1999-08-093914REPS806101999-08-09 The House met at 12.30 p.m.Miscellaneous806110001CLERKThe Clerk—I inform the House of the absence of the Speaker. He is attending a memorial service for Australian citizens killed in the Interlaken tragedy. The Speaker will be in attendance later this day. In accordance with standing order 14, the Deputy Speaker as Acting Speaker will take the chair.Mr ACTING SPEAKER(Mr Nehl) thereupon took the chair, and read prayers.Miscellaneous806110001CLERKThe Clerk—I present a letter from the Chief Executive and Principal Registrar of the High Court forwarding, in accordance with section 369 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, a copy of the following order made by the High Court of Australia sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns:Donald Kenneth Ditchburn v. The Divisional Returning Officer for Herbert. Order dated 22 July 1999. Petition No. B50 of 1998. Leave be granted to the Australian Electoral Commission to enter an Appearance and to be represented and be heard; the Petition be dismissed, and the petitioner to pay costs of the respondent and of the Australian Electoral Commission. Committees80618061806112:32:008061Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4LaTrobeLP10—On behalf of the Joint Select Committee on the Republic Referendum I present the committee's advisory report, incorporating dissenting reports, on the Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) Bill 1999 and the Presidential Nominations Committee Bill 1999 together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the committee.Ordered that the report be printed.OT4Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLES—Mr Acting Speaker, I am delighted to present the report of the Joint Select Committee on the Republic Referendum on our inquiry into two bills which, if they become law, will alter our constitution to take Australia from a monarchical form of constitutional democracy to a republic.The first bill, the Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) Bill 1999, proposes changes to the Australian Constitution itself. The proposals in this bill contain the constitutional changes necessary to establish Australia as a republic. The long title of this bill will be the question put to Australian voters at a referendum later this year and presently scheduled for Saturday, 6 November. The second bill considered by the committee, the Presidential Nominations Committee Bill 1999, would become an ordinary act of parliament. This bill sets out provisions for the operation of a committee to consider public nominations for an Australian President. Together the two bills give effect to decisions taken at the 1998 Constitutional Convention held at Old Parliament House, Canberra.The committee considered that it had three responsibilities with respect to its inquiry: firstly, to determine that the bills to the largest practical extent accurately reflected the outcomes of the Constitutional Convention; secondly, that if the bills were enacted and the referendum successful that the republican model introduced would work as intended; and, thirdly, to give the Australian people the opportunity to comment on this historic and important legislation.The committee concluded that the legislation does accurately reflect the recommendations of the Constitutional Convention. I compliment the Attorney-General and the referendum task force for producing legislation that should work in the manner intended. While there were many dissenting views both on the form of the republican model and various detailed and separate technical and legal issues, the bills represent a competent response to the chosen model. The committee agreed that these two important bills should proceed, and today's report contains 14 recommendations that the committee believes will improve the operation of the proposed laws.In order to give the community the opportunity to comment on the legislation, public hearings were held in Sydney, Adelaide, Brisbane, Broome, Canberra, Darwin, Hobart, Melbourne, Newcastle, Perth and Townsville. The committee inquiry was well supported by expert and non-expert witnesses alike. We were pleased that a wide range of Australians came forward to meet and talk with us. The committee agrees this inquiry was, as one witness in regional Australia observed, an example of democracy in action.The first of our 14 recommendations addresses the long title of the bill to amend the Constitution. This was, and is, a highly charged political issue, as the words themselves will form the question to be asked at the referendum, and some believe they will have an influence on the outcome of the vote. The committee agreed that the long title of the bill should describe in concise and simple terms the essential purpose and outcome of the proposed amendments to the Constitution. The long title proposed by the committee is:A Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic, with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by an Australian President.The committee believes that this proposed long title represents a substantial improvement on that of the bill currently before the parliament. While none of the committee members thinks it is perfect, for an all-party committee this proposal represents a collegiate decision reached in the spirit of consensus and compromise. In the circumstances the committee concluded that its long title was more than reasonable.Mr Acting Speaker, I say to you there was not one dissenting voice when the final form of words of proposed recommendation No. 1 was put to the committee. Even after written dissents were taken into account, only one member of this committee has formally dissented from the agreed long title. Other recommendations of our report address variously the appointment of the President, the powers of the President, the removal of the President and other issues related to the bill.The other recommendation on which I will briefly comment is recommendation 3, which would effectively provide that a Prime Minister who nominated for President a person other than a candidate selected by the nominations committee would be required to table a statement in writing justifying such action. The committee received a great deal of input regarding the nomination process because many people felt strongly that it was the nomination process itself which gave legitimacy to allowing the parliament to be the ultimate approver of a Prime Minister's choice of the person to be President. Accord ingly, the committee felt that the nominations committee process should be given absolute legitimacy so that, while not denying the Prime Minister the opportunity to select a person not so nominated, if he and the Leader of the Opposition were unable to otherwise agree, any such decision should effectively be reported to the nation in writing.The committee travelled across Australia taking evidence for this inquiry and on 9 July took evidence in Broome. That day was a noteworthy anniversary in Australia's constitutional history. The 9th of July this year was the 99th anniversary of a certain enactment of the British parliament—63 and 64 Victoria, chapter 12—which contains the Australian Constitution. I reflected on that British enactment at the beginning of the committee's meeting in Broome. I thought how appropriate it was that on this anniversary the Joint Select Committee on the Republic Referendum was reviewing the bills that could lead the way for Australia to become a republic.In the first half of the 1990s when the republic debate was beginning to achieve some national profile, I considered the issues and declared my personal position. I said that by birth, heritage and inheritance I was a republican. But I believed that our monarchical form of constitutional democracy had served Australia well and I was unconvinced that any change to this successful democratic system could be justified on grounds other than improvement to democracy itself. I also rejected the views of those who stated that a change of Australia's head of state to give effect to a republic was inevitable.In 1996 when the President of the United States, Bill Clinton, and his wife Hillary visited Australia, the Prime Minister hosted a state luncheon in the Great Hall of Parliament House, Canberra. At the beginning of that auspicious occasion, the Prime Minister rose and proposed a toast to the President of the United States of America. We toasted and resumed our seats. Then the President of the United States rose and proposed a toast to the Queen. We toasted, but in a room of over 600 people you could literally hear the proverbial pin drop. Since that time I have listened carefully to the debate about our head of state and constitutional reform. I attended day 1 of the Constitutional Convention and followed its activities avidly. At the beginning of this inquiry I said that I was, and would remain, neutral on the question until I tabled the committee's report. I have read the written submissions and listened carefully to the Australians who appeared before the committee to give evidence and I have considered carefully the legislation itself and its likely effect on our particular form of constitutional democracy. I hold strongly to the view that our unique model incorporating pieces of Westminster and the United States and Switzerland examples is probably the most successful of any constitutional democratic system in all of the world.Notwithstanding that the monarchy has given us stability and non-partisan convention, I believe that any form of monarchy has for the 21st century finally outlived its usefulness. The idea that in 2000 or 2001 inherited privilege and power has any place in a democratic institution is at total variance with my belief in people based politics and equality of opportunity. I believe the model proposed by these bills is a good model and will allow us to move from a constitution based on the Crown to one based on the people in a smooth seamless transition. I applaud the Constitutional Convention for its sensible compromise outcomes. I support these bills. I will vote yes at the referendum and I will serve any public role which might assist any of the groups supporting the yes campaign.I want to record my thanks to the committee secretariat—Claressa Surtees, Rose Verspaandonk, Hilary Manson, Anna Gadzinski and Robert Horne—for an outstanding job in a very tight time schedule under often very difficult circumstances. I would also like to thank the ever-reliable staff of our parliamentary reporting staff. To my colleagues on the committee and particularly the deputy chairman, the member for Barton, who is at the table, I say: it was a long winter of no holidays and hard work and I thank you for your cooperation, your sensibilities and for a positive outcome. I say to the executive that the 14 recommendations of this report repre sent a largely unanimous outcome. I ask the executive to take serious consideration of what my committee and I believe are sensible recommendations. I commend the report to the House.12:43:008064McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—I have pleasure in endorsing the report of the Joint Select Committee on the Republic Referendum. I also thank the secretariat for their tremendous work: it really was outstanding. Opposition members are very grateful for that. In terms of the position of the chairman, I can honestly say that not one member of the committee was aware of his personal views on this issue, and that is to his credit. He approached the matter as a chairman should, with objectivity and balance, and I think that approach flowed through to the sincerity of the other members of the committee. The report is a sensible and balanced one. Overall, it gives the government's proposals, which will be put to the Australian people in November this year, a clean bill of health and, indeed, a strong endorsement.Regarding the most controversial issue, the long title, it is true, as the chairman of the committee said, that the desire of committee members was to have a concise and simple question. Indeed, we found that the wording proposed in the bill is misleading. It is misleading because it talks about only one aspect of the presidential nominations procedure. It says that the President will be chosen by a two-thirds majority of both houses of parliament. For a start, the role of the parliament is not to choose; it is only to approve two earlier steps that are a necessary precondition to that third, final check occurring.The first step is recommendation by a nominations committee, of which more than half will be community members. A short list of nominees is put to the Prime Minister. For the first time in the selection of our head of state there will be community input in the nomination process. For the first time, any member of the community will be able to nominate someone for the position of head of state and, for the first time, there will be community involvement in the vetting of those nominations. That is a significant advance on the current situation where, effectively, the Governor-General is appointed by one man, namely, the Prime Minister. That is the first precondition.The second precondition is a joint nomination, moved by the Prime Minister but, importantly, seconded by the Leader of the Opposition. This nomination procedure—if the bill is approved at the November referendum—will ensure that our head of state is not a politician but, to the contrary, is above politics, someone who is acceptable to both sides of parliament. Only after those two essential preconditions occur—the community committee nomination recommendation and the joint motion by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition—can the third and final step occur where the parliament has the final check on the procedure, as it were. Those elected directly and those elected by proportional representation in the Senate come together in a joint sitting, major and minor parties all reflected, and two-thirds of those representatives of the people of Australia must approve the choice. Again, that will ensure that the person put before the parliament is above politics, is an Australian that we will all be proud of, is an Australian that will unify the nation and is someone who represents Australia on the international stage with stature and is effectively one of our own.That is the important three-step procedure in the nomination process. We actually found that to refer to only one of those steps occurring was misleading because it enabled people to erroneously and misleadingly say that the outcome of this procedure would be a politician's President. It will be anything else. It will be of the community and it will be a part of the community, as the President must be under the system that is proposed.For that reason, we said that there were two options. One option was to avoid the misleading indication in the current question and to include the whole procedure that I have outlined. It was agreed that if we did that the question would be far too long and perhaps an impediment to people considering the issues when they vote on the question. We thought it better to have a concise and simple question. Instead of talking about the procedures, we said: what are the outcomes that we are talking about? That outcome was establishing a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by an Australian President. For the first time, our Australian head of state must be an Australian citizen. That is the essential outcome of the procedure that we have endorsed. It is impossible for anyone to sensibly cavil with that brief, short and concise description of what the outcome will be.That outcome was arrived at in the spirit of consensus and compromise. At the deliberations there was not one dissenting voice and, as the chairman has pointed out, those who were not in attendance at that time have since had the opportunity to put in dissenting reports, and there has been only one dissent on that question. I know a number of people regrettably locked themselves into a corner before they had considered the report's recommendations. I would ask them to now step out of that corner, have regard to these very solid, very balanced recommendations and reassess the issue. The Australian people are entitled to have a fair and honest proposition put to them in November and we have proposed one that we think achieves that goal.A number of other issues are canvassed in the report and other members will have the opportunity of speaking on those. One of the other more significant areas of controversy was in respect of the dismissal procedure. We have found that currently there is effectively no restriction on the Prime Minister deciding to dismiss the Governor-General. The only restriction is one of time; that is, the time it would take the Prime Minister to obtain the consent of the Queen to that process. But we note that, in this day of electronic communication, that is effectively no impediment at all; that that request for approval, and approval, could be effectively instantaneous. There is in fact under our current system no accountability for the Prime Minister dismissing the Governor-General. This bill proposes for the first time that accountability be brought into the procedure. We have recommended that the Prime Minister, as soon as practicable but certainly, as the current bill provides, within 30 days, must relate his or her decision to dismiss the President to the House of Representatives, and the House of Representatives then deliberates on whether it approves or does not approve.We note that the House is the master of its own procedures and the House could be expected to afford procedural fairness to the President who was dismissed. We also note that the political reality is that, if the Prime Minister's action in dismissing the Governor-General was disapproved of, it would effectively end the career of the Prime Minister, either by way of a motion of no confidence in the Prime Minister as an individual or, if the House chose, as master of its own destiny, to move a motion of no confidence in the government of the day. That would also be available. To suggest that there is no accountability in the proposed bill is false. In fact, there is effectively no accountability in the current system and accountability will be introduced for the first time. So the committee has given approval to that process of accountability as an appropriate check in the overall system.We have noted that the powers of the President will be the same as the Governor-General. The best advice is to that effect. So, again, any suggestion that our system of government will be changed by this bill in November is wrong. It will preserve the Westminster system that we have all come to cherish, but it will give Australians an Australian citizen as our head of state for the first time.12:53:008065Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—In accordance with usual parliamentary practice, the terms of reference of the Joint Select Committee on the Republic Referendum were narrow and specific. As a member of that committee I saw our task as twofold: first, to consider whether the provisions of the bills effectively implemented the republic model that emerged from the Constitutional Convention and, secondly, to consider whether, if the bills were passed, they would operate effectively or, to put it another way, whether there were flaws in the drafting or in the intended operation of those bills.It was a narrow brief and one for which I put aside personal views. In my deliberations on the committee I sought to remain as objective as possible, given the specific terms of reference. There was neither the opportunity nor the ability for committee members to push alternative models for a republic.The issue which seems to have created most interest is that of the long title. It is apparent from reading previous questions posed in previous referenda that there is some art to drafting a short and concise question which may, in fact, cover deeply complex, constitutionally difficult or even procedurally difficult proposals. Previous referenda questions have been short, concise, not cumbersome and go to the basis of the change, not to the procedures by which the change is to be effected.The constitutional change being sought in this instance is the change from one system to another. However one looks at it, whether we describe it as a change from a constitutional monarchy to a republic or a change from a crowned head of state to an appointed head of state, it comes down to asking: what will be the fundamental difference when Australians wake up on the morning of 7 November 1999, assuming for the moment that the referendum succeeds? The fundamental change is that the Queen and the Governor-General would be replaced by an Australian President—an Australian head of state who the convention recommended be called President. That is the basic proposal.It is hard to please everyone, for essentially seven different elements of constitutional change were put forward by various witnesses as being necessary inclusions, in their view, in the long title. Some thought the inclusion of a nominations committee was the most significant change; others thought it was the selection by the Prime Minister of a nominee. Others thought it was the approval by a two-thirds majority of both houses of parliament, while others thought it was the dismissal procedure. Others believed that it would be appropriate to mention the 30-day ratification by the House. I, for one, believed that the most significant matter for consideration was the powers to be given to the head of state. Appointment and dismissal are procedural matters, the process by which the head of state enters or departs the scene. At the heart of it all must be the powers that the head of state holds.Section 4 of this report deals in some detail with the issues of the powers and the views that were expressed. We were concerned to ensure that the Constitutional Convention resolution, that the powers of the President shall be the same as those currently exercised by the Governor-General, was adhered to. Given the weight of the expert constitutional evidence before the committee to the effect that the President would have the same powers as those which the Governor-General has at present—and that was a majority view, not an absolute view—and given the uncertainty that already exists as to whether an exercise of the reserve powers or the content of the conventions are presently justiciable, I believe that the committee's recommendations in chapter 4 show the committee has gone as far as it is able to give effect to the recommendation of the Constitutional Convention that the powers of the President should be the same as those currently exercised by the Governor-General.Having dealt with the question of non-reserve and reserve powers and the conventions as best as we were able, I was able to support a proposed long title that the Queen and the Governor-General be replaced by a President, as inherent in that is the issue of the powers of the President. I commend the report to the House.12:57:008066Roxon, Nicola, MPMs ROXON83KGellibrandALP00—The tabling today of the report of the Joint Select Committee on the Republic Referendum is a vital step in a long but cautious process of recognising our maturity and independence as a nation. It is part of making sure that our institutions of government actually match our strong sense of identity and our capacity as a nation to stand on our own two feet.It is on the record that I am a committed republican. I, like many Australians, particularly those of my generation, have always had a strong sense of pride in being Australian and in the unique freedom and strength and security that our country gives us. There was a jolt for me, however, when I became a solicitor in Victoria and again when I was elected to this place, because I was twice required to swear allegiance to the Queen—a queen who, despite her personal good works, holds an office which arouses in me no sense of shared identity. I cannot automatically respect a title that she has not earned but simply inherited, and I cannot respect her wealth of immense proportions or the religiously exclusive nature of her office. Such ideas are in fundamental opposition to the Australian values of equality, openness and opportunity.But the committee's work and recommendations were not about whether committee members were republicans, monarchists or otherwise. Our job, as other speakers have indicated, was to assess the working capacity of the bills. The committee has been able to conclude that the bills will ensure that our democratic system of great stability will continue, but with an Australian head of state who can be a symbol of our shared aspirations as a nation. A fair question must include this fundamental change. It is a change of personnel, if you like, not a change of the system itself.On the issues of the appointment and dismissal of the President and the powers of the President, one must, to measure the proposal fairly, compare it to the total lack of process and accountability currently involved in appointing a Governor-General. The Prime Minister currently has total power to do this. The Queen does not play any role and has no independent discretion in supporting the Prime Minister's recommendations. People are largely unaware of this because the power to dismiss a Governor-General by the Prime Minister has not been exercised. The political reality and other checks within our system ensure that this is the case. In my view, the great strength of the proposal examined by the committee is that it is a very conservative proposal—and for a good reason. It maintains our system of government—one of the most stable and vibrant democracies in the world. All the scaremongering in the campaign to come will not detract from the fact that the experts told the committee that the powers of the President will be the same as those of the Queen and the Governor-General. The bills go to great lengths to give some added protection to the position of the President and to add accountability in the process of a Prime Minister appointing a new President. Even on the question of dismissal, the checks and balances in our system come from the Westminster system of responsible government, combined with our bicameral system where the Senate is usually not controlled by the government of the day. These valuable protections remain unchanged and will ensure the stability of our democracy.As the member for Barton has briefly touched upon, the open and participatory nomination process is a great advance on the current system of nomination. However, I would like to briefly address recommendation No. 2 of the committee, which is an important recommendation which would improve that public nomination process. Specific reference could be made to the diversity of our Australian community so that, when the Prime Minister appoints community members to a nomination committee, we make sure that those on the selection committee truly do represent the diversity of our nation. I draw attention to that important recommendation.However, a fair question cannot refer to the nominations process unless it includes all that process. To refer to only a part, as the bills currently do and as the Prime Minister is reported as supporting, distorts that process. All or nothing might be sensible but including all the detail was regarded as far too cumbersome, confusing and difficult and therefore was decided against by the committee.I commend the report to the House and to the Prime Minister. He might not like the recommendations, but they are fair and thorough and they give Australians a chance to make an informed choice about our future on 6 November. This is a choice about our identity and our independence. I will be urging people to vote yes. Australians do not need to be wedded for life to this particular model of the republic, but they do need to be able to respect themselves in the morning. I hope that, on the morning of 7 November, we will be able to respect ourselves and be proud to call ourselves a truly independent nation.13:02:008068Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—I rise to endorse the report of the Joint Select Committee on the Republic Referendum which was presented by the chairman of the committee, the member for La Trobe. I commend him on his skill and great objectivity in chairing the committee. I also commend the secretariat of the committee who had a difficult task and did an outstanding job in a very short space of time. I commend them.The report represents almost the unanimous agreement of those involved in the committee. It is a reflection of the views reported to the committee at the public hearing on the analysis of the Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) Bill 1999 and the Presidential Nominations Committee Bill 1999 . It is clear that the key questions to be resolved were, firstly, the powers of an Australian President and whether they would be equal to those of the Governor-General; secondly, the composition of the committee selected to choose the President; thirdly, the relative powers of the Governor-General and the Prime Minister in the event of one wishing to dismiss the other; fourthly, reporting to parliament on the grounds for dismissal of the President; fifthly, the subsequent impact if the Parliament does not approve the sacking; and, finally, the text of the question to be put to the Australian people in the referendum on 6 November 1999.On the issue of the long title of the bill to be put at the referendum, I strongly support the recommendation of the committee. Surely the key question to be asked is whether the Australian nation believes that it is time to replace the Queen as head of state and her representative, the Governor-General, with an Australian head of state. It is important that the Australian public recognise what is taking place in terms of the transfer of powers of the head of state. To add that the President should be chosen by two-thirds of the parliament is superfluous, as the `bipartisan appointment of the President' model was the one chosen by the Constitutional Convention when it met in early February last year.Obviously, there is much debate over whether the President should be popularly elected or elected by a two-thirds majority of parliament. The decision has been made by the Constitutional Convention as to the preferred model. The convention decided that the direct election option would open the new republic to the situation where, in the event of a conflict between the head of state and the head of government, it would not be clear whose power would prevail.It seems appropriate to put a simple question to the public in November asking them to decide between retaining the monarchy as the head of state or moving to a republican system of government. It is apparent from the input of the constitutional lawyers who appeared as expert witnesses before the committee that there was a division of opinion amongst them as to the legal impact of the proposed legislation. However, it would appear that in general the powers of the President would be the same as those of the Governor-General. Firstly, the checks on the choice of the President by the Prime Minister will be far greater than currently apply to the choice of Governor-General. Secondly, the recommendation for President will come from a diversely comprised committee and the Prime Minister will be required to report to the House if he decides not to accept the recommendation of the committee. Currently, the Prime Minister, with the endorsement of the cabinet, decides who to recommend to the Queen for instalment as Governor-General.Thirdly, in the event of dismissal of the President by the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister must explain within 30 days the reason for the dismissal. Currently, the Prime Minister can effectively dismiss the Governor-General without any formal mechanism to justify the action. With these main areas sorted out and, indeed, near unanimous support for all recommendations, the committee has achieved its primary objectives.It has long been on the public record that I support this country moving towards a republican system of government. I think this country is extraordinarily fortunate to have been colonised by Britain and to have retained its main religion, language, legal system and cultural heritage. It is clear that these continue to serve the Commonwealth well. I do not see that the choice between the monarchy and an Australian republic is what Henry Lawson referred to as people having to decide between `the old dead tree and the young tree green'. However, he was spot on when he said that it is a choice between `the land that belongs to the Lord and Queen and the land that belongs to you'.As a trade commissioner in Germany, I found that people constantly asked why we had a Queen in the UK who lived 12,000 kilometres away. The importance of becoming a republic was crystallised for me during the Olympic bid—and I was also interested to hear the chairman's reasons. As part of a lobbying team, we often found ourselves in one corner of a restaurant lobbying for Sydney while, in the other corner, the daughter of the Australian head of state, Princess Anne, lobbied IOC officials for Manchester. This experience shows that, where our interests no longer overlap, we have to establish our own national identity as a mature country with our own place in the world but one with special links to Britain.The monarchy stands for privilege and the establishment, whereas Australia has been built on strong egalitarian principles and our own mateship. That is the basis on which the recommendations contained in this report have been put together and I heartily endorse them. I recommend the report to the House.13:07:008069Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—I rise to support the report of the Joint Select Committee on the Republic Referendum and its recommendations. The Prime Minister authorised the formation of the committee, and it has taken detailed submissions both in writing and at public hearings. The purpose of the committee being formed and receiving those submissions was to listen to the opinion of the Australian people and, once hearing the evidence, to make recommendations to the parliament in the hope that the Prime Minister would in turn listen to the opinion of the Australian people and attempt to present them with an honest, unbiased referendum question on 6 November. I believe that was foremost in the minds of practically all the members of the committee. We worked hard to see whether we could come up with a question that would be unbiased and which would be put to the Australian people on 6 November.The current long title of the legislation is both misleading and inaccurate. It was supported by all constitutional monarchists who addressed the committee at its public hearings, and it was rejected by all people who supported the republic. If you have a situation where one group supports it 100 per cent and another group rejects it, then it is obviously not a fair question—it is biased. The fact that the long title currently says `chosen by a two-thirds majority of parliament' is misleading and not a true and accurate portrayal of the appointment process. The process, as other speakers have mentioned, is that a short list be prepared by the Presidential Nominations Committee and from that the Prime Minister would choose a person to be nominated. That person would be nominated by the Prime Minister and that nomination would be seconded by the Leader of the Opposition. That is how the person would be chosen. It would then be put to the parliament and a two-thirds majority of the parliament would be needed to ratify that choice. The choice is not made by the two-thirds majority of the parliament; the choice is, in effect, made by the Prime Minister after a long period of public consultation. The proposed long title selected by the joint select committee is accurate: it does not seek to mislead people and it does not seek to give a biased view.Other issues canvassed quite extensively and considered in detail by the committee were the appointment and dismissal process and the reserve powers of the President. The committee concluded that the proposed legislation broadly mirrored the current position, although there would be greater accountability in the appointment and dismissal process.One issue I would like to spend a little time addressing is recommendation 14. It is quite an important issue that was brought to the attention of the committee. This recommendation identified the need to have a relevant community education campaign. Written education is not appropriate for all people. Indigenous Australians find it difficult, and are unable in a number of cases, to read written information sent to them. They need to have that information disseminated to them in a meaningful way. I would like to suggest that perhaps Aboriginal medical services, land councils, ATSIC or special groups of the Australian Electoral Commission could be involved in the dissemination of that information by going out to those communities to give them that information.The information must be in a format that is relevant to young people. It must be something that they can identify with and there must be an acknowledgment of the fact that there are a number of people in our community who have poor literacy skills. I urge the Prime Minister to accept the recommendations of the committee and to ensure that the Australian people are presented with an honest question on 6 November and that that question is the long title recommended by the committee:A Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic, with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by an Australian President.13:12:008070Danby, Michael, MPMr DANBYWF6Melbourne PortsALP00—Without appearing to be an idealist, this report of the Joint Select Committee on the Republic Referendum shows this parliament at its best. Despite an unfair schedule set by those who are perhaps half-hearted about public and parliamentary consideration of this issue, I believe we, together with the dedicated analytical staff, produced a refinement of the deliberations of the Constitutional Convention. As the member for Gellibrand outlined, the 14 recommendations of this committee are quite conservative. I endorse them and I will return to them and some of the minority reports at a later time.As our chair, the member for La Trobe, and the member for Barton have elaborated, the committee's report on both the question to be put to the voters and the details of the operation of the minimalist republic reflects the weight of testimony given to the committee by members of the public and experts alike. The denigration of the chair and his coalition colleagues by the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business says more about him than the report. All members of this committee were impressed by the chair's neutrality and indeed inscrutability on the republic during the committee's hearings.For the Australian public, only one recommendation of this committee is crucial. Do we focus, as the weight of testimony suggested, on the outcome of this referendum or do we focus on all the important but secondary mechanics? On this issue, and particularly the Prime Minister's attitude to this issue, the republic will stand or fall. It is clear that, ever since the issue was raised years ago by his archnemesis the former Prime Minister Paul Keating, the current Prime Minister wants two things from this process. First, he wants the Australian public to think he is even-handed in his approach to this issue—hence the importance of keeping his word to the Australian people on the Constitutional Convention, due consideration by our select committee and a vote where both sides have a chance to campaign evenly and where people are allowed to make a choice. Second, he wants the Queen to remain as our head of state.The Prime Minister insists that these two ends are not mutually exclusive and that he will accept the verdict of the Australian people with equanimity whether they agree with him or not. Yet, at the first real point of conflict between John Howard `the fair broker of the republic referendum' and John Howard `no closet could hold him Queen's man', it is not difficult to see which is the real John Howard. Of course, the Prime Minister is entitled to be a constitutional monarchist. Members of this committee, however, would ask him to allow the essence of the change proposed for a republic to be considered.The wording of this referendum question is crucial. As the government's pollsters are undoubtedly telling them, many Australians will look at the ballot paper on the day of the referendum and decide there and then how to vote. The government and this Prime Minister want the last thoughts in the minds of the people to be, `This is giving more power to politicians,' for this is exactly the effect of the wording preferred by the government. The wording they