from operations at Kingsford Smith Airport are already above the Department of Environment and Planning guidelines for residential areas. By 2010, this risk will be quite intolerable. But do we want to repeat those dangers in Western Sydney? As commendable as this bill is before us, I am still not convinced this government knows how to put together an effective air transport policy, certainly not one that delivers an equitable solution in regard to a second Sydney airport.The `world's best practice' that we have been promised by the minister on previous occasions has not been delivered. We are still waiting to see the government rise to that level. I think we will be waiting for a long time to come.10:15:007504Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—It is quite an honour to follow the honourable member for Prospect, who wastes no opportunity to speak up on transport matters and particularly as they may affect her electorate and the people of her electorate and Western Sydney. I find myself almost 100 per cent in agreement with the contribution of the member for Prospect. That is probably no surprise to you, Mr Deputy Speaker.It is also, I suppose, a pleasure to support a bill introduced by the government concerning damage by aircraft, the Damage by Aircraft Bill 1999 . The first thing I would like to say is that the concept that we need to adequately compensate people, third parties in an aircraft accident who may suffer damage, is a proposition we all should agree with. It is ironic that we have a convention that we need to revoke or denunciate, or whatever the correct word is—the Rome convention, which set out to provide adequate compensation for people so affected—because it limits the damage. Tragically, we now have the history of that accident in Amsterdam where two apartment blocks were taken out, and clearly the compensation would not be adequate.What it really means is that in the light of a tragedy not in Australia, notwithstanding our very good aviation record in this country, if there were such an accident here those countries that are covered by the convention whose liability would be limited would now be unlimited. It came as a surprise to me to realise that quite a number of countries are not signatories of the Rome convention—the United States, Japan, China, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and the United Kingdom, all of which, I think you would say, have very frequent flight operations in and out of this country.Like the member for Prospect, I make no apology for saying that I do not want any third-party compensation measures in Western Sydney because I do not want an airport there. You might say, `That is a very selfish attitude you are adopting. We all need to share the pain.' But, as I like to point out, by the year 2017 more than half of Sydney's population will live in Western Sydney. I am sure this is a fact that the officials of the department are very cognisant of, probably foremost in their minds. Let me make a qualification: the Statistician takes into account Gosford and Wyong in the population of Sydney; I have excluded that. If you do want to continue with the Statistician's definition, that Gosford and Wyong are part of the Sydney conurbation, then it will be a little bit later. But one thing I can guarantee honourable members in this House is that Western Sydney will be more than half the population of Sydney. Indeed, there is speculation that in the current redistribution in New South Wales an additional seat will be made in Western Sydney, raising the number of seats from 11 to 12. May I say with great respect that probably in any state other than Victoria and Queensland that would constitute a state. So we are talking about a huge population.As I have said, I do not want any accidents in Western Sydney and I do not want any compensation paid, because I think it is entirely inappropriate for us to consider, in 1999, building an airport in the middle of Western Sydney, in the middle of more than half of Sydney's population. This is absolute madness. The people of Western Sydney might feel very secure because of what they were promised in the 1996 election about airport matters affecting them directly, that there would be a very open, transparent and accountable process. I regret to say that those undertakings, which a lot of people took a lot of heart from, have not been delivered.The honourable member for Prospect drew my attention again to this issue of the EIS for Badgerys Creek. We have now been promised the final EIS on three separate occasions. I just say to the officials that it will be a difficult decision for the government but why not live up to the original commitment of open, transparent and accountable processes and release the EIS now? It will be a difficult decision, I do not deny that, but it was also a difficult decision for the previous government so I am not trying to score some political points here. I just ask the officials: given the changes that are occurring in the Senate in terms of the environmental laws of Australia, to what extent do you feel constrained, having seen now that the parliament is likely to set newer and higher standards, to undertake to meet the more rigorous requirements that the Senate, as I understand it, is proposing?I think they would win some Brownie points if they made that recommendation to their minister, and I think the minister would be seen to be consistent if he were to accept that constraint. I accept that it is a constraint. It would be highly ironic if they were to make a decision this year to impose an airport on half of Sydney's population while at the same time saying to the Australian people, `We are accepting higher standards and requirements for Commonwealth EISs but we will not meet it with Badgerys Creek because it is not sufficiently important to warrant the higher standards.' I do believe sincerely that the department and the minister have a responsibility to minimise the potential for accidents. You might say: why would you make a statement that is so patently obvious? I apologise for making such a statement, but one of the real worries people have about these proposals for Sydney, clearly Australia's busiest airport, is that there has not been a study on the inter-operability of the two airports, a study of just how they are going to operate.There is some suggestion, for example, that it is going to concentrate air traffic into what I understand is called the Bennelong Funnel, but that is mere speculation on my part. The department has allegedly done some preliminary work—and perhaps the officials or the parliamentary secretary may be able to confirm whether such a preliminary report has been prepared—into the inter-operability of these two airports. It would be a great tragedy if cabinet made a decision to go ahead at a time when we had not studied and fully understood the impact of the two airports operating together. It would be a great tragedy if they made the decision and then left that matter for further study.I want to compliment the Minister for Finance and Administration for taking a growing interest in airport matters. When you have someone who is responsible for the finance portfolio taking an interest in airport matters, that can be only for the good. Recently, there was a newspaper report that Mr Fahey was going to take to cabinet a submission that would look at the Sydney airport issue. The newspaper report referred to the fact that Mr Fahey had opened the whole issue again. The potential for capacity utilisation out of Kingsford Smith airport has never been studied. The newspaper reported that his proposal was to shift rural and regional airlines out of Kingsford Smith to Bankstown, and shift the flying and training clubs out of Bankstown to a new general airport in Western Sydney. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am not for airports in Western Sydney. I hope I have made that abundantly clear. But if we must have an airport, I think I would prefer a small general airport than the full monty that is being proposed.Why do I say that it has opened the capacity question of KSA? It is ironic that, in this EIS proposal, notwithstanding many submissions to the contrary by the good officials of the department who are seated in the chamber today, we call for an examination of whether it is possible, within the strict safety guidelines, to get more capacity out of Kingsford Smith.Let me put something to you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is quite possible that you may wish to quarantine the costs of a new airport and subsidise planes from rural and regional New South Wales landing at Bankstown. By way of compensation for that inconvenience, people would get significantly cheaper flights. I am not sure whether this is in the submission that Mr Fahey is taking to cabinet. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary could enlighten us in that regard. I think that is a very worthwhile matter to consider. The whole proposition about the capacity of Kingsford Smith is worthy of examination.I, for one, would be grateful if the minister for finance could release his submission. Let us look at it. I am happy to try to offer constructive suggestions. I know that the alliance of 10 mayors in Western Sydney would be more than happy to work with Mr Fahey on his submission. We might not agree in the end, but I am sure that the process would be valuable.Mr Deputy Speaker, do you remember what I said of what the coalition had promised the people of Western Sydney in 1996? An open, transparent and accountable process. Here we have a very senior minister in the Howard government, a former Premier of New South Wales, no less, making a submission to cabinet but not allowing the people of Sydney to examine it and say whether they like it or do not like it, whether they want to support it or whether it is a proposition that is worthy of even more detailed investigation. I urge the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, Mr Anderson—this government's third transport minister—and his parliamentary secretary to honour that commitment given in 1996 to have an open, transparent and accountable process.In winding up, I say that it is a pleasure to support this piece of legislation. Ironically, I have been more on the side of arguing about Australia signing conventions rather than revoking them. In this case, however, I think the revocation is well placed. The idea that there should be unlimited liability in relation to third party ground accidents is well founded. As I said in my earlier contribution, I hope that the issue of compensation will not arise in this century or the next century as far as the people of Western Sydney are concerned, because, as I have said, Western Sydney, in the year 2017, will constitute more than 50 per cent of the population of Sydney.10:30:007507Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPCommunity Services10—I would like to thank members for their contribution today: the member for Chifley, who always gives a very clear view—whether it is on the Damage by Aircraft Bill 1999 , the people of Western Sydney or even areas of child support—and the member for Prospect, who has on more than one occasion been quite vocal, particularly when it comes to aircraft noise.This bill, the Damage by Aircraft Bill 1999 , repeals and replaces the current Civil Aviation (Damage by Aircraft) Act 1958 and in particular has implications for the Rome Convention on Damage Caused by Foreign Aircraft to Third Parties on the Surface 1952. This bill will attempt to overcome many anomalies. I also thank other honourable members who have contributed to this debate.I would like to respond briefly to a number of issues raised by the member for Blair. The honourable member discussed a crash between two gliders that occurred in January 1997 and asked why the bill covered damage to property on the ground but not damage to other aircraft. The government's view is that the benefits of strict and unlimited liability are only appropriate for those parties who can reasonably be predicted to be without fault in an air accident, that is, the non-flying public and their property.As far as aircraft owners and operators are concerned, it is essential that they carry adequate insurance. In the situation outlined by the member for Blair, hull insurance would cover the damage to the operator's own aircraft and his or her third party liability insurance would cover damage to other parties' aircraft or its non fare paying passengers. Most operators take out cover for those various liabilities as part of a comprehensive all risks single limit cover.The member for Blair also gave an example of an accident between a taxiing aircraft and an aircraft that was landing. The landing aircraft would be held strictly responsible under the act for any damage to third parties even if it was not entirely at fault. In practice, the owners and insurers of the landing aircraft would pay damages under the bill and then settle the matter with the insurers of the taxiing aircraft on the basis of the hull and third party cover of the aircraft involved. In a case like this, it would be likely that both aircraft would be found to have some degree of fault.Again, it is essential that the owners and operators of aircraft carry adequate insurance cover to protect themselves in situations like this. This bill will have an impact on all operators at all airports across Australia. I know that it is certainly endorsed by the people in my electorate. We have the sixth busiest airport in Australia, which is the Coolangatta-Gold Coast airport. I commend the bill to the committee.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hollis)—If no member wishes to consider the bill in detail, I will put the report question forthwith. The question now is that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills7508r7947508Debate resumed from 30 March, on motion by Mr Slipper:That the bill be now read a second time.10:34:007508McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—The Labor opposition supports the Statute Stocktake Bill 1999 . It is essentially a tidying up exercise and arises substantially from recommendations of the small business deregulation task force. The bill is divided into two schedules. Part 1 of schedule 1 repeals some 96 acts that no longer have any practical effect. Part 2 of schedule 1 also provides savings provisions that protect the position of the Commonwealth in respect of the repeal of a number of acts: the Environment (Financial Assistance) Act 1977, States Grants (Nature Conservation) Act 1974, States Grants (School Assistance) Acts of 1978 to 1988, and also the Temple Society Trust Fund Act 1949.Schedule 2 amends various acts consequential on the repeal of the acts referred to in schedule 1. The government has undertaken that the transitional and savings provisions do not have any adverse effect on existing rights. Indeed, the purpose of those transitional provisions, where they have been applied, is to ensure that does not occur. The opposition agrees that is appropriate. The government has also given the opposition notice that it proposes to move additional amendments—namely, savings provisions flowing from the repeal of the Commonwealth Legal Aid Act 1977—so that any moneys payable under those acts remain payable. Again, the Labor Party supports that proposition.The role of tidying up the statute book is an important but often overlooked feature of the legislature. Too often the public sees only the opposition and the government in a stage of combat over various more controversial emotional issues, but it has been recorded that some 80 per cent of the business of the House is dealt with in a cooperative manner, such as in this case. While the opposition in any parliament is often portrayed as a set of negative and thrill seeking opportunists, that is not the case by and large.The role of opposition, as the Labor Party sees it, is to be constructive in achieving good government and, where we see fault, to bring that to the attention of the government to argue as vigorously as we can in the parliament for the defeat of those particular measures. But where there is a need for reform, we will genuinely participate in discussions with the government, and also lend our support to those measures.The tidying up of legislation is a very important area. I think that the cost of justice is not simply the cost of paying for lawyers to stand up and appear in court but also the cost of being able to find the law. Having redundant or ineffective acts of parliament still on the record book can significantly impede the ability of small business or any member of the public to work out for themselves, as far as they can, the current state of the law. It is a means of achieving good and practical government if businesses or private citizens are able to readily look up and work out just what the current law is. Then, if need be, they know which law to seek advice on. The tidying up of the acts of parliament is an important issue. The opposition indicates its support for the procedure that has been undertaken in respect of this bill.10:39:007509Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—I rise to support the Statute Stocktake Bill 1999 , which is an important piece of administrative machinery. This is not high profile legislation but simply a matter of housekeeping. It is appropriate that we undertake such a process. It is about making sure that redundant legislation, no longer part of the needs of government, is removed from the statute books. Although there has been a process of ad hoc amendments to remedy deficiencies of existing legislation, there has not been an attempt to remove the legislation itself if it is seen to be no longer required.The government is seeking, by this bill, simply to clear the statute books of acts that have outlived their purpose, for example the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Act 1982 and the Australian Land Transport (Financial Assistance) Act 1985, acts in which I took particular interest when I was transport minister in New South Wales. The fact is that they have reached their use-by date; they are no longer required on the statute books. It is important that we save taxpayer funding in terms of the issuance of the Commonwealth's statutes. It is a requirement that every lawyer, or floor in a legal firm, has a complete, up-to-date copy of Commonwealth statutes—and in my city of Sydney there are 2,000 barristers. The requirement to have Butterworths, for example, supplying cross-reference stickers to update legislation involves a considerable amount of time and would be lessened if statutes were removed when they lost their relevance.I am informed that this is the first bill introduced in this parliament which legislates for removing a great number of redundant laws, although in the 1980s the Labor government's many statute law revision acts removed a great number of miscellaneous provisions. That was an important first step. The coalition announced its intention to introduce this legislation in its law and justice policy for the 1996 election as it was considered that Labor's process for repairing our laws was too much a piecemeal approach, and that a more comprehensive, cross-portfolio approach was required. The fact that the coalition has taken on this somewhat unglamorous task of statute law reform indicates that we are a government of reform. This is just one small piece of evidence to indicate that.I commend the government for this initiative. I am sure that there are many barristers and others in the legal fraternity who also think that it is appropriate. I am grateful to my colleague the honourable member for Hughes for continuing the debate to make sure that everything has been taken into consideration.10:42:007510Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALEVK6HughesLP10—The Statute Stocktake Bill 1999 provides for the repeal of redundant legislation and is part of a continuing process by the coalition government to implement sound housekeeping practices in relation to the vast collection of legislation that makes up the Commonwealth's statute law. I am grateful to the Parliamentary Library for its research and the information in the Bills Digest . I notice that this bill continues to deliver the coalition government's law and justice policy commitment to undertake a `statute stocktake', a long overdue project of repair of existing Commonwealth legislation.In 1996, the government's Small Business Deregulation Task Force recommended `that all Commonwealth agencies identify and repeal redundant regulations'. While there has always been concern in government and business circles about the burden placed on small business by compliance requirements, the task force was also concerned with the removal of redundant regulations within the context of maintaining a process of review to `ensure that the regulations that are in place are still meeting their objectives and that those objectives are still valid'.In June 1996, the government began to implement its law and justice policy with the introduction of the Statute Law Revision Act 1996. This bill repealed a number of acts whose operation had expired, corrected minor clerical and drafting errors in current legislation and updated references to the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973. It also amended gender specific language in other acts. In 1997, the Attorney-General, the Hon. Daryl Williams, requested that portfolio ministers identify redundant legislation still on the statute books and also identify legislation in need of repair within their areas of responsibility.Since Federation, the number of laws added each year to the statute book has increased with the growing complexities of the nature of modern society in which we live. In 1901 there were 17 acts passed and in 1902 this number increased to 19. The Chifley government, from September 1946 to December 1949, introduced a total of 354 new acts. In the first seven years of the Menzies government, from 1950 to 1956, some 634 new acts were introduced. The Fraser government passed 1,289 acts between 1976 and 1983 and the Hawke government introduced 1,427 during its term of office between 1984 and 1991. In the four years of the Keating government, from 1992 to 1995, there were 745 new acts added to the statute book.Although it does not necessarily occur after every election, many new governments introduce new legislation to implement policy initiatives and to fulfil election promises. This is exactly the source of this particular bill, moving the coalition government to fulfil a pre-election commitment to undertake a statute stocktake and the repair of Commonwealth laws. The Liberal and National parties law and justice policy, which is dated February 1996, states:The Parliament, as the primary law-maker, must bear a direct responsibility for maintenance and repair of the justice system. Commonwealth Statute Law is neither accessible or comprehensible. It is convoluted, complex and often very long.The Australian Parliament under Labor legislates quickly and voluminously. While numbers alone do not tell the whole story, it is instructive to note that the Australian Federal Parliament passes about three times as many Acts as its Canadian and English counterparts and, in most years, more than the US Congress.Complex and convoluted laws require lawyers to interpret them. The more complex the law, the longer the lawyer will take and the greater the cost. The average citizen has little hope of understanding the laws.Existing statute laws—whether in the area of tax, corporations law or social security—are strangling both the ordinary citizen and the business community. Our laws are an integral part of our intellectual infrastructure. Like any other infrastructure, it requires repair as well as reform. Under Labor the repair process has been ad hoc and piecemeal. The Corporations Law is being tackled, but it was proving a slow process.We believe a more comprehensive, cross portfolio, approach is required. We will undertake a `statute stocktake': a long overdue project of repair of existing Commonwealth legislation.This is not a commitment made lightly. Wholesale repair of existing legislation will be hard work. It will require commitment and dedication. Politically, it is a low profile task. Labor has marketed itself as the party of reform, yet it has been willing to let existing structures decay and crumble. On gaining office we will:. require each Minister to prioritise legislation within his or her portfolio for repair;. to require repair programs to be developed in each portfolio with tight schedules;. establish a timetable which results in the repair process being in sight of completion across all portfolios by the year 2001; and. require Ministers to report annually to Parliament detailing progress of the repair process.As we have noted, during the past 25 years the number of acts passed by parliament has dramatically increased. This has a lot to do with the increased reach of Commonwealth regulations and also reflects how such laws increasingly have an impact on all aspects of modern daily life. Today, federal legislation can have a significant effect upon communities at a family, social and business level through family law, business regulation, social welfare, environmental legislation or taxation. There is even an expectation at the very grassroots level of our communities that, in a new area identified as one of concern to the general public, the government should pass a law.There are thousands of Commonwealth acts on the statute book and, increasingly, these laws are being expanded. We simply cannot just keep adding without exercising proper management of those acts which are no longer necessary or which have exhausted their initial purpose. The government passed the Statute Law Revision Act in 1996 to begin this long process of repair and to reform the statute book as an election commitment. The Statute Stocktake Bill is a further step in that important process, as the stocktake revealed many redundant acts. This bill will repeal 96 redundant acts which are listed in schedule 1 of part 1 and will make amendments to other acts consequential upon the repeal of that legislation and make savings and transitional provisions.Some of the main provisions in this bill include clause 4, which repeals the Merchant Shipping Act 1894, an imperial act, so far as it forms part of the law of the Commonwealth or an external territory. This bill provides that section 8 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, which sets out the effects of repealing an act, applies to the repeal as if the Merchant Shipping Act has been an act of the Australian parliament.Clause 3 provides that each act referred to in a schedule to the bill is amended or repealed as set out in the schedule. The repeal of an act does not affect the operation of any amendment of another act which was made by the act being repealed.Clause 2 provides that the act commences when it receives royal assent, except for the amendments of the Taxation Administration Act 1953, contained in part 6 of schedule 2, which will not commence until a section 8AAB is inserted in the Tax Administration Act. The latter amendments will commence on royal assent if a section 8AAB has been inserted by that time.Some of the interesting old statutes to be repealed by this bill present a history of Australian society and industrial development. These include the Estate Duty Act and the Estate Duty Assessment Act 1914, the Re-establishment and Employment Act 1945 and the Stevedoring Industry Charge Act 1947.The maintenance, repair and reform of the statute book is not exactly one of the glamour areas of politics and requires determined application, hard work and commitment. However, it is a necessary task and one which will ensure that all members of the wider Australian community will be able to enjoy greater access to an uncluttered legislative base. A clear access to a nation's laws is an important indicium of democracy, and this bill demonstrates the health of the Australian democratic process. It further reflects the determination of the Howard government to deliver on its commitments to the Australian people. I commend this legislation to the Main Committee.10:51:007512Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I will be very brief. I would like to thank the member for Barton, the member for Cook and the member for Hughes for their interest in what is not politically glamorous but is, nevertheless, very useful and very productive. I particularly congratulate the member for Hughes on her research on the subject and her interest in the cleaning up of the statute book. In this context, I commend the bill to the Main Committee.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.7512Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.10:52:007512Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—by leave—I move government amendments Nos 1 and 2:(1) Schedule 1, page 9 (before line 3), before item 2, insert:1A Saving for the Commonwealth Legal Aid Act 1977The repeal of the Commonwealth Legal Aid Act 1977 does not affect an obligation to pay money under an arrangement made under section 21 of that Act.(2) Schedule 2, item 6, page 11 (lines 21 to 25), omit the item, substitute:6 After section 3 Insert:3AA Operation despite repeal of Commonwealth Legal Aid Act 1977 This Act continues to apply despite the repeal of the Commonwealth Legal Aid Act 1977 as if: (a) section 3 and Part IV of that Act had not been repealed; and (b) any arrangement under subsection 21(1) of that Act that ceased to be in force only because of that repeal had not ceased to be in force because of that repeal.There are two proposed amendments. One relates to the Commonwealth Legal Aid Act 1977. That act provides for arrangements to be made with states and territories in respect of offers of employment to staff of the former Australian Legal Aid Office to take up employment in a state or territory Legal Aid Commission. The Commonwealth Legal Aid Act is to be repealed by the Statute Stocktake Bill 1999 . The first proposed amendment inserts a further savings provision in part 2 of schedule 1 of the bill. The provision will avoid any doubt about the liability of state and territory governments to continue to meet the employer superannuation costs of former Commonwealth employees who have remained members of the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme after repeal of the Commonwealth Legal Aid Act. The Office of Parliamentary Counsel considers that provisions in Commonwealth agreements with the states and territories on payment of employer superannuation liability may cease to have effect on repeal of the Commonwealth Legal Aid Act 1977.The second proposed amendment inserts a general provision applying the provisions of the Superannuation Act 1976, as if the Legal Aid Act had not been repealed, in substitution for the existing consequential amendments in schedule 2 of the bill. The general provision will remove any doubt about the rights of former Commonwealth officers who are members of the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme after repeal of the Commonwealth Legal Aid Act. I tender a supplementary explanatory memorandum.Amendments agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.Ordered that the bill be reported to the House with amendments.Bills7513r6757513Debate resumed from 3 December, on motion by Mr Williams:That the bill be now read a second time.11:04:007513McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—The opposition supports the second reading of the bill, which is essentially non-controversial and, as the Attorney-General said in his second reading speech, by and large contains amendments of a minor policy nature, makes minor technical amendments to existing legislation and repeals spent provisions. The bill, as with the previous bill, is in the nature of omnibus legislation in the sense that there are 14 separate acts which are being amended by this one act and the term `omnibus' is used because those acts are riding as passengers on this one bill.Schedule 1 proposes amendments to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act of 1975. The opposition supports the amendments, which are substantially based on recommendations of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee report, relating to the Administrative Review Council, which was handed down on 18 September 1996. That council was established in 1976 by the Fraser government under part V of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 as an expert body to provide advice on administrative law and administrative decision making. It is fair to say that Australia has developed perhaps the most sophisticated administrative appeals and review structure of any Western nation, and that is to be cherished. It is desirable that the recommendations of the Senate committee's report be implemented, and the Labor Party supports the amendments.Interestingly, the 11th recommendation from the Senate committee report cannot be the subject of legislation. That recommendation stated:The Committee recommends that the Government give an undertaking to respond to all Administrative Review Council project reports within 12 months of their delivery.It is fair to say that the Australian community and members of parliament would expect the government to abide by that recommendation in practice. However, in its response to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee's report, the government indicated that it was not prepared to accept the recommendation. We would ask the government to revisit the matter because we think that the community generally would expect that a 12 months response time is reasonable and that the government should be expected to respond to project reports within that time.Schedule 2 makes amendments to the Australian Law Reform Commission (Repeal, Transitional and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1996 which are of a technical nature and are supported by the opposition. Schedule 3 makes an amendment to the Australian Protective Services Act 1987 which provides that the director of the Protective Service may charge non-Commonwealth persons and bodies for services rendered. As members would be aware, the Australian Protective Service provides protective and custodial services primarily for Commonwealth purposes, as directed by the minister. Again, the opposition does not oppose the amendment. However, it notes that there is a potential constitutional issue as to whether there is any constitutional head of power contained in section 51 of the Constitution, or otherwise, to enable the Commonwealth to charge for such services.For instance, in respect of recent legislation to corporatise the Australian Government Solicitor, the AGS was restricted in providing services for government bodies, being the Commonwealth, state and local government bodies, because the Attorney-General—correctly, we consider, at that time—determined that there was a constitutional impediment to the Australian Government Solicitor undertaking work on behalf of private corporations or citizens. By analogy, we say that reasoning is probably applicable in respect of schedule 3 of the bill.Schedule 4 of the bill proposes an amendment to the Bankruptcy Legislation Amendment Act 1996, and it is designed to amend that act to correct what has been described as a minor drafting error contained in subsection 20J(2) which relates to the reasons for the Official Trustee in Bankruptcy holding money. I should say that the opposition is indebted to the researchers of the Parliamentary Library who undertook an extensive review of this bill and detected an error in the initial draft proposed by the government; hence the government has given the opposition notice that it will rectify the deficiency drawn to our attention and, in turn, to the government's attention.Schedule 5 proposes an amendment to the Copyright Amendment Act 1989, but that proposal, as contained in the bill presently, before further amendment, fails to have regard to previous amendments made to the act in 1993 and 1998. But, again, as a result of useful Parliamentary Library research that error has been pointed out to the opposition and drawn to the government's attention. That fact has now been appreciated by the government, and schedule 5, I understand, will no longer proceed, with the government to move a further amendment to delete that schedule.Schedule 6 corrects a minor drafting error in the Corporate Law Reform Act 1992, and is supported. Schedule 8 and schedule 9 amend the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 and the High Court of Australia Act 1979 respectively to allow regulations to be made to increase the limit up to which courts can enter into contracts without obtaining the approval of the Attorney-General. Again, we say that that amendment is sensible and appropriate.I would point out, however, that the explanatory memorandum may convey a mistaken impression. It suggests that the purpose of an amendment is to increase the number of Australian Capital Territory resident judges available to sit on the full court of the Federal Court of Australia when hearing appeals from the ACT Supreme Court. In fact, a reading of the bill tends to suggest that the contrary appears to be the case and that the actual purpose of item 1 of schedule 8 is to remove the requirements that an ACT resident judge should be included on a full court of the Federal Court of Australia when considering an appeal from the ACT Supreme Court. We appreciate there are administrative reasons for that amendment to ensure that justice is not delayed; however, it seems that it would be appropriate to correct the record and that apparently mistaken impression given in that respect by the explanatory memorandum.Schedule 10 amends the Judges' Pensions Act 1968 to recognise prior judicial service as a judge of the Supreme Court of the ACT. Schedule 11 amends the Judiciary Act 1903 to exclude the conferral of criminal jurisdiction on the Federal Court and to clarify the power of state and territory judges to exercise summary jurisdiction for Commonwealth offences.We do have some reservations about removing private prosecutions from the scope of the Federal Court—in particular, the court's ability to deal with those matters under its accrued jurisdiction. It has been pointed out, for example, that a civil action relating to the removal of Aboriginal children may also involve issues that could result in a private prosecution alleging genocide. That is one example. There are perhaps others. Indeed, there may be other areas in the industrial field where some federal action in an industrial dispute situation has an element of some state offence. There may be other areas in the Family Court area in respect of allegations of violence.We think that these things have to be looked at more carefully. The recent decision of the High Court re Wakim: ex parte McNally, which casts doubt on the cross-vesting arrangements, suggests that section 32 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 could be a very important section in overcoming the fragmentation of state and federal issues. We would urge the government to hasten slowly in this area. On the one hand, there are arguments that a judge receiving an application under section 32 of the Federal Court of Australia Act, and being asked to exercise his discretion to join a private criminal prosecution, would consider as a matter of discretion that it would be difficult to differentiate between the civil onus of proof applying in the civil matter and the criminal onus of proof applying in the criminal proceedings. Hence there would be a strong argument, I would anticipate, that joinder of such proceedings would not be appropriate.Equally, a defendant in those proceedings may well say, `The defendant opposes any joinder of criminal proceedings to civil proceedings on the basis that it could compel the defendant to incriminate themselves in respect of criminal proceedings.' Indeed, it is frequently the case that a defendant to a civil action also facing criminal consequences will invariably request that the civil proceedings be deferred until after the criminal action takes its course, for those reasons of self-incrimination.There may be sound reasons why criminal proceedings should not be joined to civil proceedings, but these are issues that we need to think through more carefully, particularly in light of the Wakim case. I should say that the Labor Party will be examining those issues more carefully between our consenting to the second reading motion and the matters being considered in the Senate. It may well be that, having regard to those more complex considerations we would like to go through, the government, in order to expedite the balance of the bill through the Senate, would consider at the present time removing that aspect from item 11 of the bill. We would point out to the government that that is something we would appreciate, and, from the government's point of view, it would expedite the passage of the balance of the bill. Of course, any removal of that aspect of item 9 would be entirely without prejudice to the government's ability to reintroduce that for further consideration and debate at a subsequent time.Schedule 12 amends the Jury Exemption Act 1965 to update certain references. Schedules 13 and 14 amend the Law and Justice Legislation Amendment Act 1997 and the Marriage Act 1961 to correct minor drafting and technical errors. I also note that schedule 15 will now be deleted. It had been considered that an error existed in the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979, but again, substantially as a result of library research, it has now been realised that the error may already have been corrected by item 16 of schedule 1 to the Telecommunications (Interception) and Listening Device Amendment Act 1977, which commenced operation on 11 November 1997. I should say that I think that the professional and skilled work done by the library in this instance demonstrates the service that it provides to members of parliament generally. It is certainly a very important aspect of the opposition's task in reviewing legislation when we do not have the resources of government departments. I think that in this instance it showed that the resources spent on the library are well served and the respect that it has gained from both sides of the House is justified.It is proposed in schedule 16 to amend the Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendment Act 1996 to correct a previous misdescription of amendments and to correct a technical anomaly. While I could spend a considerable amount of time discussing each of the amendments proposed in the bill, there are only a few concluding comments I propose to make.I note that the government is proposing amendments to rectify, in particular, deficiencies in drafting. These amendments are substantially non-controversial and are supported by the Labor Party in so far as, as we have said, the government needs to reconsider that part of schedule 11 with respect to the amendment to section 39B(1A) of the Judiciary Act 1903, because that could be a controversial issue in the Senate, and also to correct the record in respect of item 1 of schedule 8. Again, we would like to see those matters addressed before the bill is debated in the Senate.There is only one other substantive issue that I wish to comment on and that is reforms of the Administrative Review Council. Firstly, on behalf of the Labor Party, I want to thank the Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee for its role in reviewing the legislation which governs the operation of the ARC. I am pleased to see that the government has accepted its recommendations in full with the exception of recommendation 11. Secondly, I wish to thank the ARC for more than 20 years of work it has done in reviewing and reforming Australia's world-leading system of administrative law. As I noted earlier, it was a body established under the Fraser Liberal government, but it has served well for that period of 20 years.Finally, I note that the government is proposing to introduce reforms to the administrative law system in, I anticipate, the spring sitting of parliament. I have to say that there is much apprehension not only on our side of politics but also, I sense, in the community about these reforms because, unlike the recommendations of the ARC in its Better decisions report, it is feared that the government means to wind back the opportunities for ordinary Australians to obtain administrative review. As the government puts the finishing touches to that bill, I would urge it not to go down that path of winding back the tremendous system that we have developed. If it does, it will meet with heavy resistance from the Labor Party, the community and, it is to be expected, the legal profession generally.I make these comments not as a threat but in the hope that the government will realise the errors of its ways and will accept an administrative law system in large part established, as I have indicated, by its predecessor Liberal government, the Fraser government. That system should not be dismantled in the name of so-called efficiency. These are important rights that ordinary Australians have, and the parliament should be enhancing and improving these rights rather than winding them back.Constructively, I note that the use of this omnibus legislation to correct a myriad minor deficiencies that inevitably arise in legislation and to implement non-controversial reforms was a practice commenced by the previous Labor government. It not only is a sensible and practical method of legislating but also places an even tougher burden on those crosschecking that the proposed amendments have their intended effect.It is a pity that the public do not get to see this aspect of parliament's role in cooperatively going through legislation to make sure that it properly serves its purpose. It is a sure sign that, despite our combative moments, the parliament is committed to getting on with the job of making Australia's laws modern and more effective. Subject to the comments that I have already made, the bulk of the amendments proposed in this bill are welcomed by the Labor Party and, accordingly, we support the second reading motion.11:14:007517Schultz, Alby, MPMr SCHULTZ83QHumeLP10—The Law and Justice Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 was introduced in the House of Representatives on 3 December 1998. The bill makes amendments of a minor policy nature to a number of acts within the Attorney-General's portfolio, including the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 and the Judiciary Act 1903.The amendments to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 will implement the government's decisions on the recommendations made by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee in its report on the role and function of the Administrative Review Council of June 1997. The government accepted 10 of the 11 recommendations made by the committee. Legislation is required to implement six of these recommendations. The government did not accept the last of the committee's recommendations, recommendation 11, namely, that the government gives an undertaking to respond to all Administrative Review Council project reports within 12 months of delivery.The arguments in support of the recommendation for a government response to all ARC project reports within 12 months of presentation are: it is wasteful of resources for the ARC to produce reports which are not dealt with promptly; the currency of reports may diminish over time; and the government has adopted a policy responding within three months to parliamentary committee reports. These arguments have some force and should not be disregarded. However, there are arguments against the adoption of a fixed term for responding to ARC project reports. The ARC should ensure that its work program closely reflects the government's priorities and its reports are produced in a timely manner. Although the council may receive references from the minister, the council may also determine projects and its own work priorities. There is no requirement that the council first have a reference from the minister before commencing work on a matter, nor is the council required to obtain the minister's approval for particular projects. Accordingly, it is inappropriate for the government to give an undertaking to respond to project reports that do not reflect the government's priorities.The resources that may be made available to deal with ARC recommendations are a matter for the government, having regard to its overall policy and legislative agenda. Having said that, the issue of resource allocation must be of continuous concern to all parties: the responsible minister, the department, and the ARC. The requirement to respond to ARC reports within a set period of time will impact on the department's ability to meet other priorities. There is no comparable requirement of undertaking to respond to reports by the Australian Law Reform Commission or the Family Law Council.The ARC does not have status or authority comparable to that of parliamentary committees and the council should not be regarded as being equivalent to a committee of the parliament. Whereas a government response to recommendations by a parliamentary committee is quite properly considered to be a response to the parliament as a whole, a response to recommendations by the council would be no more than a response to the council itself. Nevertheless, it is appropriate for the parliament to be informed about the work which the council is undertaking, and for that reason the new section 51C will require the minister to table those reports in the parliament within 15 sitting days after receiving the report.The government notes that the Senate committee found that objective assessment of the ARC's effectiveness was not easy, due to the wide range of the ARC's activities and the inherent difficulties in objectively assessing such things as the quality of its advice, the value of its policy recommendations, and the success of its efforts to promote administrative law values. Nevertheless, the Senate committee concluded that the evidence received by the committee supports the view that the Administrative Review Council has been an effective body providing useful and timely advice on administrative review matters. The government has welcomed that finding.The amendments now proposed will enhance the council's role and functions by permitting the appointment of additional members to assist it to undertake particular projects; enable the appointment of persons with the direct knowledge and experience of the needs of people or groups of people significantly affected by government decisions; make certain that the council is able to keep the Commonwealth administrative law system under review, to monitor developments and to make recommendations; enable the council to inquire into the adequacy of procedures used to exercise administrative discretions as well as the procedures used to make administrative decisions; enable the council to inquire into the qualifications required of persons undertaking administrative review, the extent of the jurisdiction conferred on review bodies and the procedures used by those review bodies; and enable the council to facilitate training for decision makers, promote knowledge about the Commonwealth administrative law system and to consider and report on matters referred to it by the minister.Parliament will be better informed about the work of the council with the new requirement to table in both houses of parliament, within 15 sitting days, all council reports submitted to the minister. This will be additional to the requirement that the council prepare an annual report as soon as possible after 30 June in each year.The proposed amendment to the Australian Protective Service Act 1997 will enable the Australian Protective Service, APS, to charge non-Commonwealth clients. The Australian Protective Service Act 1987 does not contain any provisions authorising the APS to charge clients for services. The Office of General Counsel has advised that a charging provision is necessary to allow the APS to charge non-Commonwealth clients. Allowing the APS to charge for services ensures that it will be able to effectively compete with private security firms.The proposed amendments to the Evidence Act 1995 will give full effect to regulations made or amended since the commencement of the act on 18 April 1995 which provide for a certificate or other document to have evidentiary effect; accommodate the Family Court's practice of taking evidence in chief by affidavit; extend the operation of some sections of the Evidence Act to proceedings in all Australian courts in relation to certain forms, applications, claims, returns and other similar documents received by Commonwealth departments and agencies; and make minor drafting corrections to the act. The amendments do not validate regulations. There is no element of retrospectivity in the amendments. They commence on the day the amending act receives royal assent. Some regulations made since April 1995 have been of no effect in proceedings in federal courts and ACT courts, because of inconsistency with the Evidence Act, but have full force and effect in proceedings in other courts. Regulations which fall within the amendments will have effect in federal courts and ACT courts only from the date the amending act becomes law.The principle of `orality' is not compromised by the amendments. The amendments simply bring the act into line with the practice of giving evidence in affidavit form or by way of a written statement where that practice applies. In the Family Court, evidence in chief is generally given by affidavit. Written statements are permitted in the Federal Court's commercial causes list. As a consequence, amendments are proposed to several provisions of the act referring to oral evidence so that they will apply to evidence given in oral or written form. It is still necessary for the evidence given in either of these ways to satisfy the same conditions of admissibility as oral evidence. For example, evidence given under the hearsay exceptions in sections 63(2)(a), 64(2)(a) or 65(8)(a) will still need to be given `by a person who saw, heard or otherwise perceived' the out-of-court statements being made.New section 155A will enable evidence of a Commonwealth document to be given in proceedings in all Australian courts without having to call a witness. It is, in its terms, to the same effect as section 155, which applies to evidence of a Commonwealth record or a state or territory public record. It enables evidence of a Commonwealth document to be adduced by production of a certified true copy or extract and provides a presumption to assist in the authentication of evidence adduced in this way. For technical reasons, section 155 could not be extended to apply, in respect of Commonwealth documents, to all proceedings before all Australian courts by proposed new subsection 182(4B). However, the effect of such extended application is achieved by new section 155A.New subsection 182(4B) extends the operation of the sections and divisions of the act mentioned in its opening lines to proceedings in all Australian courts in respect of Commonwealth documents. Together with new subsection 182(4A), it will be the second and third extension of the operation of particular provisions of the act beyond federal and ACT courts to proceedings before all Australian courts. Subsection 182(1) already extends the operation of several provisions of the act relevant to documentary evidence to proceedings in all Australian courts in respect of `Commonwealth records'. New subsection 182(4A) will extend the operation of just one provision—section 160—in respect of a postal article sent by a Commonwealth agency. New subsection 182(4B) will extend the operation of the provisions set out in its opening lines to proceedings in all Australian courts in respect of `Commonwealth documents'.The term `Commonwealth agency' is defined in section 163 for the purpose of that section. The term is also used in new subsection 182(4A). Therefore, it is appropriate to transfer the definition to part 1 of the dictionary in the act.Section 50, whose heading reads `Proof of voluminous or complex documents', enables a court to direct that evidence of the contents of two or more documents be adduced in the form of a summary if, among other things, it would not be possible to conveniently examine the evidence because of the volume and complexity of the documents. The inclusion of `and' is an error. The original drafting instructions for the Evidence Act sought the provision in the alternative form. However, in the draft of the bill, `volume or complexity' became `volume and complexity' and the provision remained in those terms. As a result, section 50 cannot be used where a large number of non-complex documents such as Medicare assignment forms or cheques are involved. Item 8 proposes replacing `volume and complexity' with `volume or complexity.'When the Evidence Act was passed in 1995, it contained an error in including section 160 in the list of provisions set out in the table in section 182 that, in respect of `Commonwealth records', were to have an extended operation in proceedings before all Australian courts. Section 160 provides a presumption about the fact and date of receipt of postal articles. However, since a postal article is not a `record', section 160 cannot be extended to operate in proceedings before all Australians courts in respect of `Commonwealth records'.The proposed amendments, items 25 and 26, will make the corrections to the table in section 182, and the proposed amendment, item 24, proposed new subsection 182(4A), will extend the operation of the presumption in section 160 to proceedings before all Australian courts in relation to postal articles sent by Commonwealth agencies.The amendments will not harm uniformity. The original Commonwealth and New South Wales evidence acts were largely, but not completely, uniform. Most of the differences resulted from one act being a Commonwealth statute and the other a New South Wales statute. Subsequently, there have been some amendments agreed between the Commonwealth and New South Wales, and New South Wales has included some additional provisions.Most of the Evidence Act amendments made by this bill concern purely Commonwealth matters. The only exceptions are the correction of section 50 and the amendments relating to oral evidence. New South Wales has been consulted about these amendments and has raised no concerns.The proposed amendments to the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 will allow additional judges of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory to be included on the full court of the Federal Court; provide that a registrar of the court may authorise officers or employees of the court to administer oaths and witness affidavits; and insert a standard regulation making power. The purpose of the amendments is to increase the number of judges available to sit on appeals to the full court of the Federal Court when hearing appeals from the ACT Supreme Court.Subsection 25(3) of the act currently provides that, except where the chief justice considers it impractical, the full court hearing and appeal from the ACT Supreme Court should include at least one resident judge of the ACT Supreme Court who is also a judge of the Federal Court. There is a convention that the chief justice of the Federal Court assigns one of the resident ACT judges to sit on appeals from the Supreme Court. There are only three resident judges who are also judges of the Federal Court. The proposed amendment will allow additional judges of the Supreme Court of the ACT, as well as resident judges, to be included in the full court.A resident judge of the ACT Supreme Court is a judge whose primary commission is on the ACT Supreme Court. An additional judge is a judge of another superior court who has been appointed to the ACT Supreme Court as an additional judge. A number of Federal Court judges have been appointed as additional judges of the ACT Supreme Court. Additional judges are also available to assist the court in times of peak workload or when other judges are unavailable. The ACT Supreme Court does not have appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the Supreme Court and, accordingly, does not have a Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court. It is a matter for the ACT government to consider whether it is appropriate for it to establish a Court of Appeal. The government believes that it is not consistent with the transfer of responsibility for the Supreme Court to the ACT government for new appointees to be given dual commissions on the Federal Court.This amendment will ensure that there are sufficient counter staff available at Federal Court registries who are authorised to administer oaths or witness affidavits. This will enhance the capacity of the registries to deliver an effective service to clients of the Federal Court. The number of persons available to administer affidavits for use in court proceedings has diminished since amendments to the Statutory Declarations Act abolished the position of commissioner for declarations. Prior to this amendment, counter staff were appointed as commissioners for declarations and accordingly had authority to administer affidavits. The proposed amendments allow the registrar to authorise court staff to administer oaths and affirmations and to witness affidavits for the purposes of court proceedings.Proposed new section 44(2) is similar in terms to subsection 77F(3) of the Judiciary Act which was recently repealed. Subsection 77F(3) of the Judiciary Act provided that the Chief Justice of the High Court could issue commissions authorising persons to administer oaths for the purposes of proceedings. The High Court requested that the provision be repealed, as it had not been used since 1972. The fact that this section has been repealed does not impact on the proposed amendment to the Federal Court Act, as the court has identified a need for the proposed amendment.The regulation making power in the Federal Court Act is restricted to the making of fees regulations. There are a number of provisions in the act which indicate that certain matters can be provided for by regulations. However, there is no regulation making power to provide for the making of such regulations. In particular, the Chief Justice's power to enter contracts is subject to the Attorney-General approving any contract exceeding $250,000 or a prescribed higher amount. The proposed regulation making power will allow a higher amount to be prescribed. The costs of administering courts and agencies has increased significantly since the $250,000 limit was set in 1989. Regulations were made last year to increase this limit to $1 million for the Family Court and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.There is no regulation making power in the High Court of Australia Act. There are a number of provisions in the act which indicate that certain matters can be provided for by regulations. However, there is no regulation making power to provide for the making of such regulations. In particular, the court's power to enter contracts is subject to the Attorney-General approving any contract exceeding $250,000 or a prescribed higher amount. The proposed regulation making power will allow a higher amount to be prescribed.The proposed amendment to the Judges' Pensions Act will provide that service as a judge of the ACT Supreme Court will be counted as judicial service for the purposes of determining when a judge becomes entitled to a pension under the Judges' Pensions Act. This amendment will remove an anomaly from the Judges' Pensions Act. The definition of `prior judicial service' does not include service as a judge of the ACT Supreme Court. This means that if an ACT judge were subsequently given a primary commission on a federal court, service as a judge of the ACT Supreme Court would not be counted as service for the purposes of the Judge's Pensions Act. This amendment will put ACT judges in the same position as Northern Territory and state Supreme Court judges in relation to `prior judicial service'.The proposed amendments to the Judiciary Act 1903 will expressly exclude conferral of a general criminal jurisdiction on the Federal Court. The question needs to be asked, `Why does criminal jurisdiction need to be excluded?' The comment that I make on that is that it is not appropriate for the Federal Court to be given general criminal jurisdiction. The Federal Court is primarily a civil court having jurisdiction in almost all civil matters arising under federal law. It has a very limited criminal jurisdiction in some summary criminal matters and also exercises some criminal jurisdiction in its appellate jurisdiction from the ACT Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of Norfolk Island. The Federal Court does not have the expertise necessary to take on a broad criminal jurisdiction nor the facilities for jury trials which are necessary in many criminal matters.Subsection 39B(1A) was intended to give the Federal Court jurisdiction only in civil matters, this jurisdiction being concurrent with the federal jurisdiction of state and territory courts in civil matters. This amendment ensures that the provision cannot be interpreted to give the court a general criminal jurisdiction under federal laws. I thank the House for the indulgence and the opportunity to talk on this bill and I commend the bill to the House.11:34:007522Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—I hope the Attorney-General will not be disappointed in me if I do not traverse each section of the changes encompassed in this omnibus bill. The previous two speakers have done that in great detail.An omnibus bill, of course, provides for a portfolio area to make a number of significant changes to different bits of legislation. For example, I note that one of the changes proposed in this bill, as far as the Evidence Act is concerned, affects the Family Court. I wondered if I could make a few observations in the family law area.Firstly, I want to say that I attended the launch of the government's response to the committee report To have and to hold. I would like to thank the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General for acknowledging the outstanding contribution of Kevin Andrews, the honourable member for Menzies, in this area of pre-marriage education and counselling. For a short period I was privileged to serve under Kevin on that committee. His contribution was quite significant. I would like to think I am an interventionist chairman, but I have to say I have never written a couple of chapters of a report, which is what Kevin did.The point I would like to link up with is that I feel there are three pillars in the family law area where we need to move forward on a broad front. The first one is Kevin's area. The government is increasing money there but, as it was pointed out, breakdowns are costing us at least $3 billion. I think the more governments put in, the greater the potential of reward. The second is child support—and I do not want to get into that—and the third is reforming the Family Court.Not so long ago I had a constituent and friend, Barbara Dutton, come into my office. She is an advocacy worker for children and is involved in some of the more difficult cases. She asked me when I was going to do something to get some changes in. I was really taken aback because I had not thought that I had been quiet on that front. That led to a conference we had on 15 June on the topic, `Children, the forgotten players—rethinking family law proceedings'. It was based around a reference the Attorney-General has given to the Australian Law Reform Commission. I want to acknowledge that the Attorney-General has been active in reform in the family law area. I feel that we need to go much further than that, but I would not want to deprecate the changes that he has already initiated.I am pleased to say that the conference was opened by Senator Vicki Bourne, a Democrat senator, and we had Commissioner Dr Kathryn Cronin from the Australian Law Reform Commission, who is the commissioner responsible for the reference, as the keynote speaker. I was tremendously impressed by her contribution. I only wish that we had recorded it or that it had been a written contribution. We invited her to give a scoop on the final report. I was somewhat disappointed that she declined to give one but I would not want to minimise her contribution. I think the Attorney-General is going to be well pleased. It will be beyond doubt that we need to make significant changes to the way the Family Court operates. I would like to say that it is a Rolls Royce court with a `one size fits all' approach.We also then had a contribution from a woman whose speech was read out for her because she wanted to be anonymous. The two made a really powerful beginning to the conference. Other speakers included Michael Green QC, the author of Fathers after divorce, a book that I was pleased to launch; Sara Blazey from the Women's Legal Resource Centre, and Denise Reid, a barrister. Kevin Andrews contributed quite significantly in his area of expertise. I also presented a paper on family law tribunals.It was really interesting to have three members of parliament, each from a different political party, able to contribute in a very non-partisan way to the proceedings. It was a conference not confined to the club—the judges, barristers and solicitors who are tied up with this. It was much broader. In fact, the conference was brought about through a partnership between the Mount Druitt and Area Community Legal Centre. I would like to acknowledge the contributions of Ahmed Zraika and Ros Gibson. I acknowledge also that the Attorney funded the legal centre, for which I am eternally grateful, and that the Nirimba TAFE advocacy students—Pat Johnson was the lecturer there—were instrumental in it.When we talk about family law we nearly always get locked into gender warfare—that the women get everything, the men are not paying enough and what have you—but I was surprised at the commonality of the themes that were coming out of the conference. Just as that personal experience of the woman had such a powerful impact, it is an impact that of course men also experience. You could have substituted that as a story for men. It might have been thought that Sara Blazey, from the Women's Legal Resource Centre, was going to take a particular narrow point of view, but that was not the case. I think some of the men who asked loaded questions after her contribution were surprised at the answer. My point is that this affects people and that the most adversely affected are the children, which was the theme of our conference.The Attorney has introduced legislation to establish a federal magistracy. I do not want to pre-empt any discussion of that, and I cannot speak for the Labor Party. We see that there will be improvements in it, but the point I would like to make is that, in the Attorney's own state, we have a magistracy in the Family Court. I think that as you go around Western Australia you do not get a greater feeling that people are satisfied with the processes of family law than you do in any other state. Hence the paper that I delivered about tribunals.The High Court's Brandy decision has dramatically limited the government's options in micro-economic reform in the legal area. That has occurred under the states, which have established a number of tribunals that operate quite successfully, without the intervention of the legal profession, to provide rough justice for ordinary people. My proposition is that we ought to look at setting up state family law tribunals under state constitutions. We can do that as a pilot, again in Western Australia because the Family Court there already operates under the state constitution, if we do not want to go the whole way and introduce it in one fell swoop right across the country. The recent High Court decision in re Wakim: ex parte McNally may add a further spur to such thinking.The challenge for the Labor Party is that if we are desirous of really moving back to what was originally considered in family law under Lionel Murphy—that is, a less formal, less adversarial system—we have to come to grips with whether or not there is a place for cooperative federalism, even though that has been normally a term used by the coalition. It may not always be the case that to deliver the best service it must be done under the Commonwealth umbrella with Commonwealth money. Perhaps we ought to utilise the states and their constitutions to look at state family tribunals. There would be, of course, a right of appeal from a tribunal to a District Court, and you could have some of the judges in the District Court given a family law warrant. Then again, maybe you would wish to keep the appellate structure of the federal Family Court for appeals.One of the great advantages in this era of arguing about whether there is sufficient legal aid money or sufficient money in the system is that we could actually redirect some of that legal aid money. If you had a tribunal that operated on a process of conciliation first, then arbitration, so that you are arbitrating only those things that you cannot conciliate the parties to, under the state jurisdiction you would not have to have a de novo hearing at the District Court, should there be an appeal. The appeal would be on some point of law. Of course, the tribunals at the state level have demonstrated that they have processes that the parties accept as being fair and reasonable. They deliver outcomes that, by and large, are not challenged, but they operate on a shoestring.There are some cases that you are always going to need to fast-track into the court, and you can do that in the District Court. This could be for anything of a criminal nature in my view. I might say, though, that Sara Blazey made the argument that, where criminal matters such as assault and battery and sexual assault are involved, court proceedings actually exacerbate the problems of the woman involved. That really came as a bit of a shock but, by and large, there is a principle that you should fast-track such matters into courts and allow the tribunal to deal with the vast bulk of the issues. The other point is that you are actually giving people a choice. If someone wants to argue a case in the District Court, as I propose, let them, but give people a choice. Overwhelmingly, constituents in my electorate would opt to take the choice.Mr Deputy Speaker, I suppose I could go on and on. I do not want to earn your wrath but I just want to say in conclusion that this latest decision of the High Court—which, like the Brandy case, I find desperately disappointing because of the way it constricts the Attorney-General and the government in terms of establishing tribunals—we may very well be able to work our way through. As far as the Labor Party is concerned, I have to say that I do not think it is appropriate, when a government introduces changes, for an opposition to always give a reactive commentary about whether they go far enough or not far enough. That seems to have been the process in the last parliament. I think the opposition does have to grasp the nettle and develop approaches to family law reform.It is disappointing to me that there are not processes in the parliament that draw on the bulk of members of parliament that do want to see major changes here but not necessarily in a partisan way. We are interested in getting the changes and reforms in and giving support and comfort for those that do, but it is very difficult while we face this with an adversarial approach. Perhaps it is an opportunity to develop a cross-party group in the parliament that may be interested in acquainting itself with opportunities for further reform and, indeed, advocating it then within their respective parties. I am pleased to say that, like other speakers, I do support the bills. I apologise to the Attorney-General that I did not go into much detail on every item. I hope this has not soured our relationship. I will conclude my remarks on that note.11:49:007525Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I commence by thanking the members for Barton, Hume and Chifley for their interest in the Law and Justice Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 and for their contributions. In respect of the member for Chifley, who is still here, I recall him being the Chairman of the Joint Select Committee on Certain Family Law Issues in the 1993 to 1996 parliament. Some of what he had to say, while having something of a remoteness from the subject matter of the bill, I have heard before and I respect his views and congratulate him on his interest. I think the member for Chifley would see something of what he desires in respect of the resolution of family law disputes in the Federal Magistrates Bill 1999 and the Federal Magistrates (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1999 , which I introduced in the House this morning. Elements of what he proposes in respect of tribunals are proposed in respect of a federal magistrates service. I will resist the invitation he offers to comment on the High Court's decision in re Wakim: ex parte McNally, which struck down part of the cross-vesting scheme, and leave that for another occasion.The bill amends the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 to strengthen the role and functions of the Administrative Review Council. As previous speakers have noted, it implements 10 of the 11 recommendations of the Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee 1997 report. That report was on a reference which I gave to the committee in the light of the celebration of the 20 years work of the Administrative Review Council.The one recommendation that was not accepted I think has been dealt with by the member for Hume. The member for Barton seemed to suggest reconsideration of it. While the government recognises the desirability of responding to ARC reports in a timely manner, it would not be appropriate, we believe, for the government to give an undertaking to respond to all ARC reports within a specified time frame. We do not give such an undertaking in respect of other bodies, including parliamentary committees and the Australian Law Reform Commission, although we do endeavour to respond promptly. Any limit like that could impose unnecessary fetters on the implementation of the government's legal policy and legislative priorities.The member for Barton referred in the context of the proposed amendment to the Judiciary Act to section 32 of the Federal Court of Australia Act. I have to say, with respect, that I have difficulty in understanding what his problem with section 32 is. Section 32 is a provision which in its first subsection provides that, to the extent that the Constitution permits, jurisdiction is conferred on the court—that is the Federal Court—in respect of matters not otherwise within its jurisdiction that are associated with matters in which the jurisdiction of the court is invoked. What that means, in the words of Justice Mason, as Sir Anthony Mason then was in 1983, in Stack v. Coast Securities (No. 9) Pty Ltd, is as follows:A matter was an `associated matter' under section 32(1) where `the attached . . . claim and the federal claim so depend on common transactions and facts that they arise out of a common substratum of facts. The point I failed to understand in the member for Barton's commentary was how anybody could contemplate that criminal proceedings would be joined with civil proceedings under that provision. I may have misunderstood his remarks. If that is what he said, I respectfully disagree with him.The member for Barton also mentioned a slight inconsistency between the provisions of the bill and the explanatory memorandum. That will be fixed up for the purposes of the Senate debate. The member for Barton also referred to the government proposals to implement the ARC's report Better decisions—that is, to combine the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, the Migration Review Tribunal, the Refugee Review Tribunal into one body to be called the Administrative Review Tribunal. I fail to see what there is for the Labor Party to be concerned about in the government proposals. There has been some media suggestion that the government is intending to limit the independence of the tribunal. That is not the case at all.The principal purpose of the combining of the tribunals is to introduce efficiencies and cost saving. The proposed amendments in relation to procedures are designed to make it a less formal and expensive body. There is no intention in any way to impinge on the independence of the decision making that the new body would undertake. It would be done basically in exactly the same way as for the existing tribunals, and nobody seems to have any criticism as to their independence.The government will, at the appropriate time, move some amendments. Subject to that, I thank the members for their support of the bill.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.7526Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.11:55:007526Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—by leave—I move government amendments Nos 1 to 12:(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (lines 24 to 27), omit paragraph (c), substitute:(c) has had direct experience, and has direct knowledge, of the needs of people, or groups of people, significantly affected by government decisions.(2) Schedule 1, item 4, page 4 (lines 7 to 11), omit paragraph (ab), substitute:(ab) to inquire into the adequacy of the procedures used by authorities of the Commonwealth and other persons who exercise administrative discretions or make administrative decisions, and consult with and advise them about those procedures, for the purpose of ensuring that the discretions are exercised, or the decisions are made, in a just and equitable manner; and(3) Schedule 1, item 6, page 4 (lines 31 to 33), omit paragraph (g), substitute:(g) to facilitate the training of members of authorities of the Commonwealth and other persons in exercising administrative discretions or making administrative decisions; and(4) Schedule 1, item 8, page 5 (line 12), after "President", insert "of the Council".(5) Schedule 1, item 8, page 5 (line 17), after "President", insert "of the Council".(6) Schedule 1, item 10, page 6 (lines 6 to 9), omit subsection (2), substitute:(2) An instrument of appointment of a person as an appointed member may state that the person is appointed for the purposes of a particular project specified in the instrument that is being, or is to be, undertaken by the Council. (7) Schedule 1, item 10, page 6 (lines 15 to 19), omit paragraph (b), substitute:(b) the person is to take part in the project and has the rights of a member only for the purposes of taking part in the project; and(8) Schedule 1, item 10, page 6 (lines 22 to 29), omit paragraphs (d) and (e), substitute:(d) if the appointment has not previously ended under paragraph (a) or under section 54 or 55 or been terminated under paragraph (c), it ends when the President of the Council certifies in writing that the Council has finished the project; and(e) when the appointment ends or is terminated, the person is eligible for reappointment, whether for the purpose of taking part in the same project or another project or otherwise.(9) Schedule 4, page 9 (line 8), omit "wherever", substitute "last".(10) Schedule 5, page 10 (lines 2 to 9), omit the Schedule.(11) Schedule 11, item 1, page 22 (lines 5 and 6), omit the item, substitute:1 At the end of paragraph 39B(1A)(c)Add ", other than a matter in respect of which a criminal prosecution is instituted or any other criminal matter".(12) Schedule 15, page 26 (lines 2 to 7), omit the Schedule.In relation to amendments 1 to 8, schedule 1 of the bill amends the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act to implement recommendations made by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee in its report of June 1997 on the role and function of the Administrative Review Council. The committee's recommendations were designed to strengthen the role and functions of the ARC. Proposed amendments 1 to 8 amend schedule 1 to correct drafting errors and clarify the scope of the amendments contained in the bill.As to amendment 9, schedule 4 seeks to amend subsection 20J(2) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 to correct a previous error. However, it did not do so. Proposed government amendment 9 will correct the error.Schedule 5 seeks to amend item 21 of the Copyright Act 1989, re-enacted in 1993, on the basis that item 21 contains a drafting error. However, item 21 does not contain a drafting error, and the proposed amendment should not be made. Proposed government amendment 10 therefore deletes schedule 5.In respect of amendment 11, item 1 of schedule 11 of the bill amends subsection 39B(1A) of the Judiciary Act to exclude the conferral of a general criminal jurisdiction on the Federal Court. Amendment 11 redrafts the amendment to avoid any ambiguity by expressly excluding criminal matters rather than by including civil matters. Criminal jurisdiction will still be able to be expressly conferred on the Federal Court, where appropriate, by other Commonwealth legislation.Finally, in respect of amendment 12, schedule 15 seeks to amend the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979. However, the error has already been corrected. Proposed government amendment 12 therefore deletes schedule 15. I commend the amendments to the Main Committee.11:58:007527Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—I am under very strict instructions from the shadow Attorney-General to indicate that the opposition will be supporting the amendments, and not to deviate from that statement!Amendments agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.Ordered that the bill be reported to the House with amendments.Adjournment752810000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The committee has completed the considerations of all matters referred to it. I propose the question:That the Main Committee do now adjourn.752811:59:007528Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—I rise in the Main Committee today to discuss an issue which has been raised with me by many of my constituents in recent months. It may seem to some a minor matter, but in the area of practical convenience for many it is a major matter. I am talking about Telstra's 013 service. The level of frustration which the decline in Telstra's 013 service—its directory assistance service—is generating in my part of Queensland is simply on the rise. People are becoming frustrated to their boots. It is not so much just the delay that you encounter when you dial 013. In fact, a survey done at the end of last year by the Sun-Herald says that the average time for an 013 call to be answered is something like 19 seconds. All I can say is that things are much better in Sydney than they are in Brisbane, because in my experience it is considerably longer than that.Of course, that assumes that you get an answer. On a number of occasions in recent months I personally had the experience of having had an 013 number simply ring out before the call was answered. Then we have this new ruse by Telstra, the 12456 service. When you dial 013 they remind you with an irritating and lengthy prerecorded message, `Hang on, you can use 12456 for 75c plus call charges. You can be put through in a flash.' Well, that is not the reason why I rang 013 in the first place; I rang simply to get a piece of free information about the person whom I wished to call and their telephone number.We have now a range of additional prerecorded messages through the Telstra 013 service, one of which helpfully informs me that rather than sit on a telephone I can jump on to the Internet and access the telephone number by that means. That is a problem, I think most of us would concede, when you are driving along in your government owned car. The thought of actually having access to some sort of digitally connected Internet service in the back seat of the car which you could flick on and find the telephone number without violating the traffic rules of the state defies imagination. That leaves to one side the services which 013 have traditionally delivered to older citizens whose access to and familiarity with a range of computer technologies is highly limited. But the one that takes the cake is the new one that I heard most recently when I dialled 013. Rather than get the prerecorded message urging me to dial 12456, or the message which says to go and flick on to the Internet, it now says that if I use a particular new service, `Hold the phone, you could win yourself a new car.'All these are appropriate Pavlovian initiatives designed to induce a Pavlovian response on the part of the poor consumer with a single objective in mind, to stop people using 013 because Telstra think it is so fundamentally unprofitable that we, the users out there in the community of Australia, should not be using it at all. That, I fear, is what their first objective is. If they have a second objective it is that if this 013 service is to be retained then they would like to charge for it as soon as possible.In flicking through some of the findings of the inquiry into Telstra and its full privatisation conducted by the Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee, I saw testimony from a Mr Ward of Telstra. When asked by Senator Allison of the Democrats whether Telstra was considering charging for its 013 services he helpfully and encouragingly replied, `We have no immediate plans in terms of charging but, obviously, it continues to be under review.' Sir Humphrey could well have crafted that one. We know the direction in which that is likely to go. I have a very simple ask as a very simple and humble consumer of Telstra's services and its 013 services. I ask that when you dial 013 that someone actually picks up the telephone and gives you the answer that you would like.There is even a newer twist on all this. Recently, in fact last week when I rang, I discovered that the new procedure adopted by Telstra operators is that once you have placed your request and they cannot immediately find it on the basis of the information that you have given them, you are then cut off. The opportunity now to have any dialogue with a Telstra operator beyond the first foray is now eliminated. All this has occurred at a time when Telstra generates record profits and when Telstra is downsizing its staff levels at its call centres across the country.That is not simply my request as a somewhat irritated member of the public. I have received in my electorate office a mounting bank of complaints from citizens right across the city of Brisbane about this decline in service. My criticism is not of Telstra's staff—they handle it well under the circumstances—it is of the policy constraints under which they have been placed by Telstra management. (Time expired)752912:04:007529Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—I rise today to support calls from residents of Kurnell to be given assistance by the federal government to insulate their homes against aircraft noise. At present, the regulations do not allow for Kurnell to be considered for noise insulation assistance despite the fact that 55 per cent of all aircraft which take off from or land into Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport do so over the southern suburbs of Sydney. That constitutes the electorate of Cook.In my endeavours to have Kurnell included in the noise insulation program, I would like to thank the members for Bradfield and Grayndler for their support and their recent representations to the minister for transport that the people of Kurnell need special consideration in that regard. As Chairman of the Sydney Airport Community Forum, Dr Nelson has provided a significant amount of correspondence in relation to Kurnell.I would also like to thank the minister for transport, in listening to the requests for further insulation, for his agreement that he will come to Kurnell and assess for himself the special requirements. That is happening shortly. The Australian noise exposure concept has been the method by which governments, past and present—A division having been called in the House of Representatives—Sitting suspended from 12.06 p.m. to 12.18 p.m.MP6Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRD—Before the interruption I was speaking about the problems of Kurnell and the lack of funding for insulation, despite the fact that 55 per cent of aircraft either take off or land across that area. The Australian noise exposure concept has been the method by which governments, past and present, have assessed the impact of aircraft noise. I feel it is a system that needs to be reassessed.At present, a person's eligibility for noise insulation depends, amongst other criteria, on a subjective measurement of how severely a person feels affected by aircraft noise. Noise insulation should be provided on two objective criteria: the number of planes and the actual noise recorded for the area in question. I make the point that incessant medium level noise is just as annoying for residents as less frequent but louder traffic.The argument that residents of Kurnell knew what they bought into and therefore do not deserve compensation is wrong. For the residents of Kurnell, aircraft noise has been a part of life since the airport came into existence. It is clear also that aircraft noise is continually increasing every year and consequently for somebody who bought a house in Kurnell 16 years ago—the average period of residency in that suburb, according to the survey I conducted—the level of noise has actually increased significantly.Planes fly directly over Kurnell despite instructions to avoid the village. It has long been official policy that noise exposure levels in Kurnell are relatively low because the flight paths of departing aircraft deviate around Kurnell. I have requested, and receive on a daily basis, four maps from Airservices Australia, showing departing and arriving aircraft in curfew and non-curfew times. It is clear that, while planes should veer left over Sutherland or fly directly over Quibray Bay to avoid Kurnell, they often fly directly over the village.Finally, I mention the Kurnell residents survey. Over the last couple of months, my office has received responses to a survey on aircraft noise, which I mailed to every house in Kurnell. The results were very much in line with a similar survey commissioned in January 1995 by the Sutherland Shire Council. In my survey 60.5 per cent of respondents indicated that their standard of living has been affected dramatically by aircraft noise. Ninety per cent of Kurnell residents found aircraft noise to be annoying or extremely annoying in their day-to-day activities. Residents indicated that they were disturbed more during the day than in the evening. Their preferred method of dealing with the problem was the reconfiguration of flight paths. Forty-six per cent of residents urged me to support the fast tracking of construction of a second airport in Sydney, coupled with a noise insulation program for Kurnell.It is clear that this second airport is necessary and, as a former state transport minister, I feel that Badgerys Creek seems the most viable of the alternatives. However, I support the government's position in waiting for the results of the independent EIS before committing to this site. Wherever that second airport may be situated, it will not be operational to the standard of Kingsford Smith for a long time. It is clear that there will always be an airport at the present site, and, for this reason, short-term noise insulation is something that the government should support.7530753012:22:007530Burke, Anna, MPMs BURKE83SChisholmALP00—In my time available today, I want to speak on three totally unrelated issues, so I hope that I get time to deal with them all. The first thing I want to do is commend the youth in my electorate of Chisholm. I think that youth get a pretty bad rap nowadays, but I have been heartily impressed by the youth in my electorate. Recently, some teenagers came into my office—they were probably about 19 or 20 years of age—complaining about the sale of an inappropriate toy in one of our local stores. The toy was a bright yellow pen with a little koala on it and it was actually in the shape of a syringe. These people were totally outraged by it, as it was definitely marketed to children.These teenagers were not the type you would expect to be complaining about this issue. They had earrings and multicoloured hair and all the rest of it, but I was impressed by their tenacity in coming forward to me and asking whether we would do something about removing this toy. In my electorate of Chisholm, particularly in Box Hill where my office is located and where this shop is also located, there is a serious heroin problem, so there is quite a significant incidence of syringes being left around the area, and this amplified the problem. I really want to commend Amanda, Lenny and Simon for coming in to my office and bringing this to my attention. I was a little distressed when they said, `We're so pleased that you are taking this up and taking this as a serious issue,' because they thought that we would not. The toy has been withdrawn from the store and we are now proceeding with the Office of Fair Trading. I really want to commend those young people.The other thing I want to speak of is that recently we held a forum with all the school captains in my electorate. We wrote to the 12 secondary colleges asking the school captains and teachers to attend. We thought that we would get a few attending: 50 people turned up. The schools represented were: Kingswood College, Box Hill Senior Secondary College, Emmaus Catholic College, Koonung Secondary College, Mount Scopus Memorial College, Box Hill High School, Mount Waverley Secondary College, Our Lady of Sion College, Avila Catholic College, Ashwood College and PLC—a wide variety of state, private and Catholic schools.We had an open forum which we just let roam to see where the issues were. I was impressed by the ability of these young people to articulate the fears and concerns they have now. There was a great concern about VCE and CATs—and a wonderful thing called the GAT in Victoria, which is an intelligence test. All these bright young people had worked out that this was a totally inappropriate way to actually assess their intelligence, and I commend them for being bright enough to work out that any intelligence test is not something that tests your intelligence.There was also the fear of going forward—what would happen after school, the cost of going to university, the fear of putting in choices about placements, the issues about kids not being taken seriously, being seen as the cause of the problem and not part of the solution. I was really heartened by it. At the end of it quite a few of them came up and said that it was so pleasing to meet someone who was so normal—which I took as rather a nice compliment—and that we were taking them so seriously. It is something that we should be doing—looking towards those people, looking to our future. They are the future leaders in their community, and we should be talking to them and hearing from them more.We will repeat this exercise at the end of the year when they have completed their VCE to see how they have gone and where they have progressed to. It was really very heartening, and I thank the schools for sending their students along and the students for being so supportive of the exercise.They talked about such issues as drugs and about having a lack of things to do, their concerns, their worries and their stresses. I think it is a bit sad. We often say that youth is wasted on the young. This group of people whose lives are so caught up in ensuring that they get brilliant scores for their TER, the tertiary entrance score in Victoria, were not getting to enjoy a precious time in their lives. I was, as I say, very impressed by their vocabulary, their passion, and the fact that they were all so pleased to come along and to be given a chance to have a voice. I think we should be encouraging that more and more.The other issue, which is totally unrelated to these earlier topics, relates to a wrong that I think should be rectified in this place. On 31 March this year the member for Deakin went into the House and accused members of the ALP in Deakin of using his mail account to send out Australia Post items. He also named the state member for Mitcham, Tony Robinson, saying that he had also used the Australia Post account of Mr Barresi, the member for Deakin, to post out direct mail.This was put on the record and actually made it into the papers, both the Herald Sun and our local press. Mr Barresi has received, via Senator Chris Ellison, what I hope will prompt a retraction of that, namely, an admission that Australia Post has ruled that they were totally responsible. I think Mr Barresi should rectify that claim on the public record. (Time expired)753212:27:007532Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—I would like to speak to you this afternoon about car theft. Car theft is a multimillion dollar industry, but it is something that does not have to happen. It does not have to happen in towns like Townsville or Thuringowa or Coffs Harbour or Ipswich. I have been alarmed at the increase in the incidence of car theft across the Commonwealth and particularly in my electorate in Townsville.I believe that the solution is very simple and very inexpensive, and that is to fit an engine immobiliser. Jim Cathcart from Geoff Pickering Motors in Townsville tells me that you can get one for about $100. But this afternoon I would like to suggest going a little further: vehicle insurance companies should offer you a reduction in your premium if you fit one of these immobilisers. At the moment, with 16,500 vehicles being stolen in Queensland every year, all of us who have vehicle insurance premiums are paying for the cost of the damage that is being done to those vehicles.It is generally young people who take the vehicles. They take them for two purposes. One is the joy-ride syndrome and the other is that they will take the cars to strip and sell them. Either way, most of the cars taken end up being totally written-off by the insurance companies. The cost of that total write-off is what we all pay for in our vehicle insurance premiums.It does not have to be, and that is the point that I make to the Main Committee this afternoon. We should have a mechanism in place where Australian insurance companies could recognise that, if a customer fitted an immobiliser, that person would get a reduction in premium because that car would not get stolen. I think that would be a proper reward and concession for those responsible vehicle owners in the community.There is, of course, a range of products that you can fit. You can get products worth up to $1,000 to prevent car thefts, but it really is not necessary; a $100 version does the job just the same. Sergeant Ron Reid from the Townsville police is also urging motorists to have their vehicles installed with anti-theft devices. Once entry is gained, usually the vehicle is taken away and basically trashed and dumped. Certainly I am aware from my contacts with the insurance company that the insurance loss assessors are just appalled at what these young people do to the cars when they get hold of them.In Townsville, if you own a Holden Commodore, particularly the VN Commodore, you are the most likely person to be hit. This information was released by the Townsville police. Probably 50 per cent of all vehicles stolen are VN Commodores, because they are so easy to hot-wire, so easy to take away. In fact, to inject a bit of levity, an insurance loss adjustor told me that, if you did not want to get your vehicle stolen in a shopping centre car park, you should park your car next to a VN Commodore. That would solve your problem because the thieves or the joy-riders always go for the other vehicle first.Police have been so concerned in Townsville that they have sent letters to the owners of all VN Commodores in the city, indicating to them the danger that they face—and this is not something just to get at Holden. There are other areas where other manufacturers have problems. I think we have just got to recognise the facts of the matter.My point is that we do not need to have cars stolen. For a small fee of about $100, you can get an engine immobiliser fitted. My plea to the insurance companies of Australia is to bring in a mechanism whereby there will be a credit given on your insurance policy if you do, in fact, have one of these engine immobilisers fitted.753312:31:007533Ripoll, Bernie, MPMr RIPOLL83EOxleyALP00—Before I go on to talk about the Treatment Works Week and the heroic contribution of Queenslanders fighting the effects of illicit drugs, I wish to congratulate on their efforts those heroic Queenslanders who last night retained the State of Origin cup for my state. This series was a tough one for Queensland, and the final game was the toughest of them all. Our side was dogged by injuries to key players and by controversy throughout the preparation for this game.We went into the final game without the captain of game two, Kevin Walters, and our only point scorer in the previous two matches this series, Matt Rogers. And if only to add insult to our already growing injury list, our coach, Mark `Muppet' Murray did his achilles tendon. Add to this the extraordinary pressure placed on last night's captain by his own club not to play. I only hope Sydney took note that Adrian's shoulder was fine for the entire game. In fact, it was his shoulder that was part of one of the greatest passes in Origin history. He finished the game and vindicated himself and the team's doctor, Roy Saunders.I must also mention local hero Kevin Walters. Kevin's decision not to play in the Origin decider proved that elite athletes are responsible and mature enough to put their hand up when they are not fully fit to play. Like all Queenslanders, I can only hope that we will see Kevvie in the maroon jersey one more time for another victorious series next year. My congratulations to the coach, the players and all the support staff.I would also like to add my support to the many voices calling for the introduction of extra time in the State of Origin matches. While I recognise that a drawn series is a civilised way to end a contest between two equally matched sides, one thing State of Origin football can never become is civilised. State of Origin football goes beyond the realm of a sporting contest. It is a primitive tribal battle and, like all tribal battles, a draw is just not an option. Extra time last night would have changed the result, as I am sure Queensland would have put in two more tries in the extra 20 minutes, sealing victory and bringing triumphant glory over our traditional foe one more time.But there is a far more serious battle in our community than football. We have a struggle against the impact of illicit drugs on our community. I am proud to support the Treatment Works Week and efforts of the Alcohol and Other Drugs Councils of Australia in combating the effect of drug abuse in our community through the development and support of drug treatment throughout Australia.As the name suggests, treatment works. Treatment Works Week is aimed at highlighting the fact that drug addiction and drug addicts require treatment and that, when given that treatment, it often works. While not everyone who receives treatment will become drug free overnight, the reality is that people who have received treatment are likely to live longer, reduce their drug use, reduce crime and reduce their demands on health and other services provided by the community. Treatment not only saves lives, it also saves the community substantial amounts of money and reduces crime.I am also proud to support Labor's illicit drug strategy. Labor's level-headed approach to drugs is free of the righteous moralising and ideological inflexibility that has hampered drug treatment in this country.Recently, Kim Beazley was a welcome guest in my community to discuss the problems of drug use and, in particular, the effect it has on the community. What the people of Inala received that day was the rare experience of a national politician who came not to talk to them but to listen. Labor's drug policy is effective because it is built on the wisdom and experience of those affected by this national tragedy.The use and sale of illicit drugs is an ever-changing problem—changing drugs, changing drug cultures and improving treatments. There is no room for inflexibility in drug policy. If something works, it must be considered. We must continue listening and learning on this issue and understand the true nature of this problem. That is why I will be spending this Friday evening travelling through my electorate of Oxley with our local Drug-Arm van. I hope to find out first-hand about our local drug problem and situation. I will also be honoured to spend the evening with local heroes in their struggle against something that really counts in our community—their struggle to fight drugs at a local level.All of us in this House must be prepared to look very seriously at this national problem and not leave the responsibility solely to community groups such as Drug-Arm that operate with volunteers, donations and small handouts from the government. This problem is much bigger than that. It requires a national approach, with national policy that looks at all opportunities, at all solutions and at all types of policy that will relieve some of the pain that is being suffered in the local community. All I can do is implore all members of this House to put the pressure where it should be borne and to say to the government that all avenues must be investigated. It is our responsibility to make sure that we do something positive to try and restore some sense to this national problem. (Time expired)753412:36:007534Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—In recent weeks, we have seen an escalation in the number of articles and reports published concerning Sydney's second airport. I suppose the imminence of the release of the final EIS and a cabinet decision on this has prompted the torrent of articles. These include an article a couple of weeks ago by the member for Werriwa arguing the economic case for Badgerys Creek; a report by south Sydney councils arguing the economic issues for moving some of the pressure off Sydney; a Macquarie Bank report; a Campbelltown Anti Airport Group report arguing against an airport at Badgerys Creek; a very detailed Western Sydney Alliance report, quite rightly called the Definitive no case and clearly and convincingly, to my mind, arguing the case against Badgerys Creek. And we have seen just a couple of weeks ago a report by the University of Western Sydney Think Tank looking at Sydney's airport issues and, again, arguing against Badgerys Creek.I want to clearly put on record again my opposition to the Badgerys Creek proposal. The answer to solving Sydney's airport needs is not to duplicate them by building another airport in Western Sydney. There are several reasons that I say this. The first and most obvious one from the draft EIS is the air quality issue. Western Sydney already clearly has the worst air quality in the Sydney Basin. Building an airport in Western Sydney will clearly exacerbate these problems. The draft EIS says that Western Sydney frequently has ozone levels above accepted levels, and the building of an airport there will raise those levels possibly by 25 to 30 per cent.Consistently, according to the reports, air quality in terms of ozone in Western Sydney would frequently exceed accepted standards. This is not so much because of the extra aircraft usage but because of the greatly increased motor vehicle usage as passengers from the inner city suburbs and the east move across the Sydney Basin to the west to access transport needs. The second issue relating to air quality is fine particulates. The study by the Western Sydney Alliance clearly shows that fine particulates that have serious impacts on health will consistently be above accepted standards if an airport is built in Western Sydney.Secondly, there is the social impact. There are over a million people in Western Sydney, proportionally very few of whom use aircraft, who will be impacted by aircraft noise. Seventy-five per cent of the users of aircraft in Sydney come from the eastern and northern suburbs. To inflict an airport on the residents of Western Sydney, where only 25 per cent of aircraft users live, is just clearly unfair.Thirdly, it has to be questioned whether a second airport for Sydney is in fact even needed at all. The Business Review Weekly on 16 November last year and the Sydney Morning Herald on 21 November last year both quoted Tony Stuart, the CEO of Kingsford Smith airport, who argued that, with better and more efficient management techniques, Kingsford Smith airport could take treble the number of passengers it currently does—and that is without changing the curfew or without raising the cap. By better management techniques, Mascot can be made to last far longer, possibly another 20 to 25 years. To go ahead, to be stampeded into building a second airport in Sydney's west when it is not clearly needed is obviously just an inappropriate and unwise decision. The Sydney Morning Herald on 8 May this year said in its editorial:It is also becoming obvious that Badgerys Creek is not an appropriate site for a second airport, nor is it clear that a second airport for Sydney is needed.Before we go ahead and build something in the west, we need to make sure that we are getting the maximum and most efficient usage out of the airport that we have got.Fourthly, there is a question of viability. The draft EIS said that if we build an airport in Western Sydney there will be significant interaction problems—(Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The time allowed for debate has expired. The Main Committee stands adjourned until a day and hour to be fixed by the Deputy Speaker.Main Committee adjourned at 12.41 p.m.Answers to Questions in Writing7536The following answers to questions were circulated:7536(Question No. 307)3077536Hall, Jill, MPMs Hall83NShortlandALP00 asked the Minister for Aged Care, upon notice, on 7 December 1998:(1) Is there a mismatch between the local availability of, and demand for, nursing home and hostel beds; if so, what steps is the Government taking to make beds available where needed.(2) Is it a fact that proportionally the aged population of the electoral division of Shortland is among the highest in Australia but that its per capita nursing home/hostel bed rate is half the national average; if so, why.7536Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs Bronwyn BishopSE4MackellarLPAged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Government operates an aged care planning system that targets localities where there is a demonstrated need for new care services. Planning takes account of demographic data on the numbers of aged people in a particular locality and data on Commonwealth and other Government services. Aged Care Planning Advisory Committees in each state advise on the regional allocation of new places. The Government then advertises for applications from potential service providers in targeted localities. Applications are competitively assessed against legislated criteria.The former Hawke/Keating governments left the Australian community 10,000 aged care places short. They did not meet their own publicly established benchmarks.The Coalition is fixing this and has substantially increased funding to the residential aged care sector. Since the Howard Government was elected in 1996 funding has increased by 42% to $3.5 billion.(2) Legislation requires the Government to plan in terms of Aged Care Planning Regions. The Government does not keep planning statistics on electoral divisions.The electoral division of Shortland falls into two Aged Care Planning Regions: Central Coast and Hunter. Parts of seven other electoral divisions fall into these two regions.The following table shows the provision of operating and allocated aged care places in the Central Coast and Hunter regions compared to the national benchmark, as at June 1999.Places per 1,000 people aged 70 and over—June 1999Central CoastOperational/Provisional/AdvertisedBenchmarkHigh Care (nursing home)3740Low Care (hostel)2750Community Aged Care Packages1210Total76100HunterOperational/Provisional/AdvertisedBenchmarkHigh Care (nursing home)4540Low Care (hostel)4150Community Aged Care Packages1010Total96100Since coming to office, the Howard Government has provided an additional 1,241 care places to these regions—554 to the Central Coast and 687 to the Hunter—to help overcome Labor's legacy and provide new services to meet the needs of older Australians in those regions.7537(Question No. 518)5187537Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MossfieldMK6GreenwayALP00 asked the Minister for Aged Care, upon notice, on 23 March 1999:(1) When will advertisements seeking expressions of interest in another round of community aged care packages appear.(2) Will non-ethnic specific packages be provided in the local government area of Blacktown, NSW; if not, why not.7537Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs Bronwyn BishopSE4MackellarLPAged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The 1999 Aged Care Approvals Round was advertised on 24 April 1999, in national and regional newspapers. The advertisement called for applications for residential care places and community care packages. For the first time in this round people can apply for residential care grants, extra service status, approved provider status and restructuring assistance.(2) The local Government area of Blacktown is in the NSW Aged Care Planning Region of Western Sydney. 20 care package places for the general community have been made available for allocation in the region in the current round.7538(Question No. 664)6647538Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Aged Care, upon notice, on 1 June 1999:(1) Has the Minister or a department or agency administered by the Minister provided grants to the National Farmers' Federation (NFF) or bodies related to the NFF since 2 March 1996; if so, (a) in each case, (i) what was the nature of the grant and (ii) for what purpose was it provided and (b) what total sum was provided.(2) To what boards, committees or other bodies for which the Minister has portfolio responsibility have (a) Mr Donald McGauchie (b) Dr Wendy Craik or (c) other officers or staff of the NFF been appointed since 2 March 1996.(3) What sums has the Commonwealth paid in (a) sitting fees, (b) board fees, (c) travel costs and (d) related expenses with respect to each appointment referred to in part (2).7538Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs Bronwyn BishopSE4MackellarLPAged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) No.(2) Nil.(3) Not applicable.