would prefer focuses on one aspect of the process of the new system—as many people here who have spoken on the report have outlined—and that is the formal appointment by parliament of the new head of state.The Joint Select Committee on the Republican Referendum on which I served suggested a formulation which focused on the essence of the change. We do not do this just because we consider ourselves better wordsmiths than the Prime Minister—the man who can meet, and has met, Les Murray at the drafting table on equal terms. We do not uncritically parrot an Australian Republican Movement formulation either, nor do we include every variation lobbied for: the nomination process, the power of the Prime Minister to dismiss and the seconding by the Leader of the Opposition in the long title. We look at the substance of the two variations. That is really the difference between the two long titles. The committee's proposed wording deals with the outcome, whereas the government's preferred wording deals with one aspect of the new process—the final aspect—for appointment of a President by a two-thirds majority of parliament. Coincidentally, if you can believe that, the aspect of the process highlighted by the government's proposal is one of the least popular aspects of the new model.This is not a time for games. The members of the committee with whom I served put the interests of the nation above their own political imperatives. We worked together—Liberal, Labor, Democrat, National, republican and monarchist alike. We proposed a form of words to put the question to the Australian people which fairly and in a balanced way reflects the nature of the issue at hand. As the chair, the member for La Trobe, said, only one person dissented from the essence of the long title of this report. I commend this report and the work of the chair and the staff of the committee to this House.10000ACTING SPEAKERMr ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Does the member for La Trobe wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion?8071Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4LaTrobeLP10—I move:That the House take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.10000ACTING SPEAKERMr ACTING SPEAKER—In accordance with standing order 102B, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.Private Members' Business8071807113:18:008071Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—I move:That this House calls on the Government to:(1) note mounting customer dissatisfaction across Australia at the deterioration of Telstra's 013 directory assistance services;(2) note, in particular, (a) customer irritation at increasing delays in operator response times, (b) operators cutting off customers before being able to provide further clarifying information on inquiries, (c) the intrusion of Telstra advertising of its 12456 `75 cents plus call costs' service in addition to (d) the plethora of other Telstra advertising forced on Telstra customers before finally being given access to the telephone numbers they are seeking;(3) acknowledge the impact of Telstra staff reductions on the quality of 013 services; and(4) direct the Australian Communications Authority to amend its performance standards for Telstra to require Telstra to provide a simple 013 directory service with proper staffing levels and without audio advertisements for other services.Every now and then in this parliament we come across issues which may not feature at the top of the headlines of the 6 o'clock news, which may not be on the front pages of our metropolitan newspapers and which may not form a large part of the great debates we have in this chamber on tax policy, on health policy or on Australia's place in the region or in the world. But the fact that such issues may not appear in the headlines does not make them unimportant, because such issues often go to the very heart of what makes life convenient and bearable for average members of the community as they go about their daily lives and their daily business. It is in this context that I refer to the declining standards of Telstra's 013 directory assistance services on which many Australians depend.I initiated this private member's motion because I believe that something needs to be done about the corporate arrogance of Telstra in its management of its 013 directory assistance service. I initiated this motion because something needs to be done about the impact which this depleted service is having on ordinary citizens and on ordinary business people trying to earn a dollar. Once upon a time—perhaps in a golden age, in a quieter, more gentle time—you would dial 013 and you would actually obtain the information that you wanted from a polite operator within a reasonable period of time. If you did not have all the information that you needed, then a discussion would ensue between you and the operator until you got to the heart of the question: which street, which suburb, `It could be spelt this way' or `It could be spelt that way', and then you would finally get the number.However, that kinder, gentler age appears to have passed because, since the Gordon Geckos took over Telstra management, we have in fact a much more rugged and rigorous pursuit of the bottom line. What you find now when you dial 013 directory assistance services is any of the following. First, you could be very lucky to get through in the first place, because the first of the, shall we say, anti-Pavlovian responses which Telstra management have engineered in their 013 directory assistance service is to effectively prevent you from getting through at all. I have noticed of late that that has improved, but for the first six months of this year and much of last year it was actually very hard to get through.Second, when you actually get through these days, if you do not provide the operator with all the accurate information that is necessary to get the telephone number which you are searching for in the first place, you are then placed automatically onto the automatic response system of prerecorded messages which tell you, with all the emotion and warmth of Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, `We are very sorry but the information you have provided is inadequate,' and you are then cut off and left somewhere in the electronic abyss.But what has really annoyed people the length and breadth of this country is the third device employed by Telstra management, and that is the proliferation of this plethora of audio advertisements which now pollute 013 directory assistance services as we use them today. When you dial 013 today, it is virtually impossible simply to obtain the information. Before you get it, you are confronted with any one of a number of ads, of which the common theme tends to be, `Why are you using 013? You could be using 12456 and, for just 75c plus call costs, we will put you through straightaway.'In fact, if your blood pressure is already under some challenge, the worst thing you can do when dialling 013 is to be confronted by that ad which says, in a very soft voice, `Are you in a hurry?' Pause. `Well, if you would like to get through really quickly, what you should be doing is using 12456 and pay 75c plus call cost.' Pause. Then you hear the revving of an engine in the background. The voice continues, `And we will put you through straightaway.' If your blood pressure was sitting at 120 over 80, it has at that stage risen to 150 over 80 and a consultation with a physician needs probably to ensue.These are just some of the ads which now pollute the service. It raises the very basic question as to why Telstra's management are doing this. Under the performance standards determined by the Australian Communications Authority, Telstra are required to provide a free directory assistance service to the consumers of Australia. The bottom line is that Telstra hate it. Telstra management hate having to provide that service free of charge. So what do they do instead? They reduce the staff employed in this service so that it becomes a much less efficient service. If you speak to Telstra staff, you often find that those staffing the directory assistance services are under enormous pressure because many of their number, hundreds of their number, have been removed from Telstra's employ.The second strategy which Telstra management have employed is to introduce the ads to which I have just referred. The object is plain: to discourage people from continuing to use the service—fewer staff, less efficient service, plus this temptation of the waving of the attraction of a 12456 75c plus call cost ad in order to get you off the 013 hook and put you onto the 75c charge service, which goes to contribute to Telstra's bottom line.That of itself raises a further interesting point. When we speak of Telstra, we are not speaking of one of our more impoverished public corporations. If we read the 1997-98 annual report of Telstra, we find that in that year alone Telstra were able to provide a $1.8 billion dividend. I would suggest that this company are not in dire straits. I would suggest that their financial capacity to still provide a reasonable 013 directory assistance service free of charge to the community exists. They are not financially challenged. What they are doing is sailing very close to the wind. They are required by law to provide this service free of charge, yet they are trying, using every trick in the book, to wriggle out from under.What is the impact which all this has on the community and the economy? Many of us are, shall we say, a captive market. If you are using a mobile telephone, there is no possibility at all of using the White Pages. Try using the White Pages while you are driving across the Sydney Harbour Bridge. I would suggest if you do that you are likely to get into considerable difficulty with the constabulary. When you are seeking to obtain a telephone number from out of your city or interstate, again you are entirely dependent on 013 directory assistance services.Going to the economic cost and not just the inconvenience, according to the Australian Communications Authority there were 443 million directory assistance calls in 1998-99. According to my watch, the time of each of the audio ads on Telstra's new 013 service is about 11 seconds, which means that each year we are now subjected to 4,873,000,000 seconds of unsolicited ads from Telstra. That is 81 million minutes or 1,350,000 hours. What is that actually costing the economy? If you were to average out that, for example, babysitters are remunerated at about $10 an hour and corporate lawyers and accountants about $300 an hour, let us hit an average and just say it is $25 an hour in terms of cost to the economy. What we are looking at in one year alone is a loss to the economy of $33,750,000. Again I would suggest that a company which has got $1.8 billion in its back pocket in the last dividend which it delivered to its shareholders is not exactly stretched.Beyond all of these arguments, it also comes down to this basic point. What Telstra are doing is irritating the hell out of consumers right across this country, both business consumers and private individuals. The number of telephone calls I have had to my office from people right across this country since first raising this issue in the Main Committee in late June has been quite surprising. This is really getting to people in a very fundamental way. Telstra said they would like to come and talk to me about it. They made an appointment for their national corporate affairs manager to come and visit me in Brisbane. Unfortunately, he cancelled. I have not heard back from him since. I gather that I have been put onto call waiting.The community are angry about this. They want action, and that is why we have this private member's motion before us today. It is not for entertainment purposes; it is for a substantial end, and that is to attract bipartisan support—I look forward to those opposite contributing to this debate—which will enable us to put a common resolve to the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts so that he can in turn provide an instruction to the Australian Communications Authority to fundamentally vary the performance standard which currently governs Telstra's 013 directory assistance services so that change can be delivered. (Time expired)10000ACTING SPEAKERMr ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Is the motion seconded?83ERIPOLLMr Ripoll—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.13:28:008073Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—In speaking to this motion today, I recognise the contribution of my colleague the member for Griffith to this debate, but I do not agree with everything he said in every aspect of this motion. I do not agree that the government should direct the ACA to amend the performance standard in relation to the 013 service, certainly not at this stage. I think there is a need for some balance in this debate. The authority does not in fact have a standard in place for the service and, while the government intends to continue to urge Telstra to improve the level of the service that is offered, it does not consider the level of service as unacceptable. On the evidence that I have seen, neither do I.The nature of the service has changed with the introduction of voice recorded announcements, advertisements and the like, but there is no ground in the service itself for government intervention. The government already urges Telstra and other telecommunications companies to offer directory assistance, and I think my colleague may have confused the provision of the basic 013 service with the irritants within it. I agree with him about the irritants, but I think you have got to look objectively at what the performance standard of Telstra has been.In a recent survey by Telstra itself, it was found that 80 per cent of customers rated the 013 service as good and 90 per cent of customers expressed satisfaction with Telstra's operator assisted services on the whole over the past 18 months, so you could hardly say that the basic service was at fault. I think there are more fundamental issues here. My colleague also said that in law—and it was interesting to hear him say this because I do not think he might have researched this as thoroughly as he normally researches things—83TRUDDMr Rudd—My heart wasn't in it.KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLE—I suspect his heart was not in it because if he had scraped below the surface he may have found that his colleagues in the 1993-96 parliament did not mandate that calls should be free. In fact, it is worth noting that charges for directory assistance are not prohibited under the Telstra Corporation Act 1991, introduced by the previous government.Mr Rudd interjecting—KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLE—No, I am not—quite the contrary—and my basic premise would be that we should not. Because of the signifi cance of this service to the community, possible directory assistance charges are subject to notification and disallowance under this act. This means that Telstra would be required to formally notify the minister of any proposed changes to directory assistance and what those charges might be. The minister has the power to disallow the proposed charges. The minister may also, after receiving a report, put it to the independent regulator, the ACCC. If the minister forms the opinion that charges are not in the public interest, he may reject them. The legislation—and this is the Labor Party's legislation—does not allow a proposal to be rejected without the ACCC first reporting on it, so it is not a clear-cut case of these things being stopped in law. But I think there is a much stronger case for ensuring that the 013 service be improved and, of course, that it not be charged for.The current cost to Telstra and how it manages the service are more important aspects than just concentrating on the irritants, which my colleague has spoken about. As recently as 19 November, Telstra's Frank Blount said that cross-subsidies for funding the 000 emergency service and providing directory assistance free of charge cost the company and its shareholders $240 million a year. I think this is justified because, if you have a look at what the various services that Telstra provides bring in to Telstra, it is of the order of a billion dollars. So I do not think there is any case whatsoever for charging for these services. Obviously, the advertising on the 013 service goes some way to ameliorating this, but I think that a charge would be excessive and I agree with many of the aspects of what my colleague the member for Griffith said.The utilisation of the service is very interesting, with 440 million users a year or 20 calls on the 013 service for each Australian. That is a fair number. But, when you take that against the billions of calls that are provided by the public—paid calls—the number of 013 services as a percentage of Telstra's overall performance is only four per cent. The ACA, in measuring Telstra's performance, found that over the last two years 57 to 73 per cent of the calls were answered within 10 seconds. That part is not an irritant but it is an irritant when, as my colleague said, you get on an 013 line and you get a plethora of advertisements. However, they have said in their examination of the performance standards of Telstra that most of these calls have now been reduced to under 10 seconds in answering.Sometimes I wonder whether in this whole thing Telstra may not have been its own worst enemy. I think too that commercial considerations have taken precedence over service in another very interesting area and that is the phone books. We are getting more and more phone books, especially in provincial areas. I suppose you cannot alter this much in the capital cities because the Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide phone books are precisely that and they have beside them the Yellow Pages. But what I find very irritating in the country—and I use my own phone book, which is 3½ centimetres thick, as an example—is that only 1.1 centimetres of that is the White Pages. The Gatton phone book is 1½ centimetres thick and only half a centimetre is taken up by the White Pages. The Dalby phone book is similarly a thin volume. But you can bet there are plenty of businesses in Toowoomba with advertisements in both Yellow Pages—in both the Dalby book and the Toowoomba book.I think that, for example, the division of the Darling Downs book into two sections like that is more to generate Yellow Pages revenue than to make the White Pages readily available to people in the region who might conceivably use those numbers. A lot of people in Warwick and Toowoomba would have business to transact in places like Dalby. They are all Darling Downs centres with similar crops and similar economic backgrounds; firms would service the Darling Downs. To divide that into two phone books would be part of the problem why people rely on an 013 service. While some would argue that it would be convenient to have the Yellow Pages in one regional phone book, it would be preferable to have larger regions with individual Yellow Pages and more people having access to the phone book than to have them incorporated in one copy. In this way we could reduce to a large extent un necessary utilisation of the 013 service. So, broadly speaking, I agree with many aspects of my colleague's proposal but an element of balance should be taken into account when we are talking about this rather sensitive issue.13:37:008075Ripoll, Bernie, MPMr RIPOLL83EOxleyALP00—It is no coincidence that the decline of the Telstra 013 directory assistance service can be traced back to the introduction of the Telstra 12456 Call Connect service. The Call Connect service is similar to directory assistance. Both services assist people who do not have the number they need. Directory assistance gives you the number required, and a few things you do not require, whereas Call Connect puts the customer directly through to the number without delay.But this is not the important distinction between these two services. The important distinction is cost and service level. Directory assistance is a community service provided to customers by Telstra at no charge. Call Connect, however, is a value added service that Telstra charges for at a rate of 75c plus call costs. Directory assistance competes directly with the new Call Connect service and, given that Call Connect makes money for Telstra and that directory assistance costs Telstra money, it is not unreasonable to question whether Telstra would prefer that a greater number of their customers use the profit making Call Connect service.Whilst the convenience of Call Connect will inevitably be measured against the more traditional services, directory assistance must not be degraded simply to provide Call Connect customers with a greater comparative advantage. But, unfortunately, services have been degraded, so much so that the most cynical of us might suspect that Telstra has nobbled 013 directory assistance. We may assume that Telstra, which quite naturally and quite openly supports the greater use of Call Connect, is driving people away from directory assistance to the use of the more expensive alternative.Telstra is driving people away from directory assistance by reducing the overall service provided. By shifting resources away from directory assistance, response times to calls have increased, service levels have decreased and the whole process is further delayed with intrusive advertising. Most offensive is the advertising of the 12456 service on the 013 line. Is this what we are to expect of other Telstra services in the future, particularly with the government's view that it should be completely privatised? The 013 directory assistance service is not a marketing opportunity for Telstra and should not be used as such. It is a community service and should be kept as that.We can all do without the jingles and, if the evidence is now that more people are using the 12456 service, it is probably because they are tired of listening to advertisements that tell them how silly they are for using such a slow service on 013 when they could go to the much quicker new 12456 service. Will Telstra now be advertising on the 000 emergency number? I certainly hope not. But maybe they see it as just another marketing opportunity and a captive audience. The increase in response times for directory assistance indicates that staffing levels are not matching demand levels. The important fact here is not that directory assistance callers wait longer for an operator than Call Connect customers—although that certainly is the case—but that directory assistance customers wait longer for an operator than they did in the past, before the introduction of 12456.The provision of an alternative service is no excuse for declining resource levels in the 013 service and is no excuse for declining service levels right across Telstra. The emphasis on getting each call over with quickly means that callers are now put through to a recorded voice when the operator cannot locate the number from the information provided. No longer is there any attempt to seek alternative information and to get the person through; you either call back or you dial 12456 as suggested in the earlier message. Yet those who pay the premium rates for Call Connect services are receiving the patient human assistance that we all once received on the 013 line.The adverts, which are not featured on the Call Connect service, make the entire call last substantially longer than historically provided by the other service. Delays through advertising and increased response times, along with decreasing service levels and human contact, increase the frustration customers feel with the old service and, henceforth, they probably should go to 12456, although I do not advocate it. Doesn't this make customers who use Call Connect see that they are getting a much better, faster and more efficient service? The creation of user-pays services such as Call Connect should not be funded or enhanced by cost cutting of other Telstra services. (Time expired)13:43:008076Barresi, Phil, MPMr BARRESIZJ6DeakinLP10—I am pleased to be able to speak on this motion. The member for Griffith stated in his address that in the golden old days he could be connected to the operator who was a real live human being. Of course, in the golden old days you also had an operator to connect you to your neighbour's telephone next door. The humble telephone has been with us since Federation, but today we do not need an operator to connect us or a rotary dial to finger the number or even a cord to plug into the wall. The PMG has gone, Telecom has gone and Telstra no longer has a monopoly in this country. Instead, we have greater access to phones, greater choice about telephone products and services and, not least, better connections and cheaper rates for local and long-distance calls. We still have telephone books and now we have Internet access to the White Pages and Yellow Pages for most cities around the world. We still have 013, and it is still free.The use of the 12456 number is a consumer choice; it is up to the callers as to whether or not they use it. Like many who use this service, I am sometimes annoyed by Telstra's direct connect and other promotions that are often heard down the line, but maybe we should all take a powder over this issue. What have we come to that we cannot wait 10 seconds for the information we seek? A call to any other business seeking information would result in our being placed on hold for that time, and sometimes for a lot longer. If you question that, try calling Comcar to get a reservation. All businesses have dispensed with dead air time for calls on hold, so we hear the radio and often commercial and even corporate promotions. Why should Telstra be any different? It provides a free directory service which fields over 440 million calls a year, and that figure is rising by around 20 million calls a year. Indeed, the vast majority of customers have expressed satisfaction. 10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The time allotted for the debate has expired. In accordance with standing order 101, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The honourable member for Deakin will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.Statements by Members807780778077Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellALP00—I want to bring to the attention of the House a very serious matter, and that is a rebellion by detainees at the Maribyrnong Detention Centre on 22 July this year. I have raised this matter with the department, with the Ombudsman, and in the media. I am very concerned because the issue has been kept under wraps and the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has attempted, in my opinion, to cover up what has happened.I have raised this matter with the Ombudsman because, on 22 July, about 35 people rebelled in that centre and wrecked furniture, computers, videos and other things in the centre. You might want to ask: why did that happen? The reason, from what I have been able to determine, is that there had been a series of protests and grievances by the detainees over a long period of time. In fact, 55 of them had signed a letter to Amnesty International the week before, protesting about the conditions in the centre. Unfortunately, all of that was ignored and the rebellion resulted. I am going to mention more about this in the adjournment later today. (Time expired)80778077Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—I rise to echo the outrage of my Hawkesbury constituents at the appalling state of Windsor Road. Windsor Road is the lifeline of the Hawkesbury, yet it is an absolute disgrace. Frustrated commuters can spend up to 1½ hours travelling the 30 kilometres between Windsor and Parramatta. Local farmers and manufacturers lose valuable time and incur increased expense in getting their produce to the Sydney markets. In fact, many businesses refuse to establish in the Hawkesbury because of the gross inadequacy of the transport links.The blame for this must lie fully at the feet of the New South Wales government. It is content to increase the release of land but refuses to provide the necessary infrastructure. Four years ago, when he was opposition leader, Bob Carr promised to upgrade Windsor Road to four lanes in his first term of office, yet in those four years he has done nothing—not a thing. On behalf of the residents of the Hawkesbury, I call on Bob Carr and Carl Scully to honour their commitment to stop treating the people of Hawkesbury with contempt, to face up their responsibility and to do something about Windsor Road.80778077Wilton, Greg, MPMr WILTONYK6IsaacsALP00—I rise to recognise the activities of both the Cranbourne West Primary School and the St Anne's Primary School in Seaford in implementing antiharassment and bullying policies. They have both taken the issue of harassment and bullying on the school grounds seriously.These schools accept that they have a responsibility to provide and maintain a school environment that is free from harassment and intimidation and where all members of the school community have the right to be treated equally, regardless of sex, race, age, religion, health or economic circumstances. These schools acknowledge that some measure of bullying does exist in all schools, however this is not acceptable behaviour and will not be tolerated.Bullying and harassment can have long-term negative effects on both the perpetrator and the victim, and both schools do not tolerate any spoken, written or physical behaviour which is unwelcome or offensive. They have both implemented step-by-step policies to deal with the issues of harassment and bullying, and I take the opportunity to commend the schools, their principals and the student welfare coordinators for being so far-sighted and for moving to adopt a policy which I am sure will have long-term benefits for both schools.80788078Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH2K6LongmanLP10—I would like to read into the Hansard a letter I received from one of my constituents. It is dated 3 August and it reads:Dear Sir,I would like to take the time to write to you about our son . . . and how `The Work for the Dole Program' changed his life.Their son—had been out of work for 6 months and would just stay at home, sleeping-in till midday and spending the afternoon playing his Playstation. His self esteem and confidence was wearing away as he felt worthless and useless, and he was becoming more depressed as time wore on. He put in for a few jobs but to no avail.He had left school in year 11 and was 18 months into a Cabinet Making apprenticeship when the company folded. He also had a couple of labouring jobs but they didn't last either. He was getting to an all time low and we were very concerned about his health.My husband and I heard about the Working for the Dole Program from Mrs Helen Gibson in Caboolture.Their son—signed up, and within three days of confidence building and self esteem talks and deciding what he would like to do, he was told to report to the Bribie Island Golf Club. He started there in June 1998 for the 6 months program. Straight away he liked everyone there and really enjoyed the work. They made him feel very welcome and it gave him a lot of confidence. They were so pleased with him that they promised him an apprenticeship when his time was up.He is now nearing the end of his first year and about to head off to college for a fortnight with a lot more confidence than a year ago. I would like to let you know what the program gave our son—he is now a happy, confident person who has not only got a full time job but has started playing bass guitar and singing in a band with three other young fellows. He taught himself to play and read music and last night got up in front of 200 people at the Caboolture Sports Club and sung and played with the band for half an hour.Our son would not have been able to do that one year ago without the confidence and character building this program has given him. My husband and I hope this program can continue to help a lot of other people find their way in life, and just give them a chance.80788078Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS5K6NamadgiALP00—This morning I had the pleasure of attending a very special celebration. Today marks 100 years since the first pupil was enrolled at Tharwa Primary School. Tharwa Village is located on the Murrumbidgee River, some 250 kilometres from its source, in the southern end of my electorate.A week of celebration began on Saturday evening with a ball at the local hall, and this morning at the school a book, A Century of Learning: Tharwa Primary School, by historian Matthew Higgins, was launched. Tharwa Village is a delightful, historic, rural part of my electorate with the oldest primary school in the ACT. The village enjoys a wonderful community spirit and strength.Members may be aware of only the more recent years of history in this region. Tharwa Primary's centenary is a wonderful celebration of our earlier times. I say that acknowledging that Aboriginal occupation in the area of Tharwa goes back at least 21,000 years and gets quite a mention in the book.I would like to put my best wishes forward to everyone concerned, particularly those older folk who are enjoying wonderful reunions and those who are at the school today. Should members on either side of this House ever have the time on a weekend when spending time in Canberra, I thoroughly recommend that you consider visiting this part of my electorate: the Tidbinbilla Nature Reserve, Namadji National Park and Tharwa Village.80788078Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—Recently a very tragic case came to my attention of an elderly woman who parted with $60,000 through three telegraphic transfers with her local bank branch. The lady in question was sent a prospectus in the mail. The company was registered in the Netherlands, and the prospectus was printed in Britain. She was then contacted by a person with an American accent who phoned her from Britain.On initial checking, it was found that the company has no email address and no Internet address. On further investigation, it was found that it was not even a registered foreign company that was supposed to be trading in Australia. As such, it should not have been carrying on business in Australia. The Australian government has absolutely no jurisdiction over these types of companies. As a very strong warning, when people are dealing with unauthorised dealers they should be very careful about whom they are dealing with. They should deal only with registered dealers and they should not deal with people who cold call them.I hope that we are able to retrieve this money for this woman, but it looks very doubtful. I urgently plead with people to take absolute care and caution with whoever approaches them and whatever foreign prospectuses they are sent through the mail.80798079Gibbons, Steve, MPMr GIBBONS83XBendigoALP00—I wish to draw the attention of the House to a scandal in central Victoria which has seen 1,500 jobs lost to South Australia as a direct result of the state Liberal-National coalition. I refer to Teletrak, a straight-line horse racing facility for Internet betting into the Asian market.In 1996 the then Kennett appointed Central Goldfields Commissioners began discussions with Teletrak interests, which included a track for the Maryborough region. Consultants KPMG estimated that some 1,500 jobs would be secured and that there would be $20 million worth of development for central Victoria. An agreement between the Central Goldfields Shire and Teletrak to operate its business operations centre was secured and still stands to this day.What happened? The Liberal-National government scuttled the project because of pressure from the Victorian Racing Club. Local government minister McLelland held an Office of Local Government inquiry into the Teletrak matter and the report has disappeared without a trace. This month the South Aus tralian government announced the go-ahead for a Teletrak venture in South Australia.Fifteen hundred Maryborough battlers had the one chance for dignity, the one chance at a job, and the Kennett government sold them out because of its mates in the VRC. The three Maryborough state MPs sat on their hands while this happened. The MLA for Ripon has not uttered one word on this issue in the last three years. One government MLC has thrown in the towel and quit; the other is running away, seeking a safer lower house seat at the next election, 100 kilometres away. Fifteen hundred Maryborough families have been denied a job because of the inaction of their state government MPs.80798079Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—I rise to inform members of the House of the good activity of the Attorney-General in my electorate on Thursday of last week and to recommend to all members that they invite the Attorney to have a similar meeting to that which I held in my electorate office with local Neighbourhood Watch area coordinators. These are the people who are at the grassroots of the responsibility that we all should share as citizens, elected and appointed in the form of police officers as well as volunteers in the fight against crime.The Attorney gave a good hour listening to local residents and Neighbourhood Watch coordinators and told them about PC Cops, which is a new initiative currently being trialled by the Commonwealth government. Basically, if somebody witnesses a crime, they are encouraged to use the Internet to send that information around to others in the local area to alert those people in that particular community to that particularly activity. That is one of the many initiatives that the Commonwealth government is currently pioneering to use in the fight against crime—a role we all share some responsibility for.The penalties for drug offenders was amongst the main topics of conversation, with a majority of people in the room suggesting that major penalties needed to be introduced and enforced by the courts in this land, which of course is in direct opposition to the stand of the current Queensland government who, being Labor, are very soft on crime. Another aspect was the importance of the 000 service and the integrity of using that service and perhaps the need to bring in a second-string service because some citizens are using 000 to find out how to find a plumber.80808080Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—In relation to the Third World debt reduction campaign, many constituents in my electorate of Lowe have written letters to me, many enclosing financial contributions made payable to the Collector of Public Moneys. Members of this House will know that, since the end of World War II, Third World debt has risen both exponentially and geometrically. The situation has reached a point where these countries cannot even service their interest repayments, let alone repay the principal on those loans. The 20th century will go down in the history books as one of the bloodiest and uncompromising in history. The postwar order has produced a world of haves and have-nots. The Third World debt tragedy has given rise to the greatest social and economic inequity the world has ever seen.I congratulate the Jubilee Program, which is a response of the entire Christian community to the call of the great Jubilee. It seeks to overcome the gross inequities by eliminating this Third World debt. `Jubilee' means to restore or to restore to the original position. In Old Testament times, debt meant slavery. In light of the fact that many Third World countries will never be able to repay their debt, they have been reduced to a form of economic slavery. I urge the Australian government to join in this campaign and call on the creditors holding major credit liabilities against the Third World to strike off this debt from their books. In this way, we can ensure that we enter the year 2000 with a clean slate.80808080Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—I briefly wish to highlight how successful the $200,000 Federation community grants have been in my electorate of Robertson. We have had eight projects approved. These include the construction of a rotunda by the St Huberts Island Residents' Association; refurbishment of the existing amenities of the Patonga Beach Sports Club; upgrading of the Wagstaffe Community Hall, the Gosford City Sports Stadium and the Chertseydale Community Cottage; the Royal Volunteer Coastal Patrol's acquisition of an offshore rescue vessel; refurbishment of the Gosford Memorial Park by the Gosford RSL sub-branch; and construction of an indoor arena for Riding for the Disabled.These are tangible real results of the $200,000 for each electorate. I am very pleased that we have been able to provide these facilities that would not normally be available to our community. I also congratulate Gosford City Council for working with us and assisting us greatly in the decisions to organise those particular grants in my electorate.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 2 p.m., in accordance with standing order 106A, the time for members' statements has concluded.Miscellaneous80808080Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—Honourable members will be aware of two recent incidents at Parliament House where some damage was occasioned to the front doors of the building and where a deceased person was found lying in a courtyard of the building. Both events are the subject of further legal action: one is before the Supreme Court of the ACT and the other will be the subject of a coronial inquiry.Officers of the parliament have reviewed security issues and physical building matters relating to both events and are obtaining expert reports on what, if any, additional security or other building alterations are warranted. The actions taken by the Australian Protective Service officer who intervened and apprehended the person attacking the parliament building are commended.Ministerial Arrangements80808080Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—For the information of honourable members, I table an updated list of the full ministry reflecting the changes I announced on 5 July 1999. In particular, might I take the opportunity of congratulating and welcoming to his new position the Hon. John Anderson, Minister for Transport and Regional Services, who has assumed not only the leadership of the federal parliamentary National Party of Australia but also the role of Deputy Prime Minister of Australia. I look forward to working in very close cooperation with my colleague over the years ahead.8081Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—May I take the opportunity to inform the House that, since the House got up, I have been duly elected as Leader of the National Party. It is obviously a great honour and a privilege. I will certainly seek to do my very best. I also indicate to the House that I sincerely believe that those people who have filled ministerial positions in the movements that have taken place will do outstanding jobs in the pursuit of the interests of their constituents and the nation.Condolences8081808114:05:008081Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I move:That this House expresses its deep regret at the death on Saturday, 3 July 1999, of Reginald Bishop, AO, Senator for the State of South Australia from 1962 to 1981, Postmaster-General from 1974 until 1975, Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence from 1972 until 1974 and again from June until November 1975 and Minister for Repatriation from 1972 until 1974, places on record its appreciation of his long and meritorious public service, and tenders its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement.Reg Bishop, as he was well known by all his parliamentary colleagues and many other friends, was born in Adelaide in February 1913. As was the case with so many of his generation, he left school at the age of 15 and began work with the South Australian Railways as a clerk at the Islington workshops. At the age of 24 he was appointed a full-time organiser for the Australian Railways Union. During World War II he served for three years, from February 1943 until his discharge in January 1946, with the Royal Australian Air Force, including postings to Darwin and Borneo. After the war he returned to the union. He was defeated in a ballot for the South Australian state secretary's job in 1956, a loss described by him at the time as his greatest disappointment. However, the same year he was elected secretary of the South Australian Trades and Labour Council, a position he held until entering federal parliament as a senator from South Australia in 1962. He also served as a commissioner of the South Australian Board of Industry and as an executive member of the Australian Council of Trade Unions between 1956 and 1962. He was elected to the Senate in 1961. His term began in 1962, and his career lasted for 19 years until his retirement in June 1981.In his maiden speech Reg Bishop spoke of his commitment to the old Labor principles of standing up for the workers, the problems of unemployment and the need for rail standardisation. Throughout his parliamentary career Reg Bishop took considerable interest in committee service as well as, of course, stints as a minister in the Whitlam government. He served as Minister for Repatriation for two years and as Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence for two periods, but he will best be remembered as the last Postmaster-General of Australia between 1974 and 1975. It was under the ministerial stewardship of Reg Bishop that Telecom and Australia Post were first created. He also oversaw the abolition of television and radio licence fees and participated in the introduction of public broadcasting and FM radio. After leaving politics, Reg Bishop was appointed an officer in the General Division of the Order of Australia for his service to politics and government.Can I say on a personal level that I saw a good deal of Reg Bishop during the years that we served together in this parliament. I found him on all occasions and without exception to be possessed of unfailing courtesy and decency in the dealings that I had with him. He was a man who was very true to his orthodox Labor Party beliefs. He served his country with great commitment in war. He retained a very close link with those of his colleagues in the Senate from both sides of the parliament who had served in World War II.I well remember speaking to him briefly at the funeral of the late Senator Ken Anderson who, like Reg Bishop, was a digger returned from service in World War II. He was a man who all of us liked and respected. We may have disagreed with him on political issues, but he was possessed of unfailing basic courtesy and decency. He made a long and very praiseworthy contribution to the Australian Labor Party and to the trade union movement. I know he will be long remembered and very sadly missed by his former colleagues.Reg lost his wife, Connie, only in 1997 after more than 60 years of marriage. He died in Adelaide on 3 July at the age of 86. On behalf of the government, I extend to his children, Romola and Phillip, and to their families the sincere sympathy and condolences of the government and the members of this parliament.14:10:008082Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—I join the Prime Minister in his kind remarks about the late Reg Bishop, former senator and long-time stalwart of the Australian Labor Party. I particularly appreciated the Prime Minister's personal references and I am sure that his son and daughter will appreciate them too. I think his remarks will also be appreciated, particularly in South Australia, by the many people in the Labor Party who knew and loved him. As the Prime Minister said, Reg Bishop was born in Adelaide in 1913 and he died on 3 July in Adelaide at the age of 86.As my colleague Chris Schacht, who worked for him for a period, put it in his recent obituary, Reg Bishop was the personification of the term `the cream of the working class'. He spent a considerable amount of his life, before he became a member of the Senate—apart from the period when he served in the RAAF in Darwin and Borneo from 1943 to 1946—as an active and senior trade unionist. He experienced bitterness in his defeat in a ballot for secretary of the railway union but immediately sought for himself an even grander recompense, if you like, by becoming Secretary of the Trades and Labour Council. He was, during that period, senior not only in the councils of the trade union movement in South Australia but also in the labour movement generally at the national level.Reg Bishop's interests were reflected immediately in the maiden speech he made when he entered the Senate in 1962. As you would expect, his maiden speech demonstrated the preoccupations that he had had over the years with the management of the economy, the life of the average Australian worker and, given his railways experience, his views about the standardisation of railway gauges. He started in parliament by honouring the contribution he had assisted in making to that point in time.Having entered parliament, however, he broadened out his interests very considerably. During the 1960s, as well as being prominent in debates in the parliament and in the party on economic and industrial matters, he was also a most active participant in what were the dominating debates of the day—debates about foreign affairs and defence. He was a very strong participant in those debates. His contribution reflected the experience he had in World War II. He had a very deep commitment both to veterans who had served in that war and the defence of Australia. His argument in those debates, in a period of often considerable difficulty for the Australian Labor Party, lent weight and authority to the view that his political party could be trusted with government and the defence of the nation.Those commitments were rewarded and they were reflected in the appointments he enjoyed when he was elected to the frontbench by the Labor Party after the victory of Gough Whitlam at the 1972 elections. He served as Minister for Repatriation and, for most of that period, as Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence. He was a most active Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, using his position to maintain contact with his successors serving in the armed forces. He was in many ways a very human face of the government to those serving personnel when he held that office.Probably the ministerial achievements with which Reg Bishop will be most associated in the long term came with his short appointment as the last Postmaster-General of the nation and his initiatives in that portfolio. He presided over what was arguably the largest administrative reform in Australia's history when his portfolio was carved out into separate statutory authorities in the form of Telecom and Australia Post. The Postmaster-General's Department was an enormous bureaucracy, and very large bureaucracies were created in those statutory authorities. But his hands-on attitude was much reflected in an anecdote which Chris Schacht revealed in the obituary he wrote in the Australian of 14 July. For those devotees of the Yes, Minister program it is quite a nice little anecdote. It reads:On one occasion, the PMG's department proposed to put up public phone charges by three cents a call to 13 cents. This meant that two and one cent coins would have to be used. Reg queried what the conversion cost would be—the department officers said it would not be costly at all. He insisted on being taken to the nearest PMG workshop for a demonstration. Once there, a young technician pointed out how complex the adjustment would be. The proposal was dismissed with a curt `I thought it was aexpletive deleted—idea—and so it is.' The Department was thereafter more wary about trying to `Yes, Minister' Reg.Reg was a very ordinary soul but a very bright soul. He served until his retirement from the Senate in 1981 and he was able then to look back on some very strong support that he had given to two great Australian political reformers—Gough Whitlam and Don Dunstan—in the context of the affairs of the South Australian branch. Reg Bishop was a very active member of the South Australian branch.I met Reg when I was a youngster and used to come to Canberra because he was a friend of my father's, but I guess I best remember Reg in the 1980s when he ran a most constructive dining club in South Australia on a Friday afternoon. He did so for many years. If you ever wanted a decent feed of fish and some really decent Labor conversation, you could go to the dining club that Reg Bishop, among others, presided over. Mick Young always made absolutely certain that when you visited Adelaide you had the opportunity to avail yourself of the wisdom of various old retired colleagues from the South Australian branch, and much wisdom there was to be had. Though those particular affairs stopped their regularity in recent times, he was always a cheerful and informative companion to spend some time with.As the Prime Minister said, our condolences go to his son Phillip, his daughter Romola and the rest of the Bishop family.14:15:008083Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—I too would like to join the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in the condolence motion for Reg Bishop. Reg was a friend of mine, he was a very good friend of my father's and of course he was a great servant of the labour movement. His credentials as a union official and representative of Australian working people stand as second to none and he devoted his life to the public service of those people. Descriptions of him have been made, but I think the humble one was by Joan Rydon in her book, A biographical register of the Commonwealth Parliament , where she referred to him simply as a railwayman and a union official. Reg of course was much more than that, because underneath it he was the servant of the labour movement that elected him to so many important positions, not only within the Australian Railways Union and his ability to represent through the South Australian Trades and Labor Council but also as a member of the ACTU executive from 1956 to 1962.Reg entered the parliament and for the period 1962 to 1981 served it and the South Australian electorate with distinction for that 19 years. His capacity in terms of representation was recognised in that he served in both Whitlam governments, first of all as Minister for Repatriation, where his service in the RAAF during World War II in both Darwin and Borneo gave him great understanding of the needs of the people whom he represented in his ministerial capacity. As Australia's last Postmaster-General he presided over significant changes, which the Leader of the Opposition has referred to. I think it is significant that Gough Whitlam referred to those achievements, in terms of Australia Post and Telecom, as the largest administrative reform in Australia's history.I want to place on record my appreciation of the service Reg gave to the country and to the labour movement. His contribution was essential to the underpinning of both the Whitlam and the Dunstan governments. He will be remembered as a tremendous servant of the movement but as a great family man as well. I join with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in extending our condolences to his children, Romola and Phillip, to his grandchildren, and his great-grandchildren and to the rest of the Bishop family.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I understand that it is the wish of all honourable members of the House to signify at this stage their respect and sympathy by rising in their places, and I invite them to do so.Honourable members having stood in their places—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I thank the House.Debate (on motion by Mr Reith) adjourned.808414:19:008084Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I move:That this House expresses its deep regret at the death on Thursday, 8 July 1999, of Malcolm George Mackay, AM, member of the House of Representatives for the division of Evans in the state of New South Wales from 1963 until 1972 and Minister for the Navy from March 1971 until December 1972, places on record its appreciation for his public service, and tenders its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement.Malcolm Mackay, who was born in December 1919 at Brighton in South Australia, had a very varied, active and interesting career in a number of professions. He was educated at the Adelaide Technical High School and after completing school became a cadet engineer with the Adelaide Electric Supply Co. He served in World War II in the Royal Australian Navy and was discharged on demobilisation with the rank of acting lieutenant. After the war, he graduated in arts from the University of Adelaide and in divinity at the University of Melbourne before heading to Britain, where he enrolled at the University of Edin burgh and gained his doctorate. He then returned to Australia and began a long career with the Presbyterian church. From 1954 until 1956 he was the General Secretary Australia for the World Council of Churches. In 1957 he became the first Australian born minister at Sydney's Scots Church. He was the foundation Master of Basser College at the University of New South Wales and assistant minister of the Scots Church, Melbourne, in 1979. He was also one of the first prominent churchmen in Australia to pursue an active career on television. He monitored the Burning Question program on Channel 7 from 1957 until 1961 before moving to the ABC for the current affairs program Open Hearing .I knew Malcolm and Ruth Mackay and their family extremely well. I remember very clearly his election to the federal parliament in 1963. I was then the campaign director for Tom Hughes in the neighbouring seat of Parkes, and Malcolm Mackay was elected to the seat of Evans in the last election when Sir Robert Menzies led the coalition. Malcolm Mackay and Tom Hughes, coincidentally, served in parliament from 1963 until 1972, when Malcolm was defeated by Allan Mulder, who was then the candidate of the Australian Labor Party. I was Malcolm's campaign director in the election of 1969 when he was successful in hanging on, albeit with a significantly reduced majority. But of course in seats like the then Evans, a majority is a majority, and one is enough. It was one of those seats that swung from one side of politics to another until it was finally abolished in the redistribution of 1977.I spent many hours at the Mackay household in Haberfield. They were a lovely family, a very close family. He was a person of very considerable intellectual attainments. He had deep and active business interests. He remained very committed to his Presbyterian principles. He was an active member of parliamentary committees. He was a very active Minister for the Navy in the McMahon government between 1971 and 1972.In his maiden speech he evinced a very strong concern for the young people of Australia. In that speech he spoke extensively of the need for educational resources. He praised young Australians as having a zest for living and an inquiring mind. As Minister for the Navy, Malcolm Mackay was caught up in the debate at that time regarding Australia's involvement in the Vietnam War.One of his achievements was becoming founding president of the Association of Former Members of the Parliament of Australia, and he remained an executive member of the association until his death. He was awarded the Order of Australia in 1986 in recognition of his contribution to Australian life in religion, education and politics.I think members of the House would be aware that the late Dr Mackay met his death tragically with his wife in a motor accident outside the nursing home where both of them were living in Melbourne. The partnership of over 40 years between Ruth and Malcolm ended tragically. It was not the first time that a tragic motor accident had touched that family. In 1981 their eldest child, their daughter Elspeth, was struck by a car on Melbourne's St Kilda Road. She suffered serious brain damage and died some 10 days after the accident. I remember the trauma that both Ruth and Malcolm went through at that time when I had a number of conversations on the telephone with both of them. That accident removed a delightful young woman and was a source of ongoing sadness to both of them, but the strength of their own relationship and the strength of the relationship they had with their two other children, Andrew and Margy, sustained them in the years that followed.On behalf of the government I extend the sympathy of the government and of the House to Andrew and Margaret and to their families. I was overseas at the time of the state funeral but the then Deputy Prime Minister and member for Farrer represented me and the government at the funeral. I want to record my appreciation of Malcolm's contribution to the Liberal Party, and the appreciation of the people of the former division of Evans and of the people of Australia of his many and very distinguished careers during his long and very active life.14:25:008085Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—I would like to join the Prime Minister in expressing our condolences to the Mackay family and placing on record our appreciation of the service to the nation of Malcolm Mackay. He was born in Adelaide in 1919. He died last month in Melbourne, in the tragic circumstances described by the Prime Minister, at the age of 79, with his wife Ruth. He was educated at Adelaide Technical High School and then at Adelaide and Melbourne universities before taking a doctorate in Edinburgh. That began an extensive and interesting life for him in the areas of academia, religion, broadcasting, business, politics and various forms of social organisation.I think it could be legitimately said of him that he was very much a figure of the late 1950s and 1960s whom you would describe in those times as a controversialist—a person who put forward with great clarity his arguments for the conservative side of politics. He applied to that some considerable element of his intellectual rigour that was a product of his training and, of course, his own intelligence. His commitments in the areas of defence came, to some degree at least, from his experiences, as so many of that generation had, in the Australian Navy in New Guinea from 1941 to 1944. He was, after a period of time as a member of parliament and service on various parliamentary committees, appointed Minister for the Navy. The navy ministry was positively the worst job to have in the Liberal governments of the 1960s. His tenure of that portfolio, as it was with most of his predecessors of course, was marked by a degree of controversy. He was able to argue his case forcefully because of the factors in his background that I alluded to.Malcolm Mackay's political career came to an end with the election of Gough Whitlam's government. He spent a considerable amount of time after that overseas. He remarked to friends at the time that he was deeply disappointed with the political outcome in 1972 and he did not return to Australia, I understand, on any consistent basis until about 1981. His post-parliamentary career included founding the Association of Former Members of the Parliament of Australia and being the chairman of Longreach Oil and several other resource companies.From the point of view of the Australian Labor Party, I think Labor parliamentarians got to know him a great deal better after his political career than before. He was identified during the time of his political career as a substantially partisan figure whom it was not necessarily easy to have a chat with, but after his time in parliament and his return to become a member of the association he was a most convivial figure and gained the affection of a large number of his former parliamentary colleagues on all sides of the parliament. My father tells me he got to know him very well in that period and wants his condolences extended to the Mackay family, as indeed we all do from the opposition.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I understand that it is the wish of all honourable members of the House to signify at this stage their respect and sympathy by rising in their places, and I invite them to do so.Honourable members having stood in their places—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I thank the House.Debate (on motion by Mr Reith) adjourned.808614:30:008086Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I move:That this House expresses its deep regret at the death on Saturday, 17 July 1999 of Kevin Eugene Newman AO, member of the House of Representatives for the division of Bass in the State of Tasmania 1975 until 1984, and Minister for Administrative Services from 1980 until 1983, Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence from 1980 until 1982, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs and Minister for Productivity from 1979 until 1980, Minister for National Development from 1977 until 1979, Minister for the Environment, Housing and Community Development from 1976 until 1977 and Minister for Repatriation from 1975 until 1976, places on record its appreciation of his long and meritorious public service, and tenders its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement.There is a special poignancy in moving a motion of this character in relation to a person with whom I served during the entirety not only of his parliamentary career but also of his ministerial career. I have also had the immense privilege of serving with Jocelyn, his widow and partner in a very close and loving marriage over a long period of time, during her very distinguished ministerial career to date.Kevin Newman was born in October 1933 in Sydney. He was educated at Scots College where he excelled, gaining entry to the Royal Military College Duntroon in 1952. He was spoken of very affectionately by the National President of the RSL, Major General Peter Phillips, who was a cadet with the late Kevin Newman at the Royal Military College. At the state funeral held for Kevin—which so many members of the House attended—Major General Phillips recalled how seriously Kevin, he and other members of that class took the commission given to them on their graduation day by the then Governor-General of Australia, Field Marshal Sir William Slim.Kevin Newman had a very distinguished military career. He served in Malaya in 1956 and 1957. He was promoted to operations officer of the 2nd Battalion of the Royal Australian Regiment serving in Vietnam in 1967 and 1968. He later served as an exchange instructor with the British Army's School of Infantry, then as commanding officer of the 5th Battalion Royal Australian Regiment and commander of the 6th Military District Tasmania.In the early to mid-seventies, Kevin Newman decided to embark upon a political career. As I said in my tribute at his funeral, I first met Kevin Newman on the streets of Launceston. Many of us who occupied the opposition benches in Canberra in the months following the 1974 election that saw the return of the Whitlam government participated in the now famous Bass by-election of 1975—and I hope that, in the spirit of these things, my references to the Bass by-election and the importance and magnitude of that politically at the time will not be taken by any of my colleagues opposite as in any way intruding a political note into a condolence motion. I think it is important that the contribution to and the role of a deceased member in the psyche and collective memory of that person's own party be part of the tribute that is paid to that member on occasions such as this.That particular by-election, like a number of other by-elections in Australia since World War II, cast a very long shadow. Kevin secured a swing of 17½ per cent, which I believe is the largest primary swing ever to displace a member of a government party in a by-election. I think one or two swings in a general election may have exceeded that, but I think it is probably the greatest swing in a by-election. It was a very important victory and, at that time, Kevin became the only Liberal representative from the state of Tasmania in the federal parliament—Tasmania having returned five Labor members at the 1974 election.Kevin Newman represented the seat of Bass for nine years and retired undefeated before the election of 1984. He had a fairly rapid promotion. Within 100 days of making his maiden speech he was appointed as a minister in the Fraser government—although I do know of people who have been appointed ministers in governments more rapidly and I can see one or two over there who remember the experience. Kevin Newman held a number of ministries in the Fraser government. He was an extremely energetic and effective minister. He was Minister for National Development during the time of intense debate regarding policies relating to the pricing of crude oil when import parity pricing was a very significant political debate in this country.Kevin retained his keen interest in defence matters and was Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence. During his time as Minister for Administrative Services he was very heavily involved in the establishment of the National Crime Authority which, over the years, has become a very effective agency for fighting organised crime in this country. As the minister responsible for the environment, he was involved in the establishment of the Australian Heritage Commission and the banning of sandmining on Fraser Island.Also, in relation to his responsibilities for federal affairs when assisting Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser, he had particular responsibilities in relation to giving more effect to federal arrangements. After he left parliament, Kevin retained a great deal of interest in public affairs. He was chairman of the governing council of Old Parliament House. He was a member of the Stockman's Hall of Fame board, Chairman of the Australian Council of National Trusts and President of the National Trust of Tasmania from 1988 to 1991.Any of us who observed them would have been instantly struck by the close and loving relationship of Kevin and Jocelyn Newman. It was a marriage that endured for more than 40 years. Their children and the character of their own lives were a remarkable testament to the closeness of their parents' marriage and relationship and to the character of their upbringing. It is worth recalling, as I did on another occasion, some words from Kevin in the book Partners, in which he said:. . . over recent years we have each had to look a doctor in the eye while we were told that we were not immortal. That can be pretty hard to come to terms with but it can also be enormously positive. The heightened appreciation of life, love, family and friends you subsequently experience. We think fortune has smiled on us. When we married it was for love but we all know that choosing a mate for life can be a pig in a poke. For us a long marriage that worked. We have been blessed with great children and grandchildren. We have both had important and influential careers but best of all we are still best mates.I do not think there are any amongst us who would want to say much more than that of a lifelong relationship.Kevin died on 17 July 1999 at the age of 64 after a long battle with the affliction lupus, which gave him great discomfort and claimed his life while Jocelyn was overseas. Sadly, she was not able to get home in time to see him before he passed away. On behalf of the government and all her colleagues, I particularly extend my love and my condolences to Jocelyn, who is a great friend, colleague and servant of the government and a person whose relationship with her late husband was an example to all of us. I send our love to her, to their children, Campbell and Kate, and I record the sincere sympathy of all Kevin's former friends and colleagues and of all of their many admirers on both sides of the House. 14:39:008088Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—I join the Prime Minister in those remarks on the life of Kevin Newman. At the outset, I join him in extending, on behalf of the opposition, our condolences to Senator Jocelyn Newman and members of the Newman family. I extend those condolences too to the frontbenchers and backbenchers of the government, who will feel this loss deeply because it has occurred to one of their members during the time they are in service with her. The Prime Minister's statement about the affectionate regard in which the Newman family held each other was something which we, on this side of the House, could observe in their many public appearances over the long years of their public life and role. It was something that was readily observable outside the immediate circle of their friends and political associates.Kevin Newman was born in Sydney in 1933 and he died in Canberra last month. He was 65. I take this opportunity to acknowledge a debt in this condolence to an affectionate and informative obituary from the former Deputy Prime Minister and current modest middlebencher who revealed things about Kevin's life, particularly in his military career, about which none of us were aware—including the extraordinary irony of him having battled, if you like, a bit of conservatism in the military bureaucracy at the time by inviting Gough Whitlam down to address his officers and men when he was attached to a unit serving in Sydney.He graduated from the Royal Military College at Duntroon and, as Major General Peter Phillips indicated, that provided the occasion of his first entry into parliament. According to Major-General Phillips, history will show that Kevin entered parliament in 1975, but his classmates will recall a more ignominious entry in 1955 when, having been kidnapped by three Duntroon mates, he was dumped in Kings Hall on a midwinter night dressed in inelegant Army issue pyjamas and wrapped in a sleeping bag. No doubt he took that in extremely good part, as he did subsequently the experience of hard living that that no doubt first introduced him to—a hardiness that he subsequently displayed in his tour of duty in Vietnam.It is not going to be beholden to many of us to experience two substantial public careers—it was for Kevin Newman: firstly, a substantial military career and, secondly, a career in politics. The Prime Minister has already alluded to the fact that Kevin Newman had the sort of political career of which people can only dream—only 100 days spent on the back bench before being Minister for Repatriation from 1975 to 1976, Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development from 1976 to 1977, Minister for National Development from 1997 to 1979, Minister for Productivity and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs from 1979 to 1980, Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence from 1980 to 1982 and Minister for Administrative Services from 1980 to 1983. He maintained his strong interest in the defence forces throughout his portfolio services. He was also, as minister for the environment, widely credited with saving Fraser Island from sandmining.He retired from politics in 1984, and it was almost as though he passed a baton over when he did so to his wife, who from that point on had a very extensive political career in which he was most obvious through his vigorous support. He was frequently seen by all of us here in Canberra on those many parliamentary occasions when we have an opportunity to reflect on affairs with our families. He was always a cheerful presence at those occasions. I end where I began by extending the opposition's most sincere condolences to Senator Jocelyn Newman and her family.14:44:008088Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I would like to add my condolences and those of my party to those expressed by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition on the sudden death of a great Australian in Kevin Newman. As a soldier, politician and a family man, he exhibited all the characteristics that we in this country see as the marks of those who are great Australians and, in his case, a good bloke. He served his country as a soldier, and a commander of men, with distinction in Malaya and Vietnam. He has been described as a soldiers' soldier—comfortable with all ranks and always with the interests of his troops at heart.As has been alluded to, he gained instant and enduring fame as a politician as the man who celebrated that famous Bass by-election victory in 1975. That became the beginning of another distinguished career as Minister for Repatriation, Minister for the Environment, Housing and Community Development, Minister for National Development, Minister for Productivity and Minister for Administrative Services. It is a long list and a list distinguished by the activity and enthusiasm which Kevin brought to each of these tasks.Just as he did in the Army, Kevin had the capacity to surprise with his ability to think outside the square. There is no better example of this than his efforts to bring about an end to sandmining on Fraser Island in Queensland. It was a controversial decision and one that flew in the face of the wisdom of the conservative thinking on environmental issues.Kevin's work in his career after politics had that same stamp on it. As Chairman of the Council of Old Parliament House, he worked tirelessly and with great dedication to bring the Parliament House project to fruition as a valuable national cultural institution and a fitting repository of our political history.On behalf of the people of rural and regional Australia I express gratitude for the sterling work that Kevin did from 1985 on as a director of the Stockman's Hall of Fame to bring that project to fruition. I was in Longreach just last week and was struck once again by the place that the value town and community now has in the minds of so many Australians as the very symbol of the outback. The Hall of Fame has been integral to that recognition. It has also been pivotal in a change that has happened there in terms of the economic basis of that community and others. I was told on good authority there by local people last week that last year the value of agricultural production in the shire was some $23 million and that the value of tourism was some $48 million. So the 185,000 people of the outback will not forget Kevin's contribution, especially as we celebrate in 2002 the proposed Australian Year of the Outback. I know that I am just one of a very large number of Australians who would reassure Jocelyn, Campbell, whom I know, and Kate, whom I do not know, of our sympathy and our affection.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I understand it is the wish of all honourable members to signify their respect and sympathy by rising in their places.Honourable members having stood in their places—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I thank the House.Debate (on motion by Mr Reith) adjourned.808914:47:008089Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I move:That this House:(1) expresses its deepest sympathy to the families and friends of those young Australians who were killed and to those who were injured at Interlaken;(2) commends the efforts of the rescuers and support services attending the scene and extends its thanks to the Swiss authorities who came to the assistance of the survivors, friends and families; and(3) offers condolences to the families and friends of those citizens of Switzerland, New Zealand, South Africa and Britain who also lost their lives in this tragedy.As I know all members of the House are aware, 14 young Australians perished in this terrible accident—probably one of the worst overseas tragedies affecting young Australians outside a theatre of war. First of all, I want to thank His Excellency the Governor-General and Lady Deane for the quite magnificent way in which they expressed the feelings of all of the Australian people on our behalf at the memorial service at Interlaken in a most moving and enduring fashion. I also want to record my thanks to my colleague Senator Herron and his wife Jan, both of whom were in Geneva at the time the tragedy struck. They immediately went to Interlaken to provide comfort and help to those who had survived and also to extend first-hand on behalf of the government the expressions of gratitude we felt towards the Swiss authorities for what they had done. Both Senator and Mrs Herron attended the memorial service with the Governor-General and his wife on Thursday, 5 August. It was appropriate that this morning at St Christopher's Cathedral in Manuka a memorial service was held for those who perished in this terrible tragedy.It is always particularly wrenching, traumatic, tragic and hard to fathom when young people are suddenly removed, and when 14 of our own young go in one accident it has quite a collective impact on the nation. You are not possessed of the words to adequately convey feeling, except to say that it is one of those tragedies that stop an entire nation for a moment, cause all of us to reflect upon our vulnerability and cause all of us to reflect upon how ill fortune can strike any or some of us or many of us, no matter what our circumstances are.There is something you associate with young Australians overseas, and that is adventure—a desire to enjoy themselves, to extend their physical capacity to the very limit, and to try things sometimes beyond the bounds of prudence and wisdom, but always with an open-hearted sense of adventure, a sense of vigour and a desire to test one's physical prowess. These young men and women certainly represented that part of our national psyche.Of the many things that were said by those close to them, a number of people made the observation that they were doing what they wanted to do. That they should be struck down in this awful way through a freak change of weather adds of course to the terrible sadness and loss felt by their loved ones and their families and reminds us all of the vulnerability of life.It was a terrible tragedy. One expresses love, sympathy and support to the families. The young people represented the hope of that generation of Australians. There are others who represent that hope as well, but they symbolised a spirit of adventure which is forever Australian and very much part of our character and part of our national life. We mourn their death. We send our support and condolences to their families and to their loved ones, and we remark our deep sadness at their death.14:52:008090Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—I support the Prime Minister's motion. We record here today the loss of 14 young Australians at Interlaken, Switzerland on Tuesday, 27 July. Many thousands of young Australian lives have been lost in Europe in the past, but this was not a time or a place of war; this was a time of peace. It is the experience of many Australian families that their young folk enjoy themselves in exactly the same way as these 14 were enjoying themselves when they were tragically struck down. It is all the more tragic for the death of young Australians disproportionately among all others. There were 21 killed in this terrible accident, 14 of them Australians. It was rendered tragic too because of the keen sense of adventure that they had. We have all become familiar now with the short biographies of those young folk. They were joyful, fit, cheerful, looking forward to an opportunity to create families, enjoying the families that they had and looking forward to an opportunity to build substantial lives—and all that opportunity has been destroyed, struck down by this terrible accident.I would like very briefly to read into the parliamentary record the names of the persons who suffered tragic death. They were Toby Drake, Bill Peel, James Cane, Bradley Dewar, Warwick Tout, Giuseppe Losinno, Kylie Morrow, John Flynn, Michael Fulton, Dean Leslie Andrewartha, Scott Redmond and his wife Alisa, Glyn Harries, who was a British national but from my home town of Perth, and Briana Smith. One in particular has been singled out for comment by the media, and that is John Flynn, who was a RAAF officer and who was very prominent in the recent rescue of yachtsmen during the disasters associated with the last Sydney to Hobart yacht race. He saved many but was taken himself.Thousands of Australian families every year farewell their children to this part of Europe and elsewhere. They do so in confident anticipation that they will return and that as they go they will have a tremendous time. It is that anticipation which adds the poignancy to this appalling tragedy. The fact is that people who went there could not have expected even remotely, in their anticipation of their time in Europe, the events which ultimately struck them down.I join with the Prime Minister in expressing our appreciation to the Swiss authorities: the Swiss investigative authorities, the Swiss counselling authorities and the Swiss rescuing authorities. They acted with extraordinary alacrity and very great diligence and made life a bit easier thereby for the Australian families who have suffered an awful tragedy. I also join the Prime Minister in expressing our thanks to the Governor-General and Lady Deane and also to Senator Herron for representing us at those very touching and moving services that we saw on our television sets last week in which the families of the youngsters farewelled their loved ones. This is a terribly sad occasion for members of this parliament and for our nation, and it is important that in this great forum of the nation we record our condolences to their families here.Question resolved in the affirmative, honourable members standing in their places.Questions Without Notice809180918091Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, do you stand by your statement yesterday in relation to the question on the republic to be put to the referendum when you said:You only change something if what you've got at the moment is defective, and what we have at the moment, as far as the question is concerned, is not defective.Will you now join the opposition in supporting the recommendation of the all-party joint parliamentary committee that the question now be whether to replace the Queen and Governor-General with an Australian President?8091Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—What I said yesterday, if you look at all of it, of course I stand by. The matter was considered by the cabinet this morning. Cabinet has a recommendation to put to a meeting of the joint parties which will take place immediately after question time. I ought to tell my colleagues on this side of the House that you hereby have notice of that meeting, and I expect to see all of you there. I think you will turn up; it is an interesting subject. Then the Attorney-General will be making an announcement during the course of the debate. I believe that the way in which the government has handled this matter will be seen by all fair-minded people who do not want a rigged question as being a decent outcome.80918091Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister inform the House of the latest government initiative to assist carers who have selflessly dedicated themselves to the care of a loved one with intellectual disabilities? How has the government acted to address the unmet needs of people with disabilities and their carers that have arisen under successive governments over several decades?8091Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—May I say that the member for Dunkley has taken a particularly keen interest in this issue, not only in the parliament but also in the councils of the coalition parties. I am sure that all members of this parliament have been touched on occasions by the selfless dedication of people who care for relatives and close friends who have profound disabilities. Of all of the constituency cases that I have dealt with, none has been quite so moving and touching and traumatic to discuss as the examples of ageing relatives caring for profoundly disabled adult children, desperately in need of some kind of respite and other assistance.I was therefore pleased when Senator Newman was able to announce on 4 August that the Commonwealth government would provide $150 million more for unmet need for disability services over the final two years of the Commonwealth-State Disability Agreement. I might say that this money is being made available at a time when, for very proper budgetary considerations, funds sought in some other areas of a lesser priority are not being made available, and that reflects the very high priority the government places on this particular issue. The money will be used to purchase vital in-home and respite care services for people with disabilities who have ageing carers. By assisting one of the most vulnerable types of family in this way, the government is demonstrating its commitment to keeping families together.The House will know that the states and territories have long had primary responsibility for providing accommodation and related support services, so I want to make it clear that our commitment in this area is conditional on the states also undertaking their share of the responsibility. I want to make it very clear that this money must not be used in any way by the states to withdraw, diminish or roll back their own commitment in this area. We do not want to see any cost shifting in relation to disability services. We want the states that will soon, under the GST arrangements, be the recipients of growing revenues from the goods and services tax to shoulder their share of the burden, to do their bit, to play their part and not hide behind the excuse of blaming the Commonwealth, which is the stock state response in so many of these areas.This measure builds on a series of coalition initiatives to help those caring for a severely disabled or disadvantaged relative or loved one. For example, we provided $15.4 million to help ageing carers to look after adult children with disabilities in last year's Staying At Home package. During the last election campaign we committed $20 million to extend respite support for carers of young people with a disability and $80 million for respite support for carers of people with dementia. Many of these carers are older people themselves and both measures were confirmed in the last budget.Despite the need to keep the budget healthily in surplus, which is one of the great economic achievements of this government, may I say that we have, through our 3¼ years in government, retained an unwavering commitment to the social security safety net. We have also found resources to help those in the community who genuinely need help. Ageing parents looking after disabled adult children represent one of the greatest areas of need, of government compassion and of human understanding in our society and I am proud to lead a government that is going to play its part in meeting that need. I thank the member for Dunkley and other colleagues for their unceasing interest in this very important issue.80928092Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Minister for Defence. Minister, are you communicating with the head of your department, Mr Paul Barratt, directly at the moment on matters of defence administration or are all communications taking place through your respective legal teams? If you are not communicating directly, isn't this an intolerable situation at a time when the government has just doubled the size of ADF units on 28-days combat alert? What assurances can you give that our national defence interests are not being compromised by the legal circus presently taking place in Sydney?8092Moore, John, MPMr MOOREEI4RyanLPDefence10—As the matter is currently before the courts, I have no intention of saying anything specific about it. However, I want to make the general point that Australia does have a very good defence force. The defence force in the field in Australia deserves good support from Russell Hill in all respects and I will require—and the government will require—the highest standards of management from the Department of Defence in the future, as we have in the past.80928092Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer advise the House of the current performance of the Australian economy and the prospects for continued growth?8092Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for his question and interest in economic issues. The honourable member may have seen that today the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry released its investor confidence survey showing that investor confidence was the strongest it had ever been in Australia since the survey commenced. Mark Paterson, the Chief Executive, said:The results of the July survey of investor confidence are nothing short of extraordinary.The ANZ jobs ads were released today, showing a rise of 2.6 per cent in July, the sixth consecutive increase and the highest level of job vacancies since January 1990. Compared with July last year, the number of job ads was up by 20.5 per cent. That is good news for Australians because it is good news on job opportunities for all Australians. The recently released Morgan and Banks job index said, `Record-breaking job market predicted for Australia.' In June, while the House was up, the labour force figures showed an increase in employment in that month of 62,400 jobs, taking the unemployment rate to 7.2 per cent, the lowest in a decade coming off the Labor Party's record of 11.2 per cent—some four per cent greater. Under the government policy of a balanced budget, low inflation, low interest rates, product reform, labour market reform and debt retirement, we have been able to create an economic environment which has survived probably the biggest downturn in our region since the Second World War.The Fortune magazine, dated 16 August 1999, stated under the headline `Down-under looks up':Once derided as the sick man of Asia, Australia is now the region's most successful economy.The Fortune magazine quotes the Prime Minister of Singapore, Goh Chok Tong, who said:In many parts of Asia we were concentrating on fast growth but forgetting the fundamentals. Australia didn't and is winning the race.Mr Speaker, that is the change in economic policy over the last three or four years—an economy with a budget back in balance, opposed all the way by the Labor Party. They run around now and say that they are in favour of a balanced budget. When we announced we were going to balance the budget, the Leader of the Opposition with the then Leader of the Australian Democrats were addressing a riot outside Parliament House in protest against balanced budgets. When we said that we were going to lock in a new monetary policy, the Labor Party said they were going to sue us—they were going to take legal action to prevent it. And now, when you put in place the big reforms of the Australian economy, they want to run around and say, `Oh, we were always in favour of that too.'It is like tax reform. Let everybody remember where the Labor Party stood on tax reform. The Labor Party stood for the 1930s wholesale sales tax. Modernity and the Labor Party—back to the days of Scullin! What have we heard from Labor since it has been in opposition? Not one policy, not one economic speech, not one tax modernisation and not one piece of relevance in relation to the economic debate. The Leader of the Opposition went on the Sunday program to talk about a policy which had been discussed at a Labor Party backbench seminar which he did not attend. As Malcolm Farr wrote on 26 July:If Kim Beazley had sat through Labor's two-day seminar on unemployment, he would have heard where policy within his own party was heading.This is somebody who did not even sit through the seminar and went on television and tried to justify a policy which had been dumped—and then said he was leading. He reminds me of the old Sir Humphrey Appleby-Jim Hacker conversation, when the minister said, `I am their leader; I must follow them.' And there he was, down there at the backbench seminar where all of the ideas were being raised and dumped, and nobody remembered to tell the Leader of the Opposition. This is no excuse for a policy. The Labor Party has marginalised itself because it cannot take decisions, it cannot stand for anything, it has no policy and it has no leadership.80938093Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. I will attempt here to establish a few facts rather than fiction like we have just heard. The question is this. Prime Minister, are you aware of reports that when the Chief of the Defence Force, Admiral Barrie, discussed the attempted sacking of Mr Barratt with you on Wednesday, 28 July, he told you that the defence minister, Mr Moore, had lost the confidence of the ADF senior leadership? Can you assure the House that Defence Minister Moore retains the confidence of the ADF senior leadership?8093Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—For reasons which any sensible member would understand, I am not going to canvass material that may be relevant to the court's adjudications. However, I believe that the defence minister has performed with great skill, great dedication and great application. The defence minister has my total support. I happen to believe that the defence minister has brought a new vigour and rigour to the administration of that portfolio.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order which goes to relevance. The question was: can you assure the House that Defence Minister Moore retains the confidence of ADF senior leadership? It is a simple question which does not go to court matters or anything else—a simple, straightforward question. Does he have the confidence of the Defence leadership?ZD4Mr HOWARD—May I resume my defence of the minister, Mr Speaker, and may I say that I think he has brought very great application—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! I will rule on the point of order. The Prime Minister was asked a question about the confidence that Defence leadership has in the minister, and he was responding to the question about confidence in the minister. I invite him to continue.ZD4Mr HOWARD—May I say that I think the defence minister has done a first-class job. The defence minister has sought to implement, as all defence ministers ought to do, the policies of the government and to require that all sections of the bureaucracy follow him in implementing the policies of the government. I have every confidence that not only does Mr Moore have my confidence but also he has the confidence of the ADF.80948094Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN4V5PearceLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Can the minister advise the House of recent developments in his campaign to improve the literacy rates of Australian children? In particular, could the minister advise of developments regarding the states and territories in relation to literacy benchmarks and any barriers to the publication of this data?8094Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the member for Pearce for her question. Improving the literacy and numeracy levels of young Australians is probably the single most important thing you could do to assist educationally disadvantaged young people in this country. Last year the governments of the states, the territories and the Commonwealth committed themselves for the first time to national literacy standards, to a system of comparable testing for young people and to a national literacy goal that every young person coming out of primary school should be able to read, write and spell at an adequate level.Over the last year, the states and territories, together with the Commonwealth, have been developing a regime of comparable testing against the benchmark standards, and I am very pleased to be able to inform the House that since the beginning of last month the states and territories have been engaged in assessments of young people in years 3 and 5 against the national literacy benchmarks. Tasmania conducted its assessments last month; Victoria, New South Wales and South Australia are conducting their assessments this month; Western Australia and the Northern Territory will conduct their assessments later this month; and the Australian Capital Territory will conclude its assessments in September.For the first time, schoolchildren in Australia are being assessed as to whether or not they have the literacy levels they need to continue successfully with their education. Parents have a right to this information. Young people have a right to learn to read and write effectively. It is a matter of deep regret that the education unions have still not committed themselves to supporting this policy—the education unions which write the Labor Party's policy on education—and their lack of commitment doubtless explains why the Labor Party has not committed itself to the regime of national testing against the literacy and numeracy benchmarks.In Western Australia, I was very disappointed to see that the teachers union has urged all teachers to boycott this month's year 3 and year 5 literacy and numeracy tests. Indeed, the president of the Western Australian teachers union, Mr Brian Lindberg, has called on parents to withdraw their children from the tests. This is an outrage, and it is up to the Labor Party to tell its followers—the unions who support it and the union officials who are so well represented in its ranks—that parents in Australia will not put up with this constant obstruction which undermines the standards of education of their children. Parents have a right to this information. This government has committed itself to giving parents that right, and only the Labor Party stands out, resisting what every parent has a right to know.80958095Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—My question is to the Minister for Defence, and I refer to the minister's quest for higher standards. I ask whether you are aware of reports in weekend newspapers which describe the relationship between you and your chief of staff in these terms:An outside observer would have difficulty discerning who was the Minister and who was the adviser.Is it correct that on 21 January this year, in a meeting with Mr Barratt, you were under the misapprehension that the Chief of the Defence Force reported to the secretary to the department rather than to you as minister? Minister, do you now understand who reports to whom in your department and your responsibilities as minister under federal law?WI4REITHMr Reith—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I put it to you that this is clearly a matter which is sub judice.Opposition members interjecting—WI4REITHMr Reith—We have been happy to have questions from you, but the fact is that there are standing orders. Page 482 of House of Representatives Practice states:As a general rule, matters before civil courts should not be referred to from the time they are set down . . . This is a clear reference to material currently before the courts.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, I wish to speak to the point of order of the Leader of the House and refer to a very high authority, which is you. On 28 May 1998, in regard to a point of order concerning a question to the minister for workplace relations, you said:While I understand the matter is before the courts and that an injunction has been issued, I am also aware that that matter has been covered in the media fairly extensively. In those circumstances, I do not believe it is of a nature or character where it is going to prejudice the position of parties before the courts. In that instance I call on the minister to reply.Those are quintessentially the circumstances in this case, where the question relates exactly to matters which have been reported in the newspaper—and the newspaper article was quoted from. It is exactly the same circumstance as that on which you correctly ruled on 28 May.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I will rule on the point of order. I believe it is reasonable for the minister to respond to the question as outlined, and I call him.8095Moore, John, MPMr MOOREEI4RyanLPDefence10—As I said before, the government expects the highest standards of management from the Department of Defence, and we will get them in the future—that is quite certain. In the meantime, for those who read newspaper reports, I would not believe they are accurate in the first place.80958095Southcott, Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Finance and Administration. Can the minister inform the House of the measures which are being taken to ensure that the government's Telstra 2 share offer is accessible to all Australians?8095Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—I am happy to tell the honourable member for Boothby and all members of the House that, on 25 July, the government announced the opening of the Telstra 2 share offer. All Australians who are interested in participating in the float have been invited to pre-register by next Monday, 16 August. By pre-registering, prospective investors can be guaranteed the right to purchase 400 shares in Telstra. They may wish to purchase more than 400 shares or they may wish to purchase fewer than 400 shares but, by pre-registering, they can guarantee themselves at least this amount. They do not have to make any financial commitment by virtue of pre-registration. Further, existing Telstra shareholders are not required to pre-register.One of the objectives of the Telstra 2 share offer is to further increase the number of Australians owning shares. To achieve that goal, the government is most interested in ensuring that the Telstra 2 share offer is accessible to as many Australians as possible. Already, more than 40 per cent of our adult population invest in the stock market, and the Telstra 2 offer has the potential to increase that figure. We have taken a number of steps to ensure that the Telstra 2 share offer is available to all Australians who want to purchase shares. Firstly, some 9.6 million letters have been written to all those who are currently Telstra fixed line customers, to those who pre-registered for the first Telstra offer and did not purchase shares, and to all of the brokers' clients.In addition, anyone who wishes to pre-register can do so by using the freecall number 1800 181818, or they may pre-register on the T2 Internet site that is available to anyone who wants to obtain it. In addition to that, we intend with T2 to appoint a regional broker. That will ensure that there is further access for people living outside our capital cities. It is not just about people in the capital cities getting access to the shares, but about all who want them getting access.Australians without a good command of the English language will also be catered for. The information will be available in a number of languages, including Chinese, Greek, Italian, Vietnamese and Arabic. Other languages will be available through a translation and information service, again on a free call. The vision impaired will be able to get access to the information. Braille versions of the pre-registration letter have been sent to many Australians, and large print versions of the acknowledgment letter will be sent to those who seek that alternative format. What this demonstrates of course is that the government is keen to ensure that all those who seek to acquire shares in the Telstra 2 offer are given that opportunity in an affordable and accessible way. I encourage all to look at those opportunities and make their decisions.80968096Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—My question is to the Minister for Defence. Minister, are you aware that the government's recent changes to the fringe benefits tax legislation will cause a massive reduction in disposable income for many Defence personnel and severely restrict their access to government support for low income families? Have you seen the example reported in the Herald Sun of Warrant Officer Dixon who, after 20 years in the Army, will have his take home pay cut in half to just $172 per week? Minister, was it a deliberate decision by your government to stop giving special consideration to Defence personnel or were you simply not paying attention at the cabinet meeting that approved these changes? What action will you and your government be taking to address this problem?8096Moore, John, MPMr MOOREEI4RyanLPDefence10—I am well aware, as most members of the House will be, that everyone will benefit from tax cuts. As a result of the tax cuts, many of the expenses that were referred to are well and truly covered. On top of that, in the rent area, in some areas charges by the defence forces have been reviewed.80968096Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment Services. Minister, can you outline to the House details of the recent expansion of the Work for the Dole program? Is the minister aware of recent claims made about the introduction of Work for the Dole? What is the government's response to suggestions that Work for the Dole is now a bipartisan policy?8096Abbott, Tony MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPEmployment Services10—I thank the member for Moreton for his question. The government recently announced the third round of Work for the Dole projects, involving some 20,000 places and assistance of some $32 million to community organisations around Australia. I am pleased to note that there were six projects in the electorate of Moreton. Work for the Dole is one of the signature policies and one of the significant successes of the Howard government, but it has been introduced and implemented in the teeth of blanket condemnation from the Australian Labor Party. The Leader of the Opposition has described Work for the Dole as `hopeless', as `mickey mouse' and as a `disgracefully shoddy piece of public policy'. The member for Batman has described Work for the Dole as evil. It was not just bad, Mr Speaker; he said it was evil. Mr Speaker, you can imagine that I was somewhat surprised—even a little bewildered, I suppose, if the truth be known—and amazed at the brazenness of the member for Batman when he went on Meet the Press on 25 July and said:The concept of Work for the Dole . . . is an accepted Labor way, we brought it in. The Labor Party had it, the Coalition had it.If it is true that the ALP is now supporting Work for the Dole, this would be the biggest backflip, the biggest somersault, since the conversion of the apostle Paul. If it is true, the message certainly has not got through to the Labor Lord Mayor of Brisbane, Councillor Jim Soorley, who—just two days after the member for Batman's statement—described Work for the Dole as `a disgraceful, miserable scheme that we will not support'.I think it is important for members opposite to clarify exactly where they stand. There is a very simple test of the Labor Party's sincerity on all of this. Will the ALP tell their union mates to stop sabotaging Work for the Dole projects? In particular, will the Leader of the Opposition tell the members of the Miscellaneous Workers Union—his own union—to lift their veto on Work for the Dole projects in child-care centres? I am all in favour of conversion. If there has been a genuine change of heart, I would absolutely welcome it—but not this poll driven hypocrisy. That is what it is so far.80978097Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—My question is to the Minister for Defence. Has the minister seen reports of a leaked confidential minute by the Army Land Commander, Major General Hartley, outlining a critical shortage in specialists for Defence surgical teams? Is the minister aware of Major General Hartley's view that, `The impact on the Australian Defence capacity is immediate'? Minister, are you doing anything to rectify this very serious situation or have you been too busy and distracted trying to sack your Defence secretary? Will you give a guarantee that Australia's capability to undertake operation deployments, such as to East Timor, is not being compromised by such shortages?8097Moore, John, MPMr MOOREEI4RyanLPDefence10—Mr Speaker, I did read about the leaked comment in the newspapers from Major General Hartley, which I was disappointed to see. Senior officers' articles should not be appearing in newspapers. As a consequence, I was disappointed with that. There have been some shortages of medical officers in the permanent forces, but we do have a very constant supply of volunteers who do serve within the reserve forces—such as in Bougainville at the present moment. Where there is a limited demand, that has proved to be quite adequate to this time. Around the whole of the Defence Force in Australia and at all the bases I have visited, I have to say that the medical facilities are quite outstanding. At a time when we are not at war, the numbers of medical staff are adequate. For our deployments at the present moment, there is no shortage.80978097Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—My question without notice is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Can the minister inform the House of the ongoing efforts of the government to secure the release of the two CARE Australia aid workers, Steve Pratt and Peter Wallace?8097Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—First, can I thank the honourable member for Dawson for her question and particularly acknowledge the tremendous support she has given to Steve Pratt and Peter Wallace. Honourable members may know that the Wallace family come from the electorate of the member for Dawson, and not only the member herself but the people of Mackay have been enormously supportive of the Wallace family through this difficult time. That has been well noted by the government and I think well noted by the rest of Australia.The answer to the honourable member's question is that the Supreme Military Court of Yugoslavia confirmed the convictions of Steve Pratt and Peter Wallace on 22 July, but it did apply some reduction in the sentences. A formal decision has had to be served on the men, and that has had to await the translation of the decision into English. I can inform the House that that formal decision was served on Steve Pratt and Peter Wallace on Saturday, 7 August. Their lawyers are expected to lodge clemency petitions with President Milosevic today, 9 August.The Australian government has been very active and continues to be very active at this stage in trying to get President Milosevic to grant clemency to those two innocent Australians. On 3 August, I wrote to the foreign minister of Yugoslavia, Mr Jovanovic, asking him to support the clemency petitions. The government has sought further support from key figures around the international community. A little over a week ago the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, again wrote a letter to the Yugoslav government urging President Milosevic to grant clemency. Contact has been made with a large number of governments urging them to follow up with appeals for clemency, and they are doing that.To give some examples, the Greek government has been particularly helpful, and I thank my counterpart there, George Papandreou. Nelson Mandela has agreed to telephone President Milosevic again, once more seeking clemency. Figures in the United Nations system such as Mary Robinson, the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and Mrs Ogata, the High Commissioner for Refugees, are doing what they can to try to encourage President Milosevic to grant clemency.Everybody knows this is an extremely difficult task. President Milosevic, for his own domestic political reasons, has so far not released Steve Pratt and Peter Wallace. We watch the domestic political environment in Yugoslavia particularly closely, bearing in mind the fact that these two innocent Australians are still incarcerated in that country. We will do everything within our power to encourage President Milosevic to grant clemency. Of course, at the end of the day we cannot force him to, but we have the weight of the international community behind us. I think what somebody said to me the other day is a fair comment, that the international coalition we have put together to get Steve Pratt and Peter Wallace out of prison is probably the most widespread international coalition Australia has ever put together for any issue. I can assure the families and I can assure the people of Australia that we will continue with our work.80988098Brereton, Laurie, MPMr BRERETON5T4Kingsford-SmithALP00—My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and concerns his department's 2 August press release categorically denying any significant difference of opinion when Dr Ashton Calvert and US Assistant Secretary of State Stanley Roth discussed East Timor in February. Minister, isn't it a fact that Mr Roth expressed the view that a full-scale peacekeeping operation in East Timor would be unavoidable and that, without action to push for peacekeepers, the territory would descend into violence? Isn't it also the case that Mr Roth described your determination to keep peacekeepers at arms-length as defeatist? Didn't he further argue the necessity for positive action to persuade UN members and the US Congress that peacekeepers simply had to be provided? Minister, why did you have your department issue this misleading press release and falsely deny the difference of opinion with Mr Roth?8098Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—Newspaper reports from which the honourable member is deriving his question—and you can rest assured I am aware of all the available information on this issue—suggesting that there is a difference between the Australian government and the government of the United States on East Timor policy and that somehow this is causing a crisis in the alliance are totally false. The Australian government and the government of the United States have worked very closely on this issue. To the best of my recollection—and I am pretty sure my recollection here is right—at no stage has it been official US government policy to push for a peacekeeping force in East Timor. Indeed, there has been extensive inter-agency consultation between officials within the United States administration on this issue. Every single person in the United States administra tion may have had a slightly different view at any particular time but, at the end of the day, the Australian government has to operate, when dealing with the United States, on the basis of official United States policy. At no stage, to the best of my recollection, has official United States policy been to advocate a peacekeeping force and Australia to stand in the way.If I can take a moment longer, the question is based on a discussion that Dr Calvert had with Mr Roth I think in Washington some time in February when Mr Roth was not professing to speak on behalf of United States policy but expressed a personal view—which I can assure honourable members was never the view of the United States administration. Dr Calvert made it perfectly clear at that time that to rush into proposing a peacekeeping force would obviously be resisted by the Indonesian government. This is the point here. Only a child would continue to argue that we should have a peacekeeping force in East Timor at this time when the Indonesian government do not want it. You cannot do it if they do not want it, and they have made it clear all along that they do not want it.So way back in February when Dr Calvert was explaining this to Mr Roth, there is no doubt that Mr Roth and the American administration were grateful for the assistance that Dr Calvert provided, for the insight that Australia was able to provide on the issue, and for our continuing with a very successful leadership role that we have played on the East Timor issue—a role, let me hasten to remind the House, that the Labor Party for 13 years refused to play. For 13 years it did nothing about East Timor. After doing nothing for 13 years it has a cheek asking us questions about it.80998099Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Can the minister advise the House of what benefits the deregulation of international air services holds for new foreign airlines entering Australia and what this will mean for Australian airlines wishing to access other international ports?8099Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for Cook for his question and acknowledge his enormous and ongoing pursuit of the interests of the tourism industry in this country. It is probably relevant to point out at the beginning that the great advantage in further liberalising access to our airports lies in the area of tourism. It has been a rapidly growing industry and it means a lot to many areas of Australia. A huge number of Australian jobs depend upon it. All the experts tell us that, with the right approaches, we can rapidly increase tourism as an economic activity and as a provider of jobs in this country, including in rural and regional Australia where I believe that we have a backyard, as we often see it—the outback—which is a ready-made product and only needs more effective access arrangements to be made in the future to see it expand.There is no doubt that competition brings down costs and enables more options to be developed for incoming tourists. That is something the government has sought to respect in its consideration and action in relation to the Productivity Commission inquiry into our air access arrangements. I think that the recent announcement by the government, which essentially opens access to Australian airports in an extremely liberal way, with the exception of Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne and Perth, is a good thing. Freight has now been completely liberalised. This opens up all sorts of opportunities, particularly for international airports and for those airports that can handle international traffic in rural and regional areas to really go for broke. In the case of the four airports that I mentioned, it is important that we do not completely liberalise but that we use access to them as leverage to be able to gain leverage into other markets for our own airlines. The first cab off the rank was Dubai, which has now accessed considerably more liberal arrangements in time for the Olympic Games. It would be remiss of me if I did not finally point out that we have done this without destroying the cabotage arrangements out of respect for the needs of rural and regional communities and their need for air services.81008100Brereton, Laurie, MPMr BRERETON5T4Kingsford-SmithALP00—My question is again to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and relates to his department's further denial on 2 August of any substantive difference on East Timor in all official discussions, including those involving our own defence department, with all levels of the US administration over the past five months. Minister, is it not a fact that the US military command in the Pacific has requested Australian agreement to the attachment of Australian military officers to a possible US peace enforcement operation in the event of large-scale violence in East Timor? Minister, given the government's response to the US request, why wasn't the truth reflected in your department's press release, or indeed in your own statements on the Sunday program on 1 August?8100Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—I am happy to tell the honourable member that I am not aware of any requests by the United States for us to participate in a peace enforcement exercise in East Timor. I have taken the opportunity, since I sit next to the Minister for Defence, to ask him whether he is aware of this great idea. He is not either.Opposition members interjecting—4G4Mr DOWNER—Children, quieten down. It is nearly 4 o'clock. You can go home at 4 o'clock.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The minister will respond to the question.4G4Mr DOWNER—We are not proposing to participate in a peace enforcement exercise in East Timor, as the House knows too well. The point is that we are not proposing to go to war with Indonesia. That does not come as a surprise to anyone on this side of the House, but apparently those opposite want us to go to war with Indonesia. We are going to disappoint you because we are not going to do it.As far as I know, the statements I made on the Sunday program were absolutely based on the knowledge I had at the time and nothing has happened to enhance that knowledge. The statement put out by my department was honestly and faithfully put together by them. I am completely unaware of any proposal by the United States defence force to mount a peace enforcement exercise in East Timor, but I will say more: there was a headline in a newspaper saying something to the effect—I do not have the headline with me—that Australia would not back the marines in going into East Timor. I never heard of a plan of the Americans to send the marines into East Timor.Anybody who understands United States policy making processes knows that to send in any kind of peacekeeping force, let alone a so-called peace enforcement force, would involve congressional consultation, and would involve a very substantial policy decision by the United States administration, following a decision by the United Nations itself that it wanted to send in some sort of peace enforcement force. The United Nations has not made that decision and the United States has not made a decision to support a peace enforcement exercise. If there were to be a security force in East Timor in phase 3—and honourable members will, I think, by now be aware of what phase 3 is about in the East Timor process—we would obviously ourselves be happy to participate in that, if so invited. Obviously we would be and obviously we would very much welcome United States participation but, frankly, whether the United States would participate or not in that exercise I really at this stage do not know. I do not know and they have far from worked that out. So it is not quite as the honourable member presents it.81008100Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Community Services, whom I congratulate on his appointment. Can the minister advise the House what the government is doing to help Australia's families? In particular, what early intervention and preventative programs has the government put in place?8100Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPCommunity Services10—I would like to thank the honourable member for a very insightful question.Mr Beazley interjecting—XJ6Mr ANTHONY—Indeed, the coalition government has a very strong focus—and perhaps the Leader of the Opposition might like to listen—on what we are doing to encourage prevention and early intervention to support Australian families. What we want and indeed what the Prime Minister wants is stronger families—YK6WILTONMr Wilton—You should be reading this, Larry.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Isaacs!XJ6Mr ANTHONY—That will mean stronger communities and a better Australia. This is all part of the coalition's national family strategy.Opposition members interjecting—XJ6Mr ANTHONY—It is a shame the opposition is not listening because they might learn something from this. Part of the government's strategy is for early intervention to address problems that happen in family life and specific policies targeted towards homelessness, drug abuse, youth suicide and public safety. It is an issue that all Australians and this chamber should have a role in, because for too long governments have tended to focus on picking up the pieces. That is an important element; however, the focus should be on prevention and early intervention, and to this end the government's family relationship program, particularly in education, training and post-marital counselling—Mr Wilton interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Isaacs.XJ6Mr ANTHONY—I think it is an important issue that the opposition should be listening to, because it is in the area of relationships, particularly in pre- and post-marriage counselling, that we intend to give 100,000 people right across Australia, including in rural and remote Australia, encouragement to keep relationships together. Part of that is our partnership against domestic violence program. The government has allocated $50 million to prevent domestic violence. Likewise, in the area of the youth homeless pilot program, which I would hope the opposition would also endorse, the focus is to try and keep families together.Opposition members interjecting—XJ6Mr ANTHONY—In the area of child abuse—and you should be listening to this— we have actually allocated $12 million to help parents of neglected children in their parenting role.Opposition members interjecting—XJ6Mr ANTHONY—I am glad to see there is so much interjection. You must be thoroughly taking this in. In the area of drug abuse, there is an extra $516 million, and for youth suicide $57 million—an extra $8 million to fight youth suicide—Opposition members interjecting—XJ6Mr ANTHONY—You should be joining the government in these initiatives. And most importantly, there is about $1 billion for the SAAP agreement to help people in supported accommodation. This is all part of what the government is doing on the macro scale, which we have done well: that is, we have lower interest rates, lower inflation and greater employment. This all adds to the great tax package that we have put in place which means $11.9 billion in tax cuts and an extra $2.5 billion in additional family assistance. So what we are on about, and particularly what I will be on about in this portfolio, is building stronger families and stronger communities.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .810110001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate ministers:810112ZJ6Barresi Phil MPTo the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:Whereas the 1998 Synod of the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne carried without dissent the following Motion:`That this Synod regrets the Government's adoption of procedures for certain people seeking political asylum in Australia which exclude them from all public income support while withholding permission to work, thereby creating a group of beggars dependent on the Churches and charities for food and the necessities of life;and calls upon the Federal government to review such procedures immediately and remove all practices which are manifestly inhumane and in some cases in contravention of our national obliga tions as a signatory of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.'We, therefore, the individual undersigned Members of St Paul's Anglican Church, Ringwood, Victoria 3134, petition the House of Representatives in support of the abovementioned Motion.And we, as in duty bound will ever pray &c.Mr BarresiZJ6Mr Barresi(from 12 citizens)810214DT4Crean Simon MPTo the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:Whereas the 1998 Synod of the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne carried without dissent the following Motion:`That this Synod regrets the Government's adoption of procedures for certain people seeking political asylum in Australia which exclude them from all public income support while withholding permission to work, thereby creating a group of beggars dependent on the Churches and charities for food and the necessities of life;and calls upon the Federal government to review such procedures immediately and remove all practices which are manifestly inhumane and in some cases in contravention of our national obligations as a signatory of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.'We, therefore, the individual undersigned Members of the Ascension, Springvale, Victoria 3171, petition the House of Representatives in support of the abovementioned Motion.And we, as in duty bound will ever pray &c.Mr CreanDT4Mr Crean(from 14 citizens)810220DT4Crean Simon MPTo the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:Whereas the 1998 Synod of the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne carried without dissent the following Motion:`That this Synod regrets the Government's adoption of procedures for certain people seeking political asylum in Australia which exclude them from all public income support while withholding permission to work, thereby creating a group of beggars dependent on the Churches and charities for food and the necessities of life;and calls upon the Federal government to review such procedures immediately and remove all practices which are manifestly inhumane and in some cases in contravention of our national obligations as a signatory of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.'We, therefore, the individual undersigned Attendees at the Breakfast at St Christopher's Anglican Church, East Bentleigh, Victoria 3165, petition the House of Representatives in support of the abovementioned Motion.And we, as in duty bound will ever pray &c.Mr CreanDT4Mr Crean(from 20 citizens)810212HM5Georgiou Petro MPTo the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:Whereas the 1998 Synod of the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne carried without dissent the following Motion:`That this Synod regrets the Government's adoption of procedures for certain people seeking political asylum in Australia which exclude them from all public income support while withholding permission to work, thereby creating a group of beggars dependent on the Churches and charities for food and the necessities of life;and calls upon the Federal government to review such procedures immediately and remove all practices which are manifestly inhumane and in some cases in contravention of our national obligations as a signatory of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.'We, therefore, the individual undersigned Members of Hawthorn Uniting Church, Hawthorn, Victoria 3122, petition the House of Representatives in support of the abovementioned Motion.And we, as in duty bound will ever pray &c.Mr GeorgiouHM5Mr Georgiou(from 12 citizens)81029VU5Griffin Alan MPTo the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:Whereas the 1998 Synod of the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne carried without dissent the following Motion:`That this Synod regrets the Government's adoption of procedures for certain people seeking political asylum in Australia which exclude them from all public income support while withholding permission to work, thereby creating a group of beggars dependent on the Churches and charities for food and the necessities of life;and calls upon the Federal government to review such procedures immediately and remove all practices which are manifestly inhumane and in some cases in contravention of our national obligations as a signatory of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.'We, therefore, the individual undersigned Members of `F Troop', Monash Church of Christ, Glen Waverley, Victoria 3150 petition the House of Representatives in support of the abovementioned Motion. And we, as in duty bound will ever pray &c.Mr GriffinVU5Mr Griffin(from nine citizens)810331BT4Kemp Dr David MPTo the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:Whereas the 1998 Synod of the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne carried without dissent the following Motion:`That this Synod regrets the Government's adoption of procedures for certain people seeking political asylum in Australia which exclude them from all public income support while withholding permission to work, thereby creating a group of beggars dependent on the Churches and charities for food and the necessities of life;and calls upon the Federal government to review such procedures immediately and remove all practices which are manifestly inhumane and in some cases in contravention of our national obligations as a signatory of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.'We, therefore, the individual undersigned Members of Holy Trinity Anglican Parish, Hampton, Victoria 3188 petition the House of Representatives in support of the abovementioned Motion.And we, as in duty bound will ever pray &c.Dr KempBT4Dr Kemp(from 31 citizens)8103284783R 84HEdwards Graham MP; Zahra Christian MPTo the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of electors of McMillan points out to the House our desire to see community pharmacists retain their unique position in Australia's health system.We trust and respect our local pharmacists and are opposed to any moves to allow supermarkets to compete against them. We believe that the community benefits from pharmacies being owned by pharmacists.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House heeds our wishes and allows our local pharmacy to continue to play a vital role in our health care.Mr Edwards83RMr Edwards(from 1,948 citizens)Mr Zahra84HMr Zahra(from 899 citizens)810346BV5Adams Dick MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:We the People of Australia draws the attention of the House the need for amendments to S.123 of the Broadcasting Services Act of 1992 on Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice Section 2.10.1—2.10.6 and Section 3.6,3.7 to better reflect the community's standards. We the petitioners therefore ask that the House urgently consider the need for the deletion of Sections 2.10.1—2.10.6 so that this Section 2.10 stands alone, being:The general `G' classification, material classified `G' must not contain any matter likely to be unsuitable for children to watch without the supervision of a parentWe the People of Australia also draws the attention of the House to the need for amendments to the Code of Practice Section 3.6, 3.7, this needs to be amended so that commercials and promotions reflect the viewing classification of the program being shown, regardless of the time of day or night.Mr AdamsBV5Mr Adams(from 46 citizens)810317K6Entsch Warren MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.This Petition of a citizen of Australia humbly draws the attention of the House that sea vessels carrying illegal persons from overseas to Australia are generally `Last Voyage' vessels and therefore deemed expendable by its owner. These vessels are a quarantinable disease on entry to our territory and must be treated as such. These vessels should not be brought into any port or enclosed waters of our coastline until they are properly treated to prevent entry of disease or pests.Please recall the horrific chemical treatment applied to Darwin Harbour recently to attempt to destroy an exotic shellfish infesting those waters now. There is little doubt that entry of these snails was from seized vessels used to illegally transport persons here in these vessels and held in that port awaiting release or destruction. The above is more likely than the suggestion that the infestation came from some overseas yachts. These seized vessels should be destroyed in deep water at sea, not in enclosed waters, as is the practice now.Your petitioner therefore prays that the House require the Quarantine, Customs and Navy authorities to ensure that these disease and pest ridden vessels do not enter any enclosed waters in the Cairns area or any other Australian port or place before adequate decontamination treatment is undertaken at sea. The aim is to help prevent the introduction of further exotic disease and pests from overseas on or in these seized vessels.Mr Entsch7K6Mr Entsch(from one citizen)8103164XH4McGauran Peter MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled.The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House their serious concern about the future of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC).In particular the petitioners wish to point out:(1) That the disproportionate cuts to ABC funding since 1985-6 (Gross Domestic Product up by 14.4% in real terms while ABC funding has declined by 25.3%) and the massive 12% cut imposed by the present federal government have substantially reduced the capacity of the ABC to adequately discharge its charter.(2) The latest budget cuts have cost the ABC approximately 1,000 jobs and are directly responsible for the following programs changes: The loss of golf coverage on ABC television. Reduced budgets for News, Lateline, Four Corners, Landline and Australian Story on ABC television. An increase in the number of repeats on ABC television. Reduced local content on regional radio. The loss of 5 Radio National programs. The proposed expansion of JJJ in country areas has been stopped. Radio Australia is no longer audible in most of Asia. ABC overseas bureaus are in doubt. There are serious doubts about the ABC's capacity, with outdated equipment, to adequately broadcast the Sydney Olympics.(3) Further budget cuts are threatened. The Prime Minister, during the election campaign, refused to guarantee ABC funding.Your petitioners therefore request the House to:(1) Restore ABC funding to 1995-6 levels in line with the policies of three of the major political parties at the last federal election; (2) restore the capacity of Radio Australia by recommissioning the Cox Peninsula transmitters and (3) ensure that the ABC has adequate funds to allow it to digitise its operations and reverse the loss of program content.Mr McGauranXH4Mr McGauran(from 164 citizens)810417FI4Morris Allan MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in parliament:The petition of the undersigned deplores the failure of the Government to appoint a judge, from the Newcastle legal profession, to replace Justice Renaud. We are deeply concerned at the likely delays in dealing with custody and access cases that this will cause.We believe that the profession in Newcastle has lawyers of the calibre required to fill this position and the inference of the failure to appoint is extremely insulting.Your petitioners request the House to strongly support the replacement of the judge at the Newcastle Family Court.Mr Allan MorrisFI4Mr Allan Morris(from 17 citizens)810415FI4Morris Allan MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in parliament:The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House that: access to a modern, technologically current and affordable telephone network is now an important right of every Australian Telstra has a vital role to play in developing and maintaining our national communications infrastructure and electronics industry national interests and objectives can only be properly achieved by Telstra remaining in public ownership for the benefit of all Australians.Your petitioners request the House to oppose the further sale of any part of Telstra.Mr Allan MorrisFI4Mr Allan Morris(from 15 citizens)8104595983ERipoll Bernie MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The undersigned citizens and residents of Australia call on you to:Retain compositional and ingredient requirements for basic items so that meat pies still contain meat and jam contains fruit;Prevent misleading labelling of low fat foods;Keep responsibility for food regulation in the Department of Health;Make no tax changes that discriminate against healthy foods.We are among the big majority (90% plus) of Australians who want all foods accurately labelled. It is our right to make informed choices on what we eat.And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.Mr Ripoll83EMr Ripoll(from 5,959 citizens)810411206J4Sciacca Con MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in parliament:We the residents of Australia call upon the Commonwealth Parliament, without further delay, to direct the Department of Defence to convene a full public Open Board of Inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the death of Senior Cadet Under Officer CLARE FRANCES STOKES at Bulimba Station in far north Queensland on the morning of 20 June 1997.Furthermore, we call upon the Commonwealth Parliament to guarantee this inquiry is fully resourced and supported by the Department of Defence and is free from political interference.We also call upon the Commonwealth Parliament to take whatsoever steps are necessary—including amendment of the Defence Act and other legislation—both to bring all bodies responsible for and/or incorporating cadets within Australia directly under the Department of Defence and to establish clearly the place of cadets within the operational chain of command.Your petitioners humbly pray that the House, with all urgency, will beseech the appropriate authorities of the Commonwealth Parliament to act in accordance with these requests.Mr Sciacca6J4Mr Sciacca(from 1,120 citizens)8105173SU5Vaile Mark MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House that the Honourable John Howard, MP, Prime Minister will meet with Indonesian Government officials on Tuesday, 27 April, 1999, to discuss self-determination in East Timor and other related matters.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House demand that the militia groups be disarmed in East Timor and that there is a withdrawal of Indonesian troops to be replaced by a United Nations peacekeeping force to be present during the process of self-determination in East Timor. Also, that Australian forces be immediately ready to be part of the United Nations force.Mr VaileSU5Mr Vaile(from 173 citizens)81051491VK6Vale Danna MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain residents of the State of New South Wales draws to the attention of the House that in light of the tragic events at Port Arthur there is an urgent need to address the question of access to violent material in the electronic media, including television, film, video, video games and computer games.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House:(1) Revise current censorship classifications to identify more accurately violent material in the electronic media, including television, film, video, video games and computer games. (2) Ensure there are in place appropriate restrictions on the production and importation of violent material destined for the electronic media.(3) Ensure that the national and commercial television broadcasters review and update their current codes of practice in relation to the portrayal of violent material.Mrs ValeVK6Mrs Vale(from 1,491 citizens)8105141VK6Vale Danna MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The Petition of the Citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House that the Australian Embassy is not situated in Israel's capital, Jerusalem, even though this is where the Israeli Government, the Knesset, is located and from where the affairs of the State of Israel are conducted.We bring to your attention to the following facts:Jerusalem has been the spiritual and political capital of only the Jewish people for 3000 years.Since 1967 the Israeli government has demonstrated sensitivity to the concerns and needs of all Jerusalem residents, including arabs calling themselves Palestinians.Israel's Biblical right to Jerusalem as a sovereign capital is by Divine mandate and is secured by God's irrevocable covenant made with Abraham (Gen 12:7 & 8, 15:17-21) and reiterated to Isaac, Jacob, Moses (Lev 26:44-45) (Deut 7:6-9) David (2 Sam 7:12-16) and to Abraham's heirs, (Ps 89:34-37, 105:8-11)Judaism is the only religion in which the city of Jerusalem is an inseparable part of religious faith.Jerusalem is mentioned 800 times in Jewish text and not once in other religious holy books.In accordance with international law, Israel is the only state which can show legal title to Jerusalem having occupied her in an act of self defence against a belligerent aggressor.Your petitioners respectfully urge that the House take immediate steps to establish the Australian Embassy in Israel's capital, Jerusalem.Mrs ValeVK6Mrs Vale(from 141 citizens)810559984GWilkie Kim MPTo the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled.We the undersigned residents of Western Australia urge you to ensure the aircraft noise pollution planned for the suburbs of Queens Park, Cannington East Cannington, Wilson and Ferndale in the city of Canning, Perth, Western Australia does not increase to the unacceptable levels in excess of 25, under the Australian Standard AS2021-1994 as shown on the Map, Figure 12.2 Draft ANEF—Ultimate Capacity, and now forms part of the Westralia Airports Corporation Master Plan submissions currently before the Minister.Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will give this matter earnest consideration and your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray.Mr Wilkie84GMr Wilkie(from 599 citizens)Petitions received.Private Members' Business8106810615:53:008106Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—I move:That the House:(1) recognises the very high and entrenched levels of unemployment that exist within indigenous communities throughout Australia;(2) recognises that fewer indigenous Australians actively participate in the labour market and have lower skill levels compared to the rest of the general population;(3) welcomes the federal Government's specific commitment of $115 million towards tackling unemployment within indigenous communities in Australia; and(4) calls on governments at all levels to work in cooperation with indigenous communities and employers in addressing these critical problems.When Graham Richardson was the health minister in the Keating Labor government, late in January 1994 he went with the 60 Minutes television crew to remote parts of Northern Australia specifically to visit and speak about the problems in indigenous Australia. When he was asked by the 60 Minutes journalist Charles Woolley why after 11 years in government the situation was still so bad, Mr Richardson replied: `I have spent a lifetime reading polls, and concern for Aboriginal people is not in the top million issues worrying the voters.' Therein lies an insightful and significant clue. So often political leaders follow, rather than lead, public opinion. At that time, when I was President of the Australian Medical Association, I endeavoured to do whatever I could with the organisation that I led to make it a political issue.This entire policy area has been characterised by a number of things: by divided re sponsibility, by buck-passing, by limited expertise in policy development, by limited consultation with indigenous Australians and, as a consequence, by poor compliance with programs that were subsequently delivered to them. Indigenous Australians have also seen their culture substantially destroyed, children forcibly removed from parents through at least three, if not four, generations of indigenous Australians and so-called communities artificially created in areas distant from traditional areas, services and regional foci of economic activity.Why then should we have an indigenous employment initiative? When I had the privilege of meeting with the Minister for Employment, Education, Workplace Relations and Small Business in Melbourne with approximately 50 chief executives of some of Australia's largest companies, the CEO of Anglicare said to the assembled meeting in a light-hearted manner: `At some point all of you might need our services, that is, nursing home care, in particular.' I made the point to the meeting in response to his comment that, were it to be a meeting of indigenous Australians, only one in three would live long enough to even be likely to be in need of aged care services, let alone be receiving them.The reason why there needs to be an indigenous employment initiative, as I reminded that meeting and as I remind this House today, is that indigenous Australians born today still have less than a one in three chance of living to the age of 65. If Mrs Hanson and her acolytes are listening to this, I challenge them to go to these places where Aboriginal people live and ask themselves if they would like to change places with them. Aboriginal people today enjoy, if you could describe it as that, life expectancies 15 to 20 years less than will be enjoyed by non-indigenous Australians. That is the same as countries like Haiti, Ghana, India and Papua New Guinea, countries to which we send substantial amounts of aid.We live in a country where we define ourselves through our work. If you do not have a job in Australia you feel that you are of less value to your family and to society than someone who does. Yet indigenous Australians live in an environment in many cases that I would describe as existential despair. Added to that are the problems associated with not having a job. What this country needs, and desperately so, is a deficit reduction strategy on Aboriginal death, intolerance and prejudice. Whatever else we achieve as a nation, if we make no progress in these areas we will have achieved nothing.In 1996 indigenous Australians had an unemployment rate of 23 per cent. If you remove from those figures the Community Development Employment Program and the Work for the Dole program, which 34,000 indigenous Australians work under, the unemployment rate would be closer to 40 per cent. Twenty-eight per cent of indigenous employment is directly in the public sector, compared with 18 per cent for the rest of the work force. One-quarter of those Aboriginal people who work work as labourers and unskilled workers compared with 10 per cent of the rest of the population.Labour market growth is concentrated in the private sector, and it is here where jobs for indigenous people need to be created. I went to one far northern New South Wales town with a population of approximately 12,000 people and not one indigenous Australian was employed in a business in the private sector. Any of those indigenous people who were employed in this town were employed in some kind of government or government related agency. That is an indictment of all of us, not just the business people of this community.The government and, in particular, the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, are to be congratulated for the first substantial instalment in addressing this untenable situation. The minister—along with the Minister for Employment Services, the member for Herbert, some of my colleagues and I—quietly visited remote and regional indigenous communities. We also met with some of Australia's largest employer organisations. I saw the minister listening, looking and asking, as well as feeling the tension in some of the things put to us. He then developed a policy package with his department and indigenous representatives. The policy has three main elements and represents $115 million as a first instalment on a comprehensive employment strategy for indigenous people. It has three essential strands. The first is an Indigenous Employment Program which involves a new program to replace the Indigenous Training Program, otherwise known as TAP. It effectively doubles indigenous specific program funding from $25 million to $50 million.The second strand of the employment initiative is an indigenous small business fund. I am reminded of the recent remarks by Mr Noel Pearson—a prominent and, in my view, a highly respected indigenous leader—who described the parasitic effect of welfare on indigenous Australians. This speech is probably not the place to say it, but I would say that in the end it is welfare that is killing indigenous people.This initiative involves a fund to improve access to business preparation and support. Some $6 million is set aside from the Regional Assistance Program and the Office of Small Business over three years and also another $5 million is to be contributed to ATSIC. In other words, it is trying to assist indigenous people by giving them access to things that many of us take for granted such as the opportunity to establish and develop a small business if you are so inclined.The third part of the strategy is enhancements to the Job Network. These new measures are specific to indigenous job seekers. Job Network for indigenous people will involve smaller catchments. It will also establish indigenous employment specialists—people who specifically find jobs for indigenous people—and will require more providers to include indigenous servicing strategies. The program also includes wage assistance of up to $4,000 for an employer for 26 weeks of full-time employment and eligibility cards are now being issued to indigenous people.It also includes a bonus of $2,000 for each CDEP participant who is placed in a full-time job. Chief executives of a substantial number of organisations have now committed themselves in writing to specific indigenous employment. The CEO of one of Australia's leading banks, whom I spoke to recently about a completely unrelated matter, said, `It was interesting that when I was meeting with the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations he actually asked me how many indigenous people I employ.' In other words, the government and the minister are trying to stimulate the corporate conscience of Australia to see what they are prepared to do to specifically address the indigenous employment situation.We also have structured training and a voluntary service to the Indigenous Communities Foundation which shows teachers, engineers or professional persons of any sort who want to volunteer where to go, how to get there and how to most appropriately volunteer. It is a program which actually provides a means by which the beneficence of people can be applied. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Is the motion seconded?HV5WAKELINMr Wakelin—I second the motion, Mr Deputy Speaker.16:03:008108Zahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA84HMcMillanALP00—In addressing the private member's motion moved by the honourable member for Bradfield, I think it is important to place in context the opposition's response to the indigenous employment initiative. To do that, I will draw on the remarks of the shadow minister for Aboriginal affairs, the member for Banks. On 25 May, the member for Banks, Daryl Melham, said of the Indigenous Employment Program:Can I just say at the outset that Labor welcomes the initiative announced by Peter Reith today. Those initiatives are an acknowledgment that we have had three wasted years from this government on indigenous employment. It is recognition by Peter Reith himself. In his speech today he had this to say. He said that there have been some good things that we can build on. Most of the good things were Labor initiatives.Today's announcement has two initiatives by the government which we welcome—the CDEP initiative and also the voluntary service to Indigenous Communities Foundation. Everything else is a rebadging of Labor programs that we introduced when we were in office. Peter Reith said that he has learned a bit recently, and I think he has. That is why we welcome all of these initiatives today and we welcome a return to a bipartisan approach to Aboriginal unemployment and a bipartisan approach to trying to obtain real full-time employment for indigenous Australians. I think that what we have seen today is a wet Peter Reith and a Peter Reith who has gone out there listening to the community and to indigenous communities.The good thing about today as well is that Aboriginal people were at the table and they have all been involved in this. It is a partnership. That is where the government has failed up until now. That is where the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs deserves condemnation and so does the Prime Minister. Their missionary approach to indigenous affairs for the last three years, their attempt to mainstream everything and to cut and burn and slash ATSIC has been a failure. Minister Reith today basically belled the cat. That is why Labor applauds all the initiatives that he has announced today—all of the initiatives.I stress that we have no criticism of anything that Peter Reith announced today because most of it is a rebadging of what we did. But bear this in mind: it is an admission by Peter Reith that we have had three wasted years under this government.That is what the shadow minister for Aboriginal affairs, Daryl Melham, had to say about the indigenous employment initiative. For my own part, as a new member of this parliament I particularly applaud the role that the member for Bradfield has played in this important issue. I think he has played an important role behind the scenes, quietly listening and supporting the government in the introduction of this employment initiative which we believe so strongly in.Most people in Australia do not understand the significance or the depth of the problem facing Aboriginal Australians with regard to employment. In 1991, indigenous people in work only constituted 37 per cent of all indigenous people in Australia. In 1996, this had increased to only 41 per cent. Indigenous unemployment in Australia is 23 per cent and constitutes a giant 41 per cent of all Aboriginal people if you exclude CDEP participants. This is against a general rate of unemployment of 7.4 per cent in Australia.The problem is enormous and we should not understate or try to diminish how significant the problem we face is. This is why we need a bipartisan, non-political approach to this significant issue. That is why I praise the efforts of the government in this particular regard. As I mentioned, I also applaud the efforts of the member for Bradfield to be bipartisan in his personal approach to dealing with this issue.We owe it to Aboriginal people in our community in Australia to make sure that we put politics to one side and focus on the issue of getting Aboriginal people into work. As everyone would understand, it is only by reducing the gap between the living standards of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people that we can truly achieve reconciliation in this country.As significant a problem as Aboriginal unemployment is, it is not insurmountable. We in this parliament need to understand that a little better. In my own electorate, I have had the good fortune of being involved with the Aboriginal people—the Gunai or Kurnai people—in the Gippsland region. For about 18 months I served as the Chief Executive Officer of the Central Gippsland Aboriginal Health and Housing Cooperative, so I have had a good deal of experience in relation to these issues. It is important to try to place in local context the scale of Aboriginal unemployment. In the Latrobe Valley, if we were able to put some 20 or 30 Aboriginal people into work, nearly every Aboriginal family in the Aboriginal community in the district would benefit. The benefit of those people being in work would be felt by nearly every family in that community. This is significant. If you look at the thousands of people who are in work in the Latrobe Valley or the district, you realise how small a step this would be for us to achieve a significant step in reconciliation with Aboriginal people.We must ensure that every opportunity to lower Aboriginal unemployment is taken up. This is a profoundly important issue that Australia as a nation needs to face up to. The gap between the living standards of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians is enormous. We need to recognise that, in the past, when there has been a great deal of wealth in the Australian community, Aboriginal people have not benefited from that wealth. Looking at my own electorate again, I reflect on the days when the Latrobe Valley was a very wealthy region, that is, when we had a lot of jobs in the Latrobe Valley. But the Aboriginal community in the Latrobe Valley was still impoverished. There was still a very high and significant level of unemployment in the Aboriginal community in the Latrobe Valley. When mainstream Australia and the Latrobe Valley were rich, the Aboriginal community was poor. Now that we in the Latrobe Valley have suffered from a high unemployment rate of 17 per cent for some years, the Aboriginal community is still poor. As a fundamental principle for the development of our region, we need to recognise and accept that, when we improve, when we do get jobs created in the Latrobe Valley, we make sure that we bring the Aboriginal community with us to make sure they benefit from the fruits of employment.Most people recognise that true empowerment comes primarily from employment and from being a part of the mainstream of Australian society. For too long Aboriginal people have been placed at the margins—to one side—of mainstream Australia. It is only by placing Aboriginal people at the centre of our society that we will see significant gains made in reducing the gap in living standards which exists between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians.For my own part, this is something which I am enormously committed to. In the months to come I intend to initiate an Aboriginal employment conference in my electorate to try to alert some of the larger employers in my electorate to some of the opportunities which exist in assistance from government and other training units—such as the good work of the Koorie units at the Central Gippsland Institute of TAFE and the Gippsland campus of Monash University, and the Aboriginal cooperative in Morwell—which can support Aboriginal employees in their various workplaces. Long before this initiative was announced, this was something that we intended to proceed with. Now that this initiative has been announced it is probably even more appropriate that we proceed to bring in the big business sector—and, for that matter, small and medium employers—and set a challenge for them in terms of targets which can be achieved and which will make a significant dent in Aboriginal unemployment in our region.Looking at it on a localised scale, if we brought 40 employers together in Gippsland and set them the target of, over the next six or 12 months, creating jobs for or employing only 40 or 50 people, this would significantly impact on Aboriginal unemployment in our region. This is something which would profoundly change the make-up of Aboriginal employment in the Latrobe Valley. This is what my constituents want to see. They do not want to see Aboriginal people in despair or suffering from poverty and disempowerment. They want to see Aboriginal people given the opportunity to play a constructive role in our community and to be participants in our society.The indigenous employment initiative which the government has announced is the type of initiative which the Labor Party in office would be proud to call its own. It is something which we on this side of the House are profoundly supportive of. This is an issue which must be dealt with in a bipartisan manner. It is important to reflect on this: if the government deals with this issue in a bipartisan manner and puts forward programs which support Aboriginal people, then it can look forward to a great deal of support from me and from every member on this side of the House. That has been shown by the maturity and the support that has been provided by the shadow minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs, Daryl Melham, which I applaud. (Time expired)16:13:008110Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELINHV5GreyLP10—I am pleased to support this motion moved by the member for Bradfield, Dr Nelson, today. I congratulate the member on his commitment to the issues of Aboriginal people throughout Australia. I can well recall the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Dr Wooldridge, shortly after the 1996 election talking about the issues of Aboriginal health in Australia and referring to it as a generational problem. By that he meant that the problems had become so entrenched for so long that we are facing a very long haul to turn the state of health or the quality of physical and mental life of indigenous Australians around. I believe that is the case with unemployment for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities throughout Australia.Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island communities throughout Australia take many forms. They can be in regional centres, remote centres and in isolated communities right out in the middle of Australia that most Australians could only ever imagine. The statistics have been well documented: the 1996 census indicates an unemployment rate for indigenous Australians of 23 per cent. Once you take the Community Development Employment Program into account, you have an unemployment rate of 40 per cent plus.At this point I acknowledge the contribution of the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, Peter Reith, in terms of his Aboriginal employment program. I have had personal experience working with the minister in my own electorate at Port Augusta where there is a significant Aboriginal unemployment issue. He spent a full day working with the community listening, watching—as was indicated earlier—and showing his fully-fledged commitment to this blight on our national economic and social scene. So Peter Reith's commitment and the government's backing of $115 million to specifically address the Aboriginal employment problem are a very welcome contribution.As stated earlier, it is effectively a three-pronged policy: the employment policy, the small business fund and a more focused Job Network. The employment policy itself has seven elements: wage assistance for employers; a placement incentive for community development employment projects; a package involving major private sector companies wishing to recruit; projects providing structured training and employment opportunities for Aboriginal people in the private sector and with Aboriginal community organisations; a voluntary service; a national indigenous cadet program; and a public awareness project aimed specifically at Aboriginal communities, employers and the broader Australian community. The small business fund will be jointly funded by ATSIC to assist new in digenous businesses and to help further develop existing businesses.I share an experience that the member for Herbert, Mr Lindsay, mentioned regarding the visit of the minister, Mr Reith, to Palm Island recently. Palm Island apparently has so much potential and yet so many entrenched problems. The opportunities for employment on Palm Island are extremely limited. Answers to the community's problem have to come from within the community. The Palm Island Council recognises this. Along with the member for Herbert, I welcome Mr Reith's commitment in this area.In terms of a model for the future, the Shalom Christian College is where the students come from very disadvantaged backgrounds and are taught the fundamentals of reading and writing. Every building at the college has been constructed by the young people of the community. It is now at a stage where the construction crews are tendering for contacts out in the private sector. So there is a community that is just starting out and showing great promise as to what can be achieved. That is a basis on which the parliament, beginning with this motion today, can further develop the proposition. (Time expired)16:18:008111Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—I stand today to wholeheartedly support the sentiments put before the House today in the motion moved by the member for Bradfield, Dr Brendan Nelson. Having examined the government's indigenous employment policy that was released recently, it was pleasing to find that some of its initiatives echo previous Australian Labor Party policy.It is heartening to learn that when the government was looking for unemployment solutions and employment strategies it did not just not take the attitude that it knew what was best. Indigenous Australians were involved at the highest levels in advising the government as to what would work and what would not work.The 1996 figures show that the rate of unemployment for indigenous Australians was 23 per cent compared with nine per cent for all Australians. According to the Chairman of ATSIC, Gatjil Djerrkura, it would take around 7,000 new jobs each year for Aboriginal Australians to reach employment equity. And when you have 70 per cent of indigenous employees in the public sector, it is important to ensure private sector jobs are created for indigenous employees.Wage subsidies were originally introduced under Labor's Working Nation program and have been resurrected as part of our indigenous employment policy. I congratulate the government for taking wage subsidies on board as an employment incentive that really works. I believe that the provision of these wage subsidies will certainly improve the employment prospects of indigenous Australians.I now move to the Indigenous Small Business Fund, which I support because it not only assists indigenous Australians in setting up businesses but also encourages these small business owners to employ other indigenous people. It will also support skills development and business prospects by providing services such as mentoring, networking and market development.I particularly commend the government's interest in negotiating links with private companies through the chief executive officers for Indigenous Employment Project. I believe that this project, which aims to create viable, commercially based employment opportunities, has the capacity to be extremely successful. Further, the major companies who are prepared to become involved in the project will be assisted by flexible funding. It is heartening to see that a number of companies are prepared to employ Aboriginal people, who are our nation's most disadvantaged group.The issue of structured training is important, particularly when it is considered that around a quarter of indigenous employees are employed in unskilled labour. We need to ensure that our Aboriginal community has access to skills training so that indigenous Australians can improve their employment prospects. The Training for Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders program is focused on achieving this, particularly in organising indigenous apprenticeships and traineeships.In my electorate of Lowe there are only about 450 indigenous Australians. However, I am committed to ensuring that my constituents have access to these programs.Indigenous Australians have a high susceptibility to disease and a shockingly low life expectancy. Giving indigenous Australians access to wage subsidies and labour market programs, as well as other employment initiatives, is one way to address some of the problems faced by the indigenous community, such as poor health and lack of employment opportunities.In concluding, I would like to take the opportunity to mention national reconciliation, an issue very dear to my heart. It is a fact that more than one million Australians signed the sorry books. We as a nation must be prepared to apologise for the injustices indigenous people have suffered at the hands of earlier generations. I would like to recognise a sorry time in Australia's history and apologise unreservedly for the shameful way Aboriginal people have been treated since white settlement. It is long overdue for the government to do likewise.As the member for McMillan has just said in this House a few moments ago, the ALP would be very proud to call this policy its own. In a spirit of bipartisanship, I commend the motion to the House.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.811216:24:008112Danby, Michael, MPMr DANBYWF6Melbourne PortsALP00—I move:That the House:(1) notes with sadness that 4 June 1999 was the tenth anniversary of the date of the Tiananmen Square massacre;(2) expresses its sympathy to the families of those who died as a result of their participation in the democracy protests of 1989 in the People's Republic of China as well as those who have suffered for their efforts to advance human rights and democratic expression during the past decade; (3) commends citizens of the People's Republic of China who peacefully advocate democracy and human rights; and(4) deplores ongoing human rights abuses in the People's Republic of China and calls on the Government of that country to: (a) re-evaluate the official verdict on 4 June 1989 Tiananmen pro-democracy activities and initiate open investigations on the 4 June event with the goal of providing a complete and accurate account of those events; (b) treat fairly Chinese students who elected to stay in Australia after 4 June 1989 under special temporary visas and who have since returned to their homeland; (c) release all prisoners of conscience, including those still in prison as a result of their participation in the pro-democracy protests of May and June 1989, provide just compensation to the families of those killed in those protests and allow those exiled on account of their activities in 1989 to return and live in freedom in the People's Republic of China; (d) put an end to harassment, detention and imprisonment of Chinese citizens exercising their internationally recognised rights to the freedom of expression, freedom of association and freedom of religion; and (e) proceed quickly to ratify and implement the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which it signed on 5 October 1998.I would like to take this opportunity to speak to the motion before the House, not by reciting the now familiar litany of human rights abuses which characterise contemporary China but rather by attempting in a necessarily limited way to put the issues of democracy in China in a larger perspective: one that speaks to Australia's realistic capacity to influence events; one that assists the average citizen of our democracy to understand some of the issues at stake for Australia; one that speaks to the prospects for a peaceful evolution towards democracy in China; and, not least, a perspective that assists global concern to avoid war and calamity in this region in the coming decades.This year marks the 10th anniversary of the massacre in Tiananmen Square, a blow delivered to both Chinese and global hopes for a peaceful democratic evolution in the world's most populous country. It also marks the year of the 50th anniversary of the Communist takeover of power in China in 1949. I might remind members that 1999 is also something of a historical trifecta. It is now 50 years since the publication of the world's most persuasive diagnosis of the totalitarian experience, George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four. Half a century ago, Orwell penned what is easily the most perceptive analysis of the mind-set of that modern species of political animal for whom the individual has no rights, society no heart and power no limits.With the possible exception of the People's Republic of North Korea, no country in the world today, especially since the demise of the Soviet empire, so completely mimics the detailed characteristics of the Orwellian nightmare state of Oceania than the People's Republic of China. In case the Chinese hierarchy assumes these are but the views of this humble backbencher, let them note that only last week Nineteen Eighty-Four was judged by a leading opinion poll and leading academics in Australia to be the most influential book of the 20th century. While one recognises and welcomes the transition of China's economy from a suffocating command economy to its present rather ramshackle and uneven market economy, with its amazing growth rates and growing opportunity, the fact remains that the colossus of Asia is ruled by an unelected cabal of generally incompetent, overwhelmingly corrupt and deeply heartless men for whom, it would appear at least, no imitation of Stalinist behaviour is too embarrassing.In recent months, particularly in the weeks leading up to the Tiananmen anniversary on 4 June, we have witnessed the relentless intimidation by the agents of `Big Brother' of anyone known to harbour divergent political views, the blacking out of overseas media outlets and forms of transmission, including Internet portals, by Beijing's very own `Ministry of Truth' and the remorseless denigration and gaoling of leading democratic activists, and even members of the meditation movement Falun Gong, by the `thought police'. Most notable for Western interests has been the transparent organisation and manipulation of a `hate week' against the West following the destruction of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, which was no doubt an act of monumental incompetence by NATO but also one that even the dimmest party member must have known was a mistake and not a deliberate act of provocation.Just as that lone figure standing in front of a tank near Tiananmen Square in 1989 has etched itself on the world's consciousness, so too one might contemplate the stunning thought that in a country of over a billion people the only widely noted protest in the precincts of the square on the 10th anniversary was that of a lone man who opened his umbrella, presumably as a symbol of protest, and was swiftly whisked away by the police.The idea of total control of the minds and deeds of over a billion human beings is breathtaking in its ambition and is one for which the communist leadership has striven for 50 years. Tiananmen reminds us that, no matter how pervasive the reach of state control, the human spirit can still break out and individuals are still prepared to risk all for an idea and a dream. We who live in a free society, while constrained as we are by powerful realities of international politics and trade, can hardly do less than support these brave souls and denounce the brutal forces that would crush them.At stake, of course, in this global drama of China's journey since 1949 is not just the question of freedom within China. There is also the threat that the Chinese leadership poses to the rest of the world by its struggle to maintain political control in the face of the inevitable countervailing forces towards greater pluralism and openness implicit in the widening freedoms of the market and the capacity of modern telecommunications—particularly the Internet and satellite TV—to transcend the best efforts of Big Brother and the totalitarian mind to suppress the merest hints of free thought.Information freely disseminated is the oxygen of an open society. It is also the first step to confronting the truth of history. The fact that official China can still not face up to the horrors which they and their predecessors have inflicted on the Chinese people during the last half-century—besides the hundreds of millions of broken lives, we are now informed by serious scholars that some 50 million people have actually lost their lives—says volumes about the bankruptcy of the party and the enormity of the challenge that China's democrats face in the years ahead. Indeed, it is simply inconceivable that China can evolve into a decent place, with the civilities of normal society, unless it plugs the `memory hole' of Orwell's imagination.No doubt there are many people in this chamber on both sides of this House who will say perhaps this is the wrong time to pass on this message, even though what I have said must be obvious to anyone who has followed the history of China without blinkers. I might draw here on the words of Professor Pierre Ryckmans, whose international reputation sits uneasily with the relative neglect that he has had in his adopted country of Australia. In his new book of essays The Angel and the Octopus, Ryckmans writes:The Communist Party is in essence a secret society. In its methods and mentality it presents a striking resemblance to an underworld mob. It fears daylight, feeds on deception and conspiracy, and rules by intimidation and terror.Ryckmans observes that China's regime is `built on a triple foundation: dialectics, the power of the party, and a secret police'. He says Marxism is `merely an optional feature'.To those who say a foreign observer has no right to comment on the actions of such a regime—`Surely,' they argue, `this is us imposing our values on someone else.'—I say that of course we acknowledge the majesty of Chinese culture and its wonderful history. But one must reflect on the fact that in China the regime has never received the electorate's mandate. Prior to its capture of power, the party membership constituted less than 0.01 per cent of the Chinese population. There is of course nothing new in any of this for, as Ryckmans modestly observed in 1989, in the wake of the Tiananmen tragedy:Let us not kid ourselves. The facts which I have been describing during these last twenty years may have been distasteful and unpalatable—they were also public knowledge. They were all too easy to collect. . . The motion before you has as its objective a modest program to respond to the human rights abuses being perpetuated in China and Tibet today, a program that Australia can easily implement without undue cost to its wider interests and one consistent with its own historical commitment to democracy.Besides the specific assistance that Australia can offer to individual dissidents, we should feel it part of our international obligation to the very human rights covenants that China has signed to ensure that our voice in defence of human rights is never muffled at the altar of immediate trade considerations, important as these considerations are to our national interest. We should support China's membership of the World Trade Organisation precisely because we hope that this constructive engagement will enable us not just to trade with Beijing but also, through the spread of technology and enhanced political leverage, to improve human rights in China. Besides the proposals itemised in this motion, I would also suggest that our government provide particular assistance to proponents of free trade unionism in China. That is something that probably will not go down well with the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business but, given the history of Poland, that would probably be most valuable. We should note one of the factors immediately preceding the crackdown on protesters in 1989 was the formation of the Beijing Workers' Autonomous Federation on 17 April 1989, the first free trade union in China since the communist takeover in 1949. In 1989 many of these brave workers—as were hundreds of thousands of other people—were imprisoned in China's own gulag, which they call the loagai.Finally, on a similar practical plane, I would like to conclude by saying that perhaps the re-expansion of the role of Radio Australia, a public institution that has probably done more to foster democratic values in our region than any other, would be a good idea. Fidelity to, and the broadcast of, objective truth has—as Orwell so eloquently observed—no equal in the great global contest with the totalitarian mind. The cost of such an enterprise for Australia is modest but the returns to our country in future years, as China frees itself from its dark journey since 1949, are incalculable.8T4FERGUSONMr Laurie Ferguson—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.16:34:008115Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUSCU4HindmarshLP10—As the member for Melbourne Ports has mentioned, 331 Chinese people—mainly students—were tragically killed in Tiananmen Square on 4 June 1989 while taking part in a pro-democracy protest. There is some discussion about those figures but they were the official figures given by the Chinese government; I believe other estimates are larger. In Australia we were appalled that people could lose their lives simply for assembling legitimately to seek change in a political system and the reduction of corruption. The Australian government, in response, allowed 30,000 Chinese people who had come to Australia as students to remain in Australia because they felt that they may be in danger if they returned home. Many of those students still stay with us and are now very valued Australian citizens. Ten years on, the events at Tiananmen Square still stay with us, reflecting our very strong belief that all people have the right to demonstrate peacefully without being afraid that they are going to be killed by government, injured or put in prison.We share the sadness of the member for Melbourne Ports in noting the 10th anniversary of Tiananmen Square and join him in sending our sympathy to the families of those who died and suffered on that date. We acknowledge that the measures the member opposite has called for are worth while and that the motion is put forth in good faith and with genuine concern for the people of China. However, China is a sovereign country. Australia does not like to be told what to do by other countries. We do not like to be told what to do on the environment, about the treatment of our indigenous people or indeed about any other issue.China is an extremely proud country with a written history hundreds of centuries longer than that of Australia. Like Australia and Australians, neither the government nor the people of China respond positively to being told what to do by the people or the politi cians of another country. While lecturing from afar may appease our own consciences and make us feel good, I suspect that does little to encourage real change in China and indeed may be counter-productive. All members in this House would share the desire of the member for Melbourne Ports for the People's Republic of China to improve its human rights record. However, as I have indicated before, there are preferable ways than through a direct condemnation by this parliament. The best way to effect an improvement in the human rights of the Chinese people is to build on our deepening relationship with China. We do this by engaging the Chinese government and its agencies in a constructive dialogue.To this end, in 1997 the Howard government established the annual bilateral human rights dialogue with China. Doing so puts human rights squarely on the agenda of our relationship with China. Alongside security, trade and culture, our dialogue with Chinese leaders includes discussions about the rights of individuals to voice their opinions without fear of imprisonment, injury or death.Australians tend to respect traditions of other countries and will go out of their way not to offend in meetings between individuals. However, along with other Western countries, we tend to believe our human rights values are the fundamental ones and, as such, should always be the norm of other countries, despite their history and their culture. But the rights of individuals to protest are not as clearly a part of the culture of non-Western countries as they are of our own. Countries that are geographically close to Australia often put more emphasis on community agreement than individual rights to minimise both social disruption and conflict.Acknowledging this cultural and political difference does not in any way lessen our horror at deaths and injuries that occur at peaceful protests such as Tiananmen Square. However, it does mean that we must be aware that countries do have, and do come from, different value systems. In addressing human rights issues, we are better served by working through their value systems rather than by simply imposing our own systems because `we know that they are right.' The dialogue the Australian government is having with China, along with parallel dialogues pursued by other countries, is contributing to a gradual improvement, though perhaps not as fast as we would like, in human rights in China.The second meeting of the Australia-Chinese human rights dialogue was held in August 1998. It brought together Chinese and Australian government officials and representatives from the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission to discuss domestic, regional and international human rights issues. Working with China, and through official protests about human rights violations, we are making practical, positive and real steps in human rights. Positive practical outcomes include a human rights technical assistance program worth close to $1 million a year. Because of the relationship Australia has built with China, there are now programs in place in China that promote women's and children's rights, that train judges and officials in the legal system and that develop expertise in the field of international human rights.The Howard government has put in place arrangements for short-term study awards. These awards allow Chinese officials to attend courses on human rights at Australian universities. A program has been established to ensure that significant works published in Australia on human rights are translated into Chinese and that similar works from China are translated into English and are available in Australia. Through all these practical programs we engage the Chinese government at a senior level on the details of our human rights concerns. The rapport that we have been able to build with China through this dialogue has given us a little more influence in China than we could ever achieve by lecturing from afar.As I have indicated before, this is not to say that Australia will remain silent on human rights abuses or that Australia will fail to speak up on behalf of all people who suffer unjustly at the hands of their governments. The Australian government reserves its right to make direct representation to all countries about reports of human rights abuses, including China. Change is rarely rapid, and in the case of China we do not, and cannot, expect overnight change. There will be setbacks but, when they happen, Australia will not fail to protest.Since December last year we have made repeated representations to Beijing about the detainment of hundreds of members of the China Democratic Party. We did so again on Friday, 6 August about the very severe sentence given to two of the leaders of that movement. We have also made our concerns very clear about the banning of the Falungong. These issues, along with human rights issues, will be on the agenda at this year's human rights dialogue in Beijing and Qinghai Province. From 16 to 21 August our eight-member delegation, led by the Deputy Secretary to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, will carry our concerns and the concerns of all Australians directly to the Chinese government. Professor Alice Tay, the President of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and a renowned authority on human rights law, will bring her expertise to the delegation. For the first time, a member of parliament, Mr Nugent, will be on the delegation in recognition of the strength of Australia's parliamentary and community interest in human rights in China.I thank the member opposite for bringing this motion before the House today. It is an important motion and, in the main, we agree with the sentiments it expresses and the points that he has made, but I would caution him that condemnation of China from a distance by other parliaments may not be the best way to achieve the positive results that all of us would wish for.16:43:008116Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON8T4ReidALP00—Whilst not being as enamoured with the market changes in China as the mover of the original motion—in fact, some of those market changes essentially led to the Chinese government and the people's army flogging off their work force to South Korean corporations for the lowest possible wages—I very much, in a less qualified manner than the previous speaker, support this motion. I think it is very interesting to look at the pragmatic effect of government upon people and the degree to which trade considerations colour people's determination about human rights issues.If it is very easy in Australia to condemn the Chinese administration's human rights abuses, it is far easier to attack the human rights abuses in pariah states such as Iran, Afghanistan and North Korea than it is to perhaps tackle issues in China in a more determined fashion. I think that, despite this talk of meeting with the Chinese government—trying to work them through, et cetera—the evidence today is somewhat different.I refer to an editorial in the Manchester Guardian, a liberal progressive newspaper, which said on the anniversary:What is striking on this anniversary is not the by-now-familiar history of that horrible event, but the regime's continuing inability to face that history.I will, unlike the previous member, catalogue some instances of individual human rights abuses which go to show that all the talk in the world is not having much impact on the Chinese administration. The Chinese administration claim that they cannot find Wang Weilin—the person who was shown on international television at the time standing in front of a tank—in the morgues, the cemeteries, the computer registers or the prisons of the country.In the case of Fang Zheng, who has been in a wheelchair since a People's Liberation Army tank ran over his legs, the government, when they became aware of the reason why he was in a wheelchair, went so far as to say that he could not represent the Chinese nation in international disabled sporting events. Li Hai received a four-year prison sentence because he committed the monstrous crime of collecting data on the 800 people who were punished as a result of those events. He was charged with `hooliganism' in 1995 and in 1996 with `prying into high-level state secrets'. He received nine years for prying into state secrets about the fate of people who were punished. Yu Dongyue and others who were guilty of the horrific offence of throwing eggs at Mao's portrait in Tiananmen Square received sentences of 16 to 20 years.Whilst of course we do not want to adopt a hectoring style with China, we cannot for a moment imagine that simply bringing people to Australia to listen to a few lectures on human rights is necessarily going to solve the situation. Amnesty International are also somewhat critical. In their latest country report, they said of the visits in recent years of Mary Robinson and Bill Clinton that they `highlighted the authorities' growing but limited willingness to discuss human rights, as well as continuing violations'. Their account of the year showed that the attack on human rights in China is multifaceted.There have been a significant number of detentions of the Uighur people, Tibetans, trade union officials and poets. One poet was reportedly sentenced in November last year to seven years imprisonment for subversion. A businessman from the same area who is a friend of the poet and a rock singer who is a brother of one of the poets were also detained and accused of divulging state secrets. A labour rights activist from Hunan, Zhang Shanguang, was detained in July after trying to set up a group to help laid-off workers. Unfortunately, there is a bit too much tempering of our attitudes by an overconcern with trade considerations and with the fact that we would not want to offend such an expanding market for our products. I commend the motion very strongly.16:48:008117Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—I thank the member for Reid for his forthright statements. It is typical of the member to come forward and make forthright statements in this House. It must have distressed him greatly to see the Australian Labor Party, when in office, rush to endorse and embrace China—with the trips of Whitlam, Hawke and others—in those early days and to set aside all of the problems of the past.I join the member for Reid in the condemnation of the Tiananmen Square massacre. I believe that Australia needs to keep putting forward our view on human rights, and to do it strongly with every regime and at every opportunity we have. But, as members have said, we have to balance practicalities against the achievable. We can hold strong views in this parliament and express them strongly, and that is our right. Governments, however, have to manage situations. It does not matter whether it is the Australian Labor Party making friends quickly with China or whether it is Australian governments trading and building up a rapport and hoping, by a practical process, to achieve results, if one were to weigh one process of government against the other, one would have to say the Labor Party adopted an ad hoc approach to China. There is a planned approach from the current government. A process of strong statement and protest has been necessary in the last few days from the Australian government to highlight action on human rights in China, but the process has been of building strength and education as well. It is only through that double process, I believe, that we are going to achieve practical results.But, here in this parliament, let us just state our concerns about the activities of the government of China and their failure to meet human rights targets. It has been a successive concern of American and Australian governments that, following the events in Tiananmen Square, little change appears to have taken place. There has been gradual change but not to the extent that anybody here would want. I thank the member for Melbourne Ports for bringing forward his timely motion to the House. The motion proposes a range of activities. Some of these activities are, I think, reasonable, but I do not know whether any mistreatment of Chinese students who elected to stay in Australia and subsequently returned to China is a matter of concern or not. I have not noted any reports that it is a matter of concern. I think they returned to their original country in a free and open way and appreciated their stay in Australia. Not all of them were official refugees. With regard to prisoners of conscience, I have for a long time, here in this parliament and outside this parliament, been a strong supporter of the people of Tibet. In considering that country, one cannot help but express concern about the Sinoisation of Tibet.There are a number of factors which may colour one's views in this debate, but I do believe that the repeated representations to Beijing about the Chinese Democratic Party in December last year from this government have been useful and well timed, the last one being on 6 August, last Friday, about the very severe sentence given to two of the party's leaders. I think that is good timing and were good actions on the part of this government.The concerns we have expressed about the banning of union activity and processes have led to the appointment of this eight-member delegation, led by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Deputy Secretary, taking these and other human rights issues to Beijing, departing on 16 August. Mr Nugent is a member of that group. To have somebody from this parliament with a proven background and record in human rights and a concern for reconciliation as Peter Nugent has is a valuable process and one that ought to be endorsed by all sides.The ad hoc approach of Labor Party governments has been replaced by a more planned and measured approach—one of rapprochement tempered with criticism and a statement of our deep concern where there has been a denial of human rights. Professor Alice Tay, President of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, is going to be a part of that delegation leaving for China and will also be a valuable additional impetus to the Chinese. There is no doubt that any observer of Australian politics will recognise the message that the Australian government is giving to the Chinese government by this delegation. I understand the delegation is to leave within a few days, and I know that members of the Australian parliament will want to wish every member well.Peter Nugent has had considerable experience in the Middle East and for some time was based in Singapore. His current knowledge of China and the affairs of Asia, his political involvement over a long period of time and his strong views on democratic representation will make him particularly relevant in that delegation. Democratic representation within the process that we have in Australia is one that is not understood in China. I know that Peter Nugent, above all others, will be compelling and strong and will not be pushed off his target when he expresses the views of this parliament. I am sure that he will read these debates. I would be surprised if he was not going to take with him for presentation to those people he meets bound copies of today's speeches and the motion moved by my honourable friend.It is all very well to stand here and throw rocks at the Chinese government, but at the end of the day we have to translate that concern into practical programs. That is what this government is doing, and I endorse the actions of the government.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Condolences81198119Consideration resumed.Question resolved in the affirmative, honourable members standing in their places.8119Consideration resumed.Question resolved in the affirmative, honourable members standing in their places.8119Consideration resumed.16:57:008119Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—I would be remiss if I did not make some remarks on the death of my dear friend Kevin Newman. I campaigned for that man in the Bass by-election and enjoyed his company from the moment I met him. His feisty attitudes, and his clear, glinting, blue eyes, which looked directly in your face, were features of the man's character.On his arrival in Canberra, his military experience, together with his great sense of humour, endeared him to members on both sides of the parliament. In particular, I remember the periods of working with him developing housing policies and policies in regard to the environment. Kevin was always a person who was willing to accept a massive challenge. New ideas and new ways of doing things always excited him.He was, I believe, one of the people who handled with great care and with great quality the difficult tasks given to him by the Prime Minister of the day. The Liberal Party was not known in those days for its care for the environment and was reluctant to develop non-market approaches to housing. Kevin Newman successfully tackled both of these issues and did it with good humour. He carried a severe load during that period.I wish to convey to Jocelyn, also a dear friend whom I met at that time, the sincere condolences of our family to their family. I will always remember his wonderful character, his smile and that clear look in his eyes. The fact that I was able to join the family at the remembrance ceremony and funeral here in Canberra will always be a memory too.16:59:008119O'Byrne, MichelleMs O'BYRNE84SBassALP00—As the member who now holds the seat once held by Kevin Newman, it is appropriate that I mention a few words and support the Prime Minister's motion of condolence. Kevin Newman held the seat of Bass for nine years. In this time he worked tirelessly for Bass. As a federal minister, he held a number of portfolios. He has been described as a tenacious man who went in hard for the people of Bass. After he was elected in 1975, he earned great respect for following through promises and helped oversee projects such as the Australian Maritime College, Launceston General Hospital and the Albert Hall Convention Centre, as well as driving the push for freight equalisation.After leaving the federal arena, he continued his commitment to local issues and organisations. He was involved in many local groups, including the National Trust, the Launceston General Hospital Board, the Tasmanian Committee of Nurse Education and the Menzies Centre for Population Health Research Foundation. His contribution to these and other community groups was highly respected by all sectors of the community. They are also a fine example of his commitment, often during times of ill health, to the further development of our community.I wish to pass on to Senator Newman my condolences for the loss of her long-time friend and partner. Kevin Newman will be remembered by the people of Bass as a distinguished parliamentarian and also as a man who was known to the ordinary person in the street. His passing was a great loss to the community and he will be missed.Question resolved in the affirmative, honourable members standing in their places.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—I thank the House.Business8120812017:01:008120Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—I move:That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Brisbane moving forthwith that the House:(1) condemns the government for its failure to protect workers' legally accrued entitlements and its continued obstruction in not permitting Labor's private members bills on this issue to be debated;(2) condemns the Prime Minister for his continued support of the immoral practice by which employers use employee entitlements for day-to-day cash flow and investments as if these workers funds were an unsecured interest free loan to their employers;(3) notes in particular the Prime Minister's defence of this practice in a radio interview with Alan Jones in which he said: `But the point I am making is that in reality, because of cash flow needs, many firms actually use this money for the day-to-day operation'; and(4) calls for orders of the day, private members' business, Nos. 19 and 27, standing in the names of the member for Brisbane and the member for Prospect respectively, to be brought on forthwith, with a view to dealing with the issue of protecting employees' accrued entitlements without further delay.The government has failed to take on board the very serious concerns of Australia's workers who find themselves increasingly exposed not just to insecure employment but to the likelihood that, should their company cease to have the funds to—Motion (by Mr Bruce Scott) put:That the member be not further heard.The House divided. [5.08 p.m.](Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr H.A. Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 —— Voting lists are recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Question so resolved in the affirmative.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Is the motion seconded?17:12:008120Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—I second the motion. The Prime Minister and every member of the government stands condemned—Motion (by Mr Bruce Scott) put:That the member be not further heard.The House divided. [5.13 p.m.](Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr H.A. Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 —— Voting lists are recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Question so resolved in the affirmative.Original question put: That the motion (Mr Bevis's) be agreed to. The House divided. [5.18 p.m.](Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr H.A. Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 ——Voting lists are recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Question so resolved in the negative.Grievance Debate8120Question proposed:That grievances be noted. 812117:24:008121Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—I speak today on the issue of Australian broadcasting regulation. During the adjournment debate on 21 June 1999 I expressed my grave concern for the future of our great national public broadcaster, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. I also mentioned the enormous financial pressure the ABC is under at the moment, with the government's $55 million cut to its annual appropriation since 1997 and the further pressure for the ABC to sell off its Gore Hill television site to fund the cost of conversion to digital broadcasting. Moreover, I said that, if the ABC is further marginalised by this government and media ownership rules are changed through the Productivity Commission inquiry, great damage will be done to media diversity.Today I again stand up for the ABC and salute the great work of its without fear or favour programs, including the Media Watch revelations regarding money for comment or indeed opinion within the commercial radio industry. Not only did these revelations highlight the lack of ethics in the media; they raised genuine concerns regarding the corporate world—the other party to these shameful business deals. It was and is in the public interest that these deals were and continue to be exposed and that we are all made aware of how naive many of us have been. In other words, it raises the question: who is in bed with whom?The recent exposure of the Laws affair by the ABC's Media Watch program must surely rank as one of the greatest victories for the public interest over commercial interests. Moreover, these revelations, which have flowed since the exposure of the Laws' deal with the banks, raise very serious ethical issues. For example, how do you draw the distinction between advertising and editorialising? Suffice to say, those who have leapt to the defence of Mr Laws and attacked the ABC have proved themselves to be blinded by error.In the ongoing saga a reasonable person may ask: what other commercial deals have been struck to influence and manipulate public opinion? This raises the fundamental issue of business ethics, in particular the role of the banking industry in this scandal. At a time when the banks' customers are being punished by reduced services, slugged by increased bank fees and charges, disadvantaged by branch closures and massive staff retrenchments, the bank executives reward themselves with huge salary packages and post record profits, to the delight of the shareholders. Meanwhile, the banking industry's $1.2 million deal with Mr Laws mocks the community. It is a flagrant violation of every ethical standard. It is, however, shamefully consistent with their prior conduct in other matters.Let us look at their deal with the Law Society of New South Wales. The Australian Financial Review of July 1999 notes that `since 1984 the banks have paid an estimated $300 million to the society as "interest" or "gratuitous payments".' Little wonder the Australian Bankers Association is only now reviewing its policy as a lobby group and seeking new options to repair the banking industry's tattered reputation following the cancellation of the $1.2 million contract with the radio identity. I fully endorse the Australian Broadcasting Authority's announcement to broaden its inquiry to include Radio 5AD Broadcasting Pty Ltd and Radio 6PR Southern State Broadcasters Pty Ltd. I must quote part of the terms of reference of Professor David Flint's ABA hearing, for it is of critical importance to the public interest:The Broadcasting Services Act 1992 includes, within its objects, to encourage providers of commercial broadcasting services to be responsive to the need for fair and accurate coverage of matters of public interest and to encourage providers of broadcasting services to respect community standards in the provision of program material.That is what the ABA hearing is all about—protecting the public interest. That is not to say that the ethics violated here are defined merely in the act itself. But even the act has specifically identified the fundamental necessity for fair and accurate coverage of matters of public interest.This is the banking industry's most public crisis. However, it is not merely banks that fall into the trap. This fiasco, I suspect, is also operating in other industries and with other high profile media broadcasters. The Americans call it payola; we call it pay for comment. A secret arrangement involving the Australian Bankers Association and Mr Laws is now exposed. The banks wanted to buy editorial comment in their favour. Mr Laws appeared to have wanted cash. Both entered into the agreement privately. This is a contemptible arrangement. I fully agree with my leader, the Hon. Kim Beazley, calling on corporations to come clean on their involvement with advertising or sponsorship schemes that could be unethical and urging them to disclose their interests now.This banking dishonour is now an obvious example of a much wider scandalous practice. The banks' credit rating is zero. The major insurance houses and other corporations from the big business world have been courting and buying off the media for years. Not a day goes by without startling revelations of more deals, scandals and controversy. I fully agree with the comments of Dr Simon Longstaff, the Executive Director of the St James Ethics Centre, who is quoted in the Australian on 27 July 1999 as follows:Walk into any organisation where a serious ethical breach has occurred and ask people to explain why things happen the way they do, and you will almost certainly encounter two dominant responses, `Well, everybody does it—don't they?' or `That's just the way we do things around here'.Dr Longstaff sends this chilling warning:Unthinking custom and practice is a recipe for disaster—not least because it means that people tend to operate on automatic pilot, failing to recognise or respond to the changing world around them. The antidote is to create an environment where people reflect on their conduct and act according to a well informed conscience.The banks and the business world as a whole have lost the plot. So, too, have the media. They have fallen into the error of invincible ignorance. They do not know that they do not know. They are so blinded by error that they can no longer even see how disastrous—to use Dr Longstaff's description—their `policies' are. The banks have manipulated public interest, they have bought favours and they have disguised their commercial interests under a cloak of media independence. They are liars, they are cheats, they are dishonest and they must be made accountable.If a member of parliament has a pecuniary interest, he or she must declare it. A legal practitioner in New South Wales must abide by strict statutory and other rules or face professional misconduct proceedings. The same goes for doctors. In light of the recent revelations, public broadcasters and the corporate world should be made to fully disclose their financial deals. What a time for these revelations to occur in light of the Productivity Commission's inquiry. I will conclude by saying something about this inquiry, which is expected to bring down its findings on broadcasting legislation next month.I refer to the Productivity Commission Act 1998 and the Treasurer's terms of reference in relation to the Productivity Commission's inquiry into broadcasting legislation. I urge every member of this House to read section 6 of the Productivity Commission Act 1998, which deals with the functions of the commission. I also urge every member to read paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Treasurer's terms of reference for the inquiry into broadcasting legislation. When you read section 6 of the Productivity Commission Act 1998, clearly you have to ask why the Treasurer has chosen this body to conduct this very important inquiry. The concept of productivity just seems to get wider by the minute.Broadcast and Hansard reports from this parliament reach a very small audience. Most people are dependent on media reports for information about what goes on in this House and about the actions and policies of the government. The media play a crucial role in fairly and accurately reporting the work of the parliament in conformance with the Broadcasting Services Act. The media are central to our democracy and to the public interest.Let us look at the facts. We enter the new decade with two dominating media forces, Mr Packer and Mr Murdoch. The Treasurer's terms of reference sound good until we face the grim reality that there are no real competitors in the race for digital broadcasting. Realistically, who could afford the infrastructure investment necessary to set up a digital grid of television, Internet and cable television to compete against the existing media forces? Who has that sort of money? It has taken the current players, with their enormous financial resources and clout, years to prepare for this phase of broadcasting.The Productivity Commission has been issued with terms of reference by the Treasurer which have wrongly set it up as a Star Chamber to hang the public interest. In the Treasurer's press release No. 12 of 4 March 1999, he says:This review does not signal any change to the government's media policies including those regarding cross-media ownership and Australia's digital transition.What sophistry. The Treasurer must think we are all fools. The Treasurer's press release flies in the face of his own terms of reference to the Productivity Commission's inquiry on broadcasting legislation. The Productivity Commission is directed to do the following:. . . determine a preferred option for regulation, if any, in light of objectives set out in the terms of reference, which includes, inter alia , practical courses of action to improve competition efficiency and the interests of consumers in broadcasting services.What are we hearing about that inquiry from the submissions of the commercial interests? I will tell you. In a climate of obfuscation they want to change the rules to increase their power, their control over us, the parliament, and maintain profits—all at great cost to media diversity and, thus, to the public interest. The Productivity Commission is plainly being manipulated in a way that will guarantee a two-airline policy for the broadcasting industry, locking other potential significant players out of the market. The inquiry should be looking at what we can do to increase media diversity, not ensuring greater concentration of effective duopolistic control. In light of the failure of self-regulation, I urge this parliament to support a policy of co-regulation of the media, thus ensuring adequate protection of the public interest.812317:33:008123Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—When preparing for this grievance debate, gathering some ideas some three months ago, my original intention was to highlight my concerns about the lack of publicity and lack of community involvement in the Sydney 2000 Paralympic Games. Since that time, many of my fears have been allayed by an extensive community involvement program and a great deal more publicity for the Paralympics—but there is still much that has to be done. A great deal more community involvement is needed to ensure that the Paralympics are a great success.Most Australians would know that the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games will start on Friday, 15 September. This is an exciting and challenging time for New South Wales and for all of Australia. The Olympic Games provides a showcase, unlike any other throughout the world, to allow the rest of the world to see what Australia can do and what Australia is all about. Some 10,200 athletes will be at the Olympic Games, with 5,000 officials and coaches. Between 198 and 200 countries will be participating in 28 different sports. An incredible number of media people will be involved in the Olympics—some 15,000—and the expected number of spectators is 5.5 million. More importantly, the Sydney Olympics will be viewed by a worldwide TV audience of 3.5 billion people.Anyone driving past the Olympics site at the moment would see that building is now nearing completion and the final preparations are well in hand for a very successful Sydney 2000 Olympic Games. But in reality the Sydney 2000 Games are really just a preparation, a trial run, for the Sydney 2000 Paralympic Games. Obviously, if everything runs well and runs smoothly for the Olympics—as we know it will—we will know that everything will then run well at the Paralympic Games.It is vital that the Paralympic Games are as successful and as well attended as the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games because it is the Paralympic Games that will leave the final impression on the world. The closing ceremony of the Paralympic Games is in fact the closing ceremony of the Olympic celebrations for Sydney and for Australia. Some 4,000 athletes, 2,000 officials and coaches and 125 countries in 18 sports, 14 of which are full Olympic sports, will be participating in the Paralympics. Between 1,300 and 2,000 members of the media will be there. It is anticipated that there will be over one million spectators at the Paralympic Games.The Paralympic Games are the next largest sporting event—in terms of the number of countries involved—after the Olympic Games. With the 120 countries involved, they are bigger than the Nagano Winter Olympic Games and the 1972 Munich Olympic Games. They will be bigger than the Kuala Lumpur Commonwealth Games and the 1998 Soccer World Cup. They will even be bigger than the 1956 Olympic Games that were held in Melbourne.The federal government has also played its part in assisting with the Paralympic Games. This assistance includes legislative protection of the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games words and symbols and assistance with environmental issues, drug testing, revenue forgone through the GST exemption, security, immigration, customs, quarantine, health care—including access to Medicare—production of commemorative coins, communications, international air transport and promotion of Australia overseas.The Australian Sports Commission has funded the Paralympic preparation program for athletes to undertake high level training. Australian Paralympians are among the best in the world, and I am sure that all Australians will remember that they came second in the world at the Atlanta Paralympics, second only to the US. In addition to that, on 28 July the Prime Minister announced that the Commonwealth government is contributing a guarantee—of up to $25 million—of half the expected operating deficit, providing almost $5.5 million towards the preparations of Paralympic athletes and meeting the GST liability on the Paralympic ticket sales—an estimated cost of $1.6 million. I am also personally delighted that the Prime Minister has accepted the invitation to officially open the Sydney Paralympic Games on 18 October next year. I should remember that date because it is the day after my 25th wedding anniversary. I have no excuse.The Paralympic torch relay route was announced by the Prime Minister on 28 July at Parliament House. I urge all Australians, particularly those in New South Wales—and elsewhere throughout Australia, as I now know that the Paralympic torch is visiting not only New South Wales but also other states of Australia—to find out where the Paralympic torch is visiting to ensure that they support and encourage the Paralympians by cheering on the passage of the Paralympic torch. In my own area on the central coast, there was some concern, which I supported, that while the Paralympic torch was visiting Gosford—and in fact staying overnight at the new Grahame Park Stadium—it was not visiting the Woy Woy peninsula area of my electorate, which because of its geographical isolation often misses out on major events. I am pleased to note that the Paralympic torch will be going through the Woy Woy peninsula area and it is a fantastic opportunity for all those residents of the peninsula area to become personally involved and to become part of the Olympic story by supporting the Paralympic torch.The challenge now is not the organisation of the Paralympic Games. The challenge for all Australians is to support and attend the Paralympic Games. I have no doubt that every seat for the Olympic Games will be sold, every seat will be filled. But I want to see every seat at the Paralympic Games filled as well, because the Paralympic athletes are truly remarkable people. The Australians who will be competing in those games have in many cases overcome what to many of us would be insurmountable obstacles to reach the pinnacle of their sporting careers. They are truly great Australians and each and every one of them deserves our full and wholehearted support, which we can show by attending these games.There are people like Sue-Ellen Lovett, whom I have known for most of my life. She is a blind equestrian who has dedicated the last 10 years of her life to fundraising, not only for the Paralympic Games. She has recently completed another epic ride from Brisbane to Sydney. Last year she rode from Melbourne to Sydney—and called in to Canberra—through some atrocious weather conditions to highlight the Paralympic Games and to raise funds for the athletes.There are people like Louise Sauvage, world No. 1 track and road racer who recently raced into the hearts and minds of Australians during April with her third consecutive win in the Boston marathon. There are athletes who are sometimes less well known, such as Melissa Wilson, an 18-year-old person who suffered traumatic brain injury after being hit by a car. Despite those injuries she has become a world-class swimmer. Melissa was only 11 when she was knocked from her bike while crossing at an intersection, and she was in a coma for over four months. She had to learn to do everything again. Her rehabilitation is a continuous process and she recently spoke as an ambassador for the Paralympics at the Mingara Club on the central coast of New South Wales, accompanied by Lois Appleby. Melissa's story, which she related to us at Mingara on that night, basically made sure that there was not a dry eye amongst the audience. From being able to float in water five years ago, Melissa now swims 25 kilometres a week and has racked up a formidable national and international record. She also speaks on behalf of the Motor Accident Authority as one of their athlete ambassadors.Just a small quote from Melissa sums up, I am sure, the attitude of every Paralympian in Australia. She said on that night:I promise to swim the race of my life and I would love to look up after my race and see you all in the stands cheering me on.That, I am sure, is the wish of every Paralympian, to be able to look up in the stands and see those stands full of cheering Australians, proud of the magnificent efforts of the Australian Paralympians.There is no excuse whatsoever for those stands not being full. The Paralympic organising committee have organised a unique Paralympic day pass. Just one ticket is valid for up to 14 different sports on any one day. The cost of that ticket is just $15, or only $8 for a school child or a concession ticket. That $15 includes free entertainment, festivities, cultural events and exhibitions to make it a day out you will never forget. I know there are thousands of organisations and groups throughout New South Wales and Australia that are always looking for days out at reasonable value. I challenge all those groups—the pensioner groups, Rotary groups, Lions Clubs, school groups, P&Cs, social clubs, bridge players, sporting groups—to organise a coach to come down to the Paralympics. There are group advance purchase forms. If you purchase more than 100 tickets you will get the benefit of an extra 10 tickets for no cost.I congratulate the Prime Minister and the federal Minister for Sport and Tourism for the government's initiative in providing specialist assistance to ensure the attendance of a large number of school children from all over Australia. That will mean that up to 40,000 school children will receive assistance to come to the Paralympics. I challenge each federal member to ensure that they publicise the Paralympics and get as many people, particularly from New South Wales, as they can to come and see what the Paralympians can do. It is a marvellous sporting event. It is something that the Paralympians deserve. They deserve our support and I am sure everyone will be there.812517:44:008125Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JENKINSHH4ScullinALP00—In the dying days of the last session of parliament before the break, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1999 passed through both houses. It is on that basis that today I grieve for the natural environment of Australia. Since coming to office in 1996, the Howard government has slashed funding for the environment, broken promises about additional environment funding, and has now handed much of the responsibility for the environment over to the states and territories. During the 1996 election campaign, the coalition linked the sale of one-third of Telstra to the Natural Heritage Trust, but Australians were later to discover that it was not the case that the Natural Heritage Trust funding was extra funding—to a large extent it replaced ordinary environment portfolio expenditure slashed in federal budgets. The situation now exists where the Natural Heritage Trust is the only significant source of Commonwealth environment funding. But, as I have said, it is not additional as promised; it is a substitute for funding that already existed as part of the Commonwealth's normal budgetary processes.From this first betrayal of the environment, the record of the Howard government has not improved. The Howard government has taken an irresponsible stand on greenhouse emissions which put Australia out of step with other Western countries and destroyed Australia's reputation as a world leader in environmental policy. The Howard government supports uranium mining at Kakadu National Park, one of the most pristine and sensitive areas of this nation. It does so, despite there being serious deficiencies in the assessment report on the Jabiluka mine.As I stated from the outset, before the winter recess the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1999 was passed. The new legislation refers to `matters of national environmental significance in which the Commonwealth will intervene'. All those matters that are not listed are handed over to the states and territories. The problems with this approach are many and varied. The environment requires an integrated national approach to deal with issues such as greenhouse gas emissions. I quote from an article today in the Australian which indicated, regarding greenhouse emissions:Australia faces a "formidable challenge" to meet the cuts in greenhouse emissions agreed under the Kyoto climate change treaty, a confidential government report says.We have to remember that this is in the context that at Kyoto Australia achieved considerable conditions that were favourable on the basis of our high usage of fossil fuels. I quote again from the article in this morning's newspaper regarding the challenge:"However, even this will be a formidable challenge, requiring a cut of 25 per cent, or some 100 million tonnes . . .That challenge was the significant concession at Kyoto that Australia achieved because we are allowed a target of reducing greenhouse emissions to 108 per cent above 1990 levels by no later than 2012. As this article indicates, to achieve that target we would need to cut back `some 100 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent from expected "business- as-usual" growth by 2010'. That was stated in the report by the Prime Minister's Science Engineering and Innovation Council. The report goes on to say that, to put this 100 million tonnes equivalent into perspective, if we eliminated all Australian road transport, including private cars, this `would achieve a cut of only 60 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent'. So this is a large ask that a national government has to take seriously.To hold environment policy hostage to a state rights agenda is a seriously misguided and dangerous notion. The legislation identifies the matters of national importance as the environmental assessment and approval processes in relation to the Commonwealth marine area; world heritage properties; certain Ramsar wetlands; threatened species and ecological communities; certain migratory species including whales, dolphins and porpoises; and environmentally significant nuclear actions and certain actions by the Commonwealth and its agencies. What it does not include is many of the issues that are agreed upon as the biggest environmental challenges facing Australia and the world today. It does not include the important issues of national significance such as climate change and greenhouse gases, ozone depletion, air quality, soil salinity, desertification, inland water pollution or quarantine issues. Indeed, it neglects to mention land degradation, land clearing and forest management. All of these issues require a holistic national approach for the future, not eight sets of separate decisions based on arbitrary lines drawn on a map last century.As we approach the Centenary of Federation, there can be no other area of public policy that better illustrates the artificiality of the divisions of powers based on these arbitrary colonial boundaries than environmental policy. This was recognised at the COAG meeting—the 1997 `Heads of Agreement on Commonwealth/State Roles and Responsibilities for the Environment'—where 30 areas, not the six or seven that are in this legislation, were identified as national matters of environmental significance. They included many of those that I have already listed. So we really need an understanding that, because matters environmental do not recognise boundaries that are geopolitical like those we have between states and territories, we really need, like no other area of national policy, to have a national approach and for the Commonwealth government to accept national responsibility for those policies.One of the intriguing things about inquiries that are ever held into matters environmental is that they show up the need for coordination between the Commonwealth and the states—for instance, the now 10-year-old report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on the Environment, Recreation and the Arts entitled The effectiveness of land degradation policies and programs. Much of the evidence that was put to that inquiry indicated—and I quote from the NFF submission:There quite obviously has been a lack of coordination between the Commonwealth and the states. The states have been apprehensive about the Commonwealth coming in over the top.Greening Australia also indicated that there were many specific problems with the lack of coordination.The point is that in this piece of legislation, in the area of land degradation, land clearing and matters such as that, that responsibility, in the main unfettered, has been handed back to the states. If there is any area that we can improve upon to achieve better outcomes in greenhouse emissions, it would be in reforestation and in diminishing the rate of land clearing, much of which goes on at the behest of state administrations. What we really need to see is the Commonwealth government take responsibility for environmental policies, which are not only of international concern but also a national responsibility.Community reaction to the Howard government's national buck-passing on all of these issues has been strong. Groups as diverse as the Australian Industry Group, the Minerals Council of Australia, the National Farmers Federation, the Australian Conservation Foundation, the Environmental Defender's Office and the Worldwide Fund for Nature have criticised the legislation. The Executive Director of the ACF said in the Sydney Morning Herald of 29 June:The central element of the Government's agenda is to duck messy conflicts with the States by handing responsibility back to them. This is an invitation to the Premiers to sacrifice the environment to development.The likely consequence of this legislation is a bidding war between the states and territories for the lowest common denominator environmental standards so as to attract investment. The Howard government is actively encouraging this behaviour.Australians who are concerned about environmental issues should realise that the government's new found allies, the Australian Democrats, were instrumental in passing this legislation. The Democrats have paraded themselves around the country for the last 20 years claiming to be the political party of the environment, yet this massive shirking of Commonwealth responsibility for the environment came about with their tacit approval. Just as Australians will never forget the shabby sell-out by the Democrats that placed a 10 per cent tax on nearly everything they do or buy, nor will Australians forget the role the Democrats have played in assisting the Howard government to abrogate its responsibility for the environment. (Time expired)812717:54:008127Haase, Barry, MPMr HAASE84TKalgoorlieLP10—I rise tonight to draw the attention of the House to the deplorable service delivery that rural and remote communities are being forced to endure in the northern regions of Western Australia at the hands of Australia Post. As many in the House would be aware, my electorate of Kalgoorlie takes in 91 per cent of the state of Western Australia. For a long time these salt of the earth people have felt like second-class citizens in their own country with the shutting down of bank branches, Telstra's failure to quickly repair lines, high prices and reduced choice, and so on.It is my sad duty to inform the House that in so far as Australia Post is concerned I come here today armed with physical evidence of Australia Post's neglect of rural communities amid its farcical claims that it takes only two working days to deliver anywhere in Western Australia. Friday, 2 July of this year marked the end of airmail services to the north-west of Western Australia, leaving Broome, Fitzroy Crossing, Halls Creek, Wyndham and Kununurra mail runs to be delivered by road. The loss of the mail contract presents Broome Airlines with a serious financial problem, having laid out $600,000 on an undertaking 12 months earlier that they would have the mail runs for Fitzroy Crossing and Halls Creek. I suspect that the economic rationalists have had a hand in this decision, with a healthy bottom line being more desirable than a healthy postal service to the bush.On a recent tour of the northern regions of my electorate, taking in Wyndham, Kununurra, Fitzroy Crossing, Halls Creek, Derby, Broome, Marble Bar, Tom Price, Paraburdoo, Karratha, South Hedland and Port Hedland, I was confronted at each stage with the same tale. Australia Post is taking several days, sometimes over a week, getting deliveries into and out of town. With this anecdotal evidence, my first action was to contact Australia Post's head office in Perth to find out what their story was. I was assured by Cornel Scheibling of the general manager's office in writing on 8 July of this year that the `national second working day delivery promise for standard mail delivered between capital cities and country areas in their respective states' was being achieved. In other words, my concerns were unfounded and mail was getting to its destination within two working days. Allowing for this, you could reasonably expect mail to go from Kalgoorlie to Perth in a day, as flights are available all day and it is only a six-hour drive to Perth, and then from Perth to a rural destination in no more than two days.Unconvinced, I instigated a test mail-out to selected people in communities across the northern regions of my electorate. I sent out some 300 letters asking recipients to note the post date on the envelope, the date they received the letter and the day they returned the letter to me in the reply paid envelope I supplied them with. I have been staggered and appalled by the results. In 97.5 per cent of the returns I have received, it took Australia Post longer than two working days to deliver the mail. In the majority of instances it took at least four working days, many five and six working days, and in some cases seven working days, to deliver a simple letter.For Derby residents in the Kimberley, of the 15 replies I have received, 13 letters took four working days to get to Derby from my Kalgoorlie electorate office, the other two taking five working days and seven working days. Camel Post would take the same time! On the return leg from Derby to my office, two letters took three working days to arrive, five letters took four working days, two letters took five working days, four letters took six working days and two letters took seven working days to get back to me. That is an average of over four working days to get to Derby and an average of nearly five working days to get back to me in Kalgoorlie. Clearly this is unacceptable.Of the 21 responses I received from Kununurra, Wyndham, Halls Creek and Fitzroy Crossing, also in the Kimberley, 12 letters took four working days to get through, five took five working days, one took six working days and another took three working days, while just two letters actually made it on time after two working days. While this last statistic appears to be cause for joy, I would point out that there was a weekend in between the date sent and the date received. It appears Australia Post employees worked overtime just to make par. As for the return mail to my office, seven took four working days to get back to me, nine took five working days and four took six working days. One took seven working days. That is another shocking average of over four working days to get a letter into the Kimberley and an average of five working days to get a reply.Broome is another example where service delivery is substandard. Of the eight replies to the test mail-out I conducted, five took four working days to get through and the other three took five working days. Coming back to me, one took five days, six took six working days and one took seven working days. The average here was over four days to get to Broome and an average of six working days to get back to me. Those facts are for the Kimberley, which is the furthest region from the mail centre in Perth. You would expect, given the vast distances, that, as we move south into the Pilbara, Australia Post services would improve dramatically. However, their tardiness and the inconvenience to locals does not improve.In South Hedland and Port Hedland and then inland to Tom Price, Paraburdoo and Wittenoom, just five letters made it through in three working days, five in four working days and three in five working days. Of the 13 responses I received on the way back, three took three working days, seven took four working days, one took five working days and two took six working days. That averages out at just over four working days to get through and over four working days to come back.Of the 20 test-run letters I received from Karratha, Wickham and Marble Bar, 17 took three working days to arrive at their destination while the other three took four working days to make it through. On the way back to my office—hallelujah!—one made it back in two working days but two took three working days to get to me, 13 took four working days, two took five working days and another two took six working days. This dismal performance averages over three working days to get to a destination and over four working days to make it back.The almost 100 responses I have received thus far clearly demonstrate that Australia Post is not serious about its delivery standards to the bush. In fact, what I have amassed as a result of this test mail-out amounts to a shameful neglect of people whose access to and contact with the outside world is already diminished due to the tyranny of distance. Now they must contend with the tyranny of Australia Post's couldn't-care-less service standards. Whilst it preaches the values of service delivery within two days, the reality is borne out by the evidence I have gathered which tells the real story of a mail service which simply fails to deliver in accord with commitment.The people I represent are not unreasonable. They are the salt of the earth in every respect of that expression. It should take no more than a day for mail to get from Kalgoorlie to Perth, then two days from Perth to a rural destination. I think we in the bush can just about wear that. However, the evidence I have put together makes a mockery even of this scenario, with an average of four days—all the way through five, six and even seven days—being fairly consistent. I have presented the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Richard Alston, with the evidence and have requested a formal review of service delivery to these rural and remote areas. In 1949 the air service from Perth to Wyndham took just 14 hours and delivered the mail. Fifty years later, it is taking four days. That, in my opinion and the opinion of my electors, is clearly not good enough and improvements will have to be made.812918:03:008129Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—Tonight I want to speak about the importance of a high standard in public administration of proper record keeping by agencies of the executive and about the potentially grave injustices which can be done to public administration, public policy and to individuals if record keeping is not of the highest standard. I refer to what is known as the Marks royal commission, which was appointed by the Western Australian state government—the Court Liberal state government—in 1995. A royal commission is of course an agent of the executive and not a judicial body. But the Marks royal commission and its conduct in so far as its record keeping procedures were concerned were recently the subject of comment in the District Court of Western Australia, which is of course a judicial body.In the course of the District Court proceedings a few weeks ago, it became clear that the former commissioner, Mr Marks QC, and counsel assisting, Ann Vanstone QC, had authorised the destruction of documents which the defence in the particular case said was relevant to their client's fair trial. So we have the spectre of a politically appointed royal commission, an agent of the executive, destroying documents which a QC in a criminal trial in the District Court says is relevant to his or her client's fair trial. And the question has been asked publicly: what possible public interest consideration could the commissioner, Mr Marks, and counsel assisting, Ms Vanstone, have had in their minds when they authorised the destruction of documents which the defence subsequently said in a District Court criminal trial were relevant to a person receiving a fair trial?In response to that question, on 30 July in a joint statement put out by Mr Marks QC, Ms Vanstone QC and Narelle Johnson QC, the three QCs said they were making a statement `regarding what they call "mischievously erroneous" press reports about destruction of royal commission records'. They said:There was nothing unethical, unwise or out of the ordinary about decisions made on what to keep or to destroy. It is preposterous to suggest any illegality. The statement that key documents, including statements of witnesses, were destroyed is irresponsible and utterly without foundation.The statement goes on to say:Most of the former members of Cabinet refused to be interviewed by Commission staff at all, but some provided statements through their legal advisers. All such documents were disclosed and later retained.The items which were destroyed, such as notes of staff, directions to investigators by counsel and reports in response were not read or even seen by the Commissioner. No documents on which the Commissioner relied was destroyed. Nor has there ever been any secret as to the categories of documents and items kept or destroyed.It goes on to say that the commission took advice from the Solicitor-General of Western Australia on its proposed course of conduct. I have seen the advice from the Solicitor-General of Western Australia, Mr Robert Meadows, and he makes it crystal clear, as he says in his advice to the royal commission executive officer:As I have indicated above, strictly speaking the decision to destroy documents or other materials is one for the commission.So it is a matter for the exercise of the commission's judgment in determining that discretion. So, far from it being a matter for the Solicitor-General, it is a matter for the commission itself. Far from the assertion made in the press release of 30 July by Commissioner Marks and Ann Vanstone QC that the statement that key documents, including statements to witnesses, were destroyed is `irresponsible and utterly without foundation', it became crystal clear in the course of submissions made by counsel in that District Court matter that what had been destroyed included audio tapes of witnesses when they were first approached by the royal commission officers and draft statements made by people who ended up being witnesses in criminal court proceedings.It is very interesting to read the note for file from the royal commission's record officer, Frances McAdam, dated 15 November 1995. On this file note headed `Disposal of records', she says:When the Royal Commission records management system was established in June 1995 a meeting was held to advise personnel of their responsibilities with regard to record keeping.Both the Executive Officer . . . and I assumed the records were `public records' and in all communication with Commission officers it was made clear that the records would be managed in accordance with the Public Records Office standards . . .The note then goes on to describe a meeting held on 20 October with respect to disposal of records. It then says:Whilst I was on leave from October 23 to November 5, Ann Vanstone gave instructions for certain records (identified by her) to be destroyed and told Michael Johnson—the executive officer—it was her opinion that the Royal Commission was not a public office, its records are not public records, and that the State Archives should not be involved.When I returned from leave, Michael Johnson met with me to advise the change of direction regarding disposal. I stated clearly and strongly my disagreement with the new instructions.She then goes on to say:I have advised Michael Johnson that I still disagree with the instruction to destroy records, and that although I will continue to perform most duties as Records Manager, I could not condone or participate in the destruction of records with SCOPR approval—that is, the Western Australian Standing Committee on Public Records—a process which if not illegal (which it may well be), is certainly in my opinion, unethical and unwise. So the records officer sprung Royal Commissioner Marks and counsel assisting, Vanstone. Against advice, and behind the records officer's back when she was on leave, the royal commissioner and counsel assisting authorised the destruction of documents which they subsequently misrepresented in a press release on a Sunday afternoon, and which were relevant to the first contact made with people who ended up being witnesses in a criminal court trial and which went to their recollections in 1995 about events in 1992.So, despite their press release, what could possibly have been in the royal commissioner's mind and what could possibly have been in Ann Vanstone's mind when they authorised the destruction of these documents? What documents are we talking about here? At page 415 of the transcript in the District Court on 5 July Mr Phillip Dunn QC said:Can I ask your Honour to turn to item 17, royal commission interviews audiotapes. I have already indicated to your Honour it was a process in the royal commission as deposed to by some of the witnesses that their interviews were tape-recorded, so, "royal commission interviews and audiotape scope notes, tapes of interviews conducted by the royal commission, disposal and action DI—destroy immediately".So interviews which were tape recorded—audio tapes, scope notes, tapes of interviews—were destroyed immediately on the instruction of Marks and Vanstone. Mr Dunn goes on:Item number 17, "Interviews, audiotapes, tapes of interviews conducted by royal commission officers, total records of its type 10, disposal action—immediate destruction."Mr Dunn indicates that there are 18 and 10 items in those respective categories. I understand that of the audio tape interviews—tapes of interviews conducted by royal commission officers—10 were destroyed, and that of the notes of interviews conducted by royal commission officers, 18 were destroyed on the instruction of Marks QC and Vanstone QC. I also understand that part of those materials contained audio tapes and interview transcript notes conducted with Mr Keith Wilson, who was one of the first Crown witnesses in that particular trial.What possible public interest consideration was in Marks's and Vanstone's minds when they authorised the destruction of documents which a QC subsequently said had prejudiced his client's right to a fair trial? As Mr Dunn QC said at page 418 of the transcript:We are deprived of the opportunity of knowing what it is that witnesses said when they were first spoken to and when they made their statements to the Marks royal commission by the actions of the royal commission.In November 1995, this matter in very general terms was drawn to the attention of the Premier of Western Australia, Mr Court. It was reported in the West Australian on 28 November 1995 under the heading `Easton files "part of State heritage"'. At the conclusion of this article, in which Professor Leslie Marchant says that he is concerned that all the records of the royal commission are retained, it says:Mr Court said he was not aware of documents being destroyed but he would have the matter investigated.That was 28 November 1995. So what inquiries did the Premier of Western Australia, Mr Court, initiate in respect of these documents which had been destroyed? What inquiries, if any, did he initiate? If he did not initiate any inquiries, what was he doing misleading the public of Western Australia in November 1995 by saying something to the contrary?What possible public interest consideration could have been in the minds of Marks QC and Vanstone QC when, against the advice of the records officer, who described the conduct as `possibly illegal, certainly unethical and certainly unwise', and behind the record keeper's back, they destroyed documents relevant to a fair trial? What was the possible public interest consideration? I suppose the charitable view is that they were worried about the storage space. The conspiratorial view may well be—and I am not a card-carrying member of the conspiracy society—that this was their effort to ensure that history was written in their way. Maybe this was some long-off, conditionally subsequent conspiracy to pervert the course of justice—to ensure that someone could not get a fair trial. Maybe this was in some conspiratorial view accessory before the fact of a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice by destroying documents which a QC said was relevant to a person's defence in a criminal trial.Premier Court should answer: what did you investigate in 1995? What did you find out? If you did not investigate, why did you say that you would to the public? As well, Commissioner Marks and Vanstone QC should be asked what was in their minds when they authorised the destruction of documents relevant to a person's fair trial? (Time expired)813218:13:008132Secker, Patrick, MPMr SECKER848BarkerLP10—Since this chamber met some five weeks ago, I have taken the opportunity both to service my electorate and to take part in the House of Representatives standing committee inquiry into infrastructure problems in regional and rural areas. Having travelled some 12,000 kilometres by car in that five weeks, I have seen a lot of my electorate and, as many members would realise, it is a large one with an area of approximately 54,000 square kilometres.The seat of Barker is a very rural seat with nearly 22 per cent of its work force directly employed in primary industry. If you care to drive from one corner at Port MacDonnell to the western end of Kangaroo Island by the shortest route, it would take more than 700 kilometres plus a sea crossing to get to Kangaroo Island. I had the pleasure of spending part of the last weekend there, and I had many discussions with constituents.Kangaroo Island is Australia's second-largest island, measuring approximately 150 kilometres long by 80 kilometres wide, but it supports a permanent population of only about 4,000, which means that it does not have a large enough rate base for the local government to fund meaningful infrastructure projects. There is a thriving tourist industry on Kangaroo Island which has certainly helped the local economy, which has suffered through the 10-year-long depression in the wool industry and, more recently, the discovery of Ovine Johnes disease in many sheep flocks. What other destination can say that it attracts 40 times its own population? Kangaroo Island attracts some 160,000 visitors a year, which is 40 times its population. Thirty per cent of those visitors are international and 25 per cent are from interstate. To put that into context, imagine 160 million visitors to Sydney each year. Tourism's effect on the island means that about a third of its population receive income directly from that industry. That is the effect on the Kangaroo Island population. The island is a tourist icon for international visitors, which has implications for our economy in that overseas money is spent in Australia for Australia's benefit. But Kangaroo Island simply cannot provide the infrastructure for that tourist industry with its small population base of 4,000 people.Kangaroo Island has a mixture of farming, small business and pristine native vegetation with wonderful wildlife, which is so attractive to the tourists—especially international tourists. The farming has largely been dependent on sheep, with some cattle and cropping, including recent diversification into vineyards, marron farming and the like. The farming land could easily lend itself to a lot more cropping, with its reliable rainfall and fertile soils, but the high cost of freight and only one ferry operation to transport goods to the mainland do not allow for expansion of the cropping industry. It is an unsubsidised ferry operation for tourists, industry, farming and residents.If one looks at what Tasmania receives in subsidies for the very same sections of the community, one can wonder why Australia's largest island, Tasmania, does so well but the second largest, Kangaroo Island, does not. There are probably similarities with King Island, but I am sure the member for Braddon can describe them in more detail. If Kangaroo Island could have a deep seaport that allowed the direct transport of grain without the huge freight costs to get it to the mainland, it could have a thriving cropping industry which could export all over the world, bringing in more export dollars and a better balance of trade result. But of course the population of Kangaroo Island cannot fund such a port, and the state government cannot either. Kangaroo Island has other infrastructure problems too. There is a need for a serviceable road network for the residents and the 160,000 tourists a year, but, again, it is not possible due to the small population with its small rate base.So what do we do about it? A hundred years ago or more, Australian governments had a sort of colonial socialism policy of providing infrastructure for rural areas. We opened up our land with roads and bridges, and electricity in latter years, for the benefit of all Australians. We provided a healthy rural economy for a strong economic base. Sadly, in recent years—perhaps the last 20 or so—this does not seem to have been a priority of state and federal governments. Unfortunately, elections are often won and lost in the metropolitan marginal seats, which has meant successive governments have concentrated on the cities rather than the country, to everyone's detriment. I am proud to say that the Howard government is reversing that trend with our emphasis on our new tax system, which will be of great benefit to regional and rural Australia. Transport costs will go down for country people, farmers will benefit and small business will benefit.But we can do more. The Treasurer has told this chamber that if we could sell all of Telstra, the federal government of Australia could become debt free. We have seen how the Natural Heritage Trust is providing the greatest environmental restoration program in our history as a result of the public benefit from selling part of Telstra. If we sold all of Telstra, I believe we could have a further public benefit by instituting a $1 billion a year, or more, infrastructure program for regional and rural Australia. Just think of the jobs we could provide and the growth that we could generate in our economy. This proposed national infrastructure program for special projects, over and above what we already provide, could have a sensational long-term benefit for all Australians. Just think of the irrigation potential we could provide, the ports we could build, or the bridges and tourist facilities we could provide. I believe projects such as the Snowy River scheme and the Ord River scheme have been of great benefit to all Australians. With this sort of commitment, we could really guarantee a future for all Australians.By making a commitment of at least $1 billion a year over and above what we already spend—and doing that for at least 10 years—we could ensure that special projects now seen as impossible could become a reality. There is a huge potential for irrigation projects in the northern parts of Australia, where many of our inland river systems are not utilised and simply run out to sea. It is a waste.We have national highways that need urgent upgrading, and there is certainly a call for a major highway from Kalgoorlie through to Alice Springs. Railways could be built or renewed for a more efficient transport system. We could provide better telecommunications systems for our people and electricity for our more remote areas. For example, in South Australia there are still many areas that do not have any power, and there are quite a few settled areas that do not have three-phase power, which stifles business development. I know of wineries that would like to have three-phase power so that they could have better motors for their wine production, but they have got only single-phase power and that restricts them.We could provide ports, such as the ones needed at Geraldton in Western Australia and my own Kangaroo Island, which would benefit our export industries. The opportunity is there for us to guarantee a future, if we could all realise the benefit of selling all of Telstra and earmarking some of the proceeds towards infrastructure and the rest towards debt elimination. I think this is a very worthy thing to be thinking about, and I hope it is taken seriously, because a $1 billion a year scheme on top of what we already have would provide a lot of jobs, a lot of growth and a lot of necessary infrastructure for this country.813318:22:008133Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—In this grievance debate I rise to speak about a number of concerns that the Women's Action Alliance Australia Inc. has raised with me and also other equally relevant issues. These concerns relate to pay equity for women, family unit taxation, child care, superannuation, evaluation of unpaid work, maternity leave and domestic violence.One issue raised by the alliance was a report from the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling which expressed concern about the fact that a greater part of the benefits of the child-care cash rebate goes to families in the top three income groups. These findings were published in a 1996 NATSEM publication, Australian Child Care Subsidies: A Distribution Analysis. More recent information about the disappearance of the one income family rings alarm bells regarding the impact on choices women will have in future about paid work participation when their children are young.Five years ago a report from the Australian Institute of Family Studies, The use and choice of child care, showed that, of mothers in paid work who had preschool aged children, 42 per cent said that they would prefer to remain at home with their children. Of course they would rather stay at home, but with the enormous costs of home ownership these days it is less and less likely that women will be able to stay at home with their children. Every piece of available income is needed to pay the mortgage.Pay equity for women remains a long way from being acceptable. There have been laws passed and much education done for the community. However, those in charge of businesses remain hard to crack when it comes to meeting all the requirements of real pay equity. We have managed to make huge inroads into this issue within the Public Service employment areas but out in private land the blokes in charge resist making the needed progress. Why do they resist? What is there to fear from pay equity? I believe there is nothing to fear. We must be more vigorous in employing people on merit and paying them accordingly.I am advised by a fact sheet from the Women's Equity Bureau that the issue of the pay equity struggle goes way back to 1907 when the federal harvester case established a basic wage for males on the basis of their breadwinning status. In 1912, in the fruit pickers case, the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission rejected an argument that the male and female basic wage be the same. In 1919 the basic female wage was set at 54 per cent of the male basic wage. I repeat: 54 per cent.In 1993 the Commonwealth legislated for equal remuneration orders based on ILO Convention 100. In 1996 the New South Wales parliament updated a previous definition of equal pay to `equal remuneration for men and women doing work of equal or comparable value.' I am taken by the comment from the WEB fact sheet that says:Despite Australia's somewhat checkered pay equity history, its centralised wage fixing system since the early 1970s has produced better outcomes for women than most countries around the world. The female/male wage differential in Australia is among the smallest of the industrialised countries.But all of this is likely to change under the AWAs being so vigorously promoted by Minister Reith. Women workers, as a matter of historical fact, will suffer most from these agreements and the moves towards real pay equity are likely to disappear more quickly than they have so slowly appeared since 1912.We need to be more flexible in our approach to family unit taxation. We need to be able to join incomes but make allowances for the cost of running a household, be it with child care, school excursions, school costs or medical fees. It costs a great deal these days to finance a family, and the taxation system does nothing to assist families through this high cost lifestyle. We need families. We need children. We need more population. However, we ignore these families when we look at the effect of taxation upon their lifestyle.As a nation we need to be much more understanding about the need for proper and adequate child-care facilities. In an age when more and more women are required to work and more and more women also choose to continue their careers, we need to make full provision to allow them to make full use of their undoubted talents and abilities. Child-care facilities are way up on the high priority list to be provided to enable women to attend to their careers while at the same time giving them the total security of knowing that their children are safe and well cared for while they are at work.Superannuation is an issue that really affects women. Those who may work for a period after leaving school or university and then cease while they have their families are clearly discriminated against by the treatment of their superannuation funds. They are unable to touch their money, yet it can simply be eaten up with fees and costs. When they are ready to return to their careers they are virtually back to square one with little to show in the way of superannuation assets built up in the first stage of their careers.This issue was brought home to me recently when a constituent wrote to me and asked me to write to the Treasurer about this issue. This female constituent did not receive her guaranteed superannuation when she left her employment 5½ years ago. She contacted the Australian Taxation Office over 4½ years ago and to this day there has been no action. On 12 March this year she again contacted the ATO and, to her horror, was told that her former employer had gone into liquidation in 1998 and that her chances of recovery were nil. This constituent asks why the store where she was employed is still trading under the same business name. Where is her money and how does she get it?Clearly, businesses do not have to pay if they do not want to, and there is absolutely nothing that can be done to protect these female employees from this gross exploitation, other than of course their union taking appropriate action. The managing director of the company that employed my constituent has started a new business venture, and one wonders if the new employees will suffer the same fate as my constituent. This is no longer acceptable, and we must begin to attack this issue as a major priority in the next few months. My constituent properly asks: what is the point of writing and passing an act if it is not worth the paper it is written on?Domestic violence also continues to be a major issue that confronts many women in our community. It must be stated for the record that this is not an issue that is based only among the lower paid levels of our community. Violence towards women is universal, whether it be physical violence or mental violence. We should insist that the issue of family relationships be a compulsory subject at school from an early age and that it be an ongoing process of education through to university. We simply must stamp out the view held by so many men that they are entitled to inflict physical or mental anguish upon the women in their lives. This violence must stop and we should offer no sympathy or defence to those who perpetrate it.We must never underestimate the value of the unpaid work that women perform daily or the unpaid work performed by women who are in paid employment. I am confident that there are many men who attend training sessions in their employment who find it quite acceptable that they perform little if any of the tasks at home and reckon that their female workmates are simply whingers when they complain about the housework they have to do when they go home from work. Equally, I am confident that many men are totally unaware of the serious strain that is placed upon women who are not in a career but running the household smoothly and seeing to the needs of their children and their husband. Unpaid work by women needs to be evaluated and acknowledged. How one compensates women for this work is something that can clearly exercise the brilliant minds of others, but it can no longer be ignored by any of us.Maternity leave should no longer be an issue for working women, but it clearly is. I am sure there remain partners of law firms who either do not have women partners in the business or have clauses in the partnership contract that causes the partnership to end when a woman lawyer becomes pregnant. It used to be rife, but I would hazard a guess that it is still an ongoing problem. The issue for women taking leave because of pregnancy may well arise in a serious way if Minister Reith gets his way and removes all conditions from awards, as many awards have provided maternity leave for women. As the government continues on its merry 1940s and 1950s policy road, I will not be surprised to see maternity leave as something that Minister Reith will be encouraged to attack and destroy.Sitting suspended from 6.32 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.813620:00:008136Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—There has been a lot of talk in recent days about the crisis in the health industry. There have been calls for inquiries by state premiers, some of whom have actively contributed to the undermining of our health system. We have yet to see a Senate inquiry into that, but we will not have to go far back to find the origins of the problem. All roads lead to Labor's mismanagement of both state and federal health. We know what the issues are. The massive decline in private health insurance membership is the single biggest contributor to the problems being faced and that lies directly at the feet of the previous government. For every decrease of one per cent of private health insurance, the public purse suffers by $83 million. Yet the Labor Party was not interested in stopping the massive haemorrhaging from private funds. We saw a drop in membership from 62 per cent in 1983 to 31 per cent at the end of the Labor term. Meanwhile, anything we have done to address that issue has met with consistent and never ending Labor opposition.The last Australian health care agreement delivered a record level of funding for health to the states. At the same time, we have a well-documented trend of states closing down GP outpatient services at hospitals and doing everything they can to transfer more costs to the federal government via private GPs. Of course, this practice hurts low income earners in regional areas most because in those areas GPs are less likely to bulk-bill. We have just seen the start of this trend in Queensland. The Queensland state health minister, Wendy Edmond, said in a letter to a constituent that GP outpatient services would cease. When she visited the city she tried to tell the media that the GP service was not to be abolished. In fact, she did not even know the correspondence she had signed.Another peculiarly Labor fetish is the love of tier upon tier of bureaucracy, which acts as a sponge to soak up the funding that should make its way down to the wards but does not. The size of the present bureaucracy means that the current state health minister did not even know that there was a linen service at the Bundaberg Base Hospital. In fact, they closed down the Bundaberg Base Hospital laundry, moved it to one of these labour intensive type operations—millions of dollars—at Maryborough, only to find that it did not have enough throughput to make it mechanically efficient.I feel very passionately that we should divest control of hospitals to independent hospital boards or health councils, not with some advisory role, but with statutory authority to ensure that the money gets to where it is needed and to give a sense of ownership back to communities which those hospitals serve. Last year, under the Commonwealth health care agreements, the Commonwealth delivered an extra 19.2 per cent to the states, which rather blunts what the opposition has been saying—that we are cutting back funding to the public sector. In fact, that is one of the most generous payments to the public sector in the last two decades.I must thank the member for Brisbane for doing some legwork for me on this issue. I note that the member for Brisbane is a Labor member and would be horrified to hear me say that. A response to a question on notice to the health minister from the member for Brisbane clearly outlines how the Goss Labor government underspent and in fact cut back on public hospital spending at a time when the federal government was spending a lot more money on public hospitals. I would encourage members to have a good look at the tables provided in the minister's reply in the Hansard of 2 June. In that you will find that for the three-year period of the second term of the Goss Labor government the consecutive years of spending were $661 million, $569 million and $656 million; in other words, the figure was falling. All three figures were actually less than the figure four years earlier which was $685 million. So it fell on three different occasions, if you used the 1991-92 benchmark.During the corresponding period, $699 million, $786 million and $812 million were spent by the Commonwealth, an increasing amount—three levels of increase. It is clearly obvious that there has been a massive fraud perpetrated on the public of Queensland. If you look at the figures further down, you will find that when the Borbidge government came to power there were massive jumps in both state and federal funding. In fact, the federal funding in the first full year of the Borbidge government was $929 million and the state government matched that with the same figure—$929 million; the following year it was $1,095 billion by the federal government and $1,041 billion by the state. That is a massive increase from where it was just five or six years earlier. So there was a miraculous turnaround in the fortunes of the public hospital sector in 1995-96 when spending by the state was $10 million more than the still rising federal contribution.I have been criticised by members of the Beattie government for wading into the public health debate. But as long as the federal government allocates more than a billion dollars a year, as it did in 1998-99, for the state government to spend on public hospitals in Queensland, I have a right to suggest more effective ways in which that money might be spent. I also reserve the right to be outraged when that money is not spent where it should be—on patients. A classic example of this was the $1.1 million Clayton's rescue package which was supposed to go to the Bundaberg Base Hospital. The hospital was left $1.1 million short. Wendy Edmond, the state health minister, announced a rescue package of $1 million—very generous—but she failed to tell us that $200,000 of that had been redirected from the mental health budget in Bundaberg. She sidelined the remaining $800,000 to an elective surgery budget and demanded that $700,000 be returned because it had not been spent. So $800,000 was notionally given and $700,000 was returned, leaving a net $100,000. These are the smoke and mirror tricks at which the state Labor government in Queensland has become adept. I will continue, regardless of the attitude of the state member for Bundaberg, to look into these matters.I was a member of the Bundaberg Base Hospital board for 15 years. During that time, in the days of the Bjelke-Petersen and Ahern governments, I saw some real progress. But in the 6½ years after Labor came into power we saw everything grind to a halt. At the time that we left the board, which was in the first year of the Labor government, we had planned a four-storey ward block which was to contain a CSSD unit, operating theatres, a million dollar laundry and wards. In 6½ years nothing happened. At the time we left office, that project was ready to go. Every time a health minister came to town, there was a sense of outrage. What the Labor Party would do then was promise an increasing amount. At the start the amount was to be $18.1 million and then it was increased to $25 million. But it was only when Mike Horan became the state health minister of the Borbidge government that the building was started.On behalf of the people of Bundaberg I say that I have every right to speak on health matters. Whether it pleases the member for Bundaberg or any other state Labor member, as long as we are putting half the funding into the Queensland hospitals, I intend to continue to speak.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills8137Messages received from the Governor-General reported informing the House of assent to the following bills: Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1999-2000 Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1999-2000 Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1999-2000 NRS Levy Imposition Amendment Bill 1998 Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Bill 1998 Telecommunications (Universal Service Levy) Amendment Bill 1998 Telecommunications Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 Telstra (Further Dilution of Private Ownership) Bill 1998 Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 6) 1999 A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Bill 1998 A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax Administration) Bill 1998 A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax Transition) Bill 1998 A New Tax System (Australian Business Number) Bill 1998 A New Tax System (Australian Business Number Consequential Amendments) Bill 1998 A New Tax System (End of Sales Tax) Bill 1998 A New Tax System (Bonuses for Older Australians) Bill 1998 A New Tax System (Compensation Measures Legislation Amendment) Bill 1998 A New Tax System (Personal Income Tax Cuts) Bill 1998 A New Tax System (Closely Held Trusts) Bill 1999 A New Tax System (Ultimate Beneficiary Non-disclosure Tax) Bill (No. 1) 1999 A New Tax System (Ultimate Beneficiary Non-disclosure Tax) Bill (No. 2) 1999 A New Tax System (Aged Care Compensation Measures Legislation Amendment) Bill 1998 A New Tax System (Indirect Tax Administration) Bill 1999 A New Tax System (Income Tax Laws Amendment) Bill 1998 A New Tax System (Trade Practices Amendment) Bill 1998 A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Bill 1999 A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Bill 1999 A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Consequential and Related Measures) Bill (No. 1) 1999 A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Consequential and Related Measures) Bill (No. 2) 1999 A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax Imposition—Customs) Bill 1998 A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax Imposition—Excise) Bill 1998 A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax Imposition—General) Bill 1998 A New Tax System (Luxury Car Tax) Bill 1999 A New Tax System (Luxury Car Tax Imposition—Customs) Bill 1999 A New Tax System (Luxury Car Tax Imposition—Excise) Bill 1999 A New Tax System (Luxury Car Tax Imposition—General) Bill 1999 A New Tax System (Wine Equalisation Tax) Bill 1999 A New Tax System (Wine Equalisation Tax and Luxury Car Tax Transition) Bill 1999 A New Tax System (Wine Equalisation Tax Imposition—Customs) Bill 1999 A New Tax System (Wine Equalisation Tax Imposition—Excise) Bill 1999 A New Tax System (Wine Equalisation Tax Imposition—General) Bill 1999 Customs and Excise Amendment (Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme) Bill 1999 Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme Bill 1999 Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Bill 1999 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1999 Environmental Reform (Consequential Provisions) Bill 1999 Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Amendment Bill 1999 Taxation Laws Amendment (CPI Indexation) Bill 1999 Taxation Laws Amendment (Demutualisation of Non-insurance Mutual Entities) Bill 1999 Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1999 Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review) Bill 1999 Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 Aviation Fuel Revenues (Special Appropriation) Amendment Bill 1999 Customs Tariff Amendment (Aviation Fuel Revenues) Bill 1999 Excise Tariff Amendment (Aviation Fuel Revenues) Bill 1999 Export Market Development Grants Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 Miscellaneous8139813910000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Andrews)—Mr Speaker has received advice that Dr Theophanous has resigned as a member of the Council of the National Library of Australia.Committees81398139813910000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Andrews)—Mr Speaker has received advice that Dr Theophanous has resigned as a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade and the Joint Standing Committee on Migration.Motion (by Mr Slipper)—by leave—agreed to:That Dr Theophanous be discharged from the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade and the Joint Standing Committee on Migration.8139813910000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Andrews)—Mr Speaker has received advice from the Chief Opposition Whip that he has nominated Mr Tanner to be a member of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit in place of Mr Griffin.Motion (by Mr Slipper)—by leave—agreed to:That Mr Griffin be discharged from attendance on the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit and that, in his place, Mr Tanner be appointed a member of the committee. Bills8139r8418139Debate resumed from 30 June, on motion by Mr Williams:That the bill be now read a second time.20:13:008139Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—This is a truly historic piece of legislation. The pity is by how much it falls short of the democratic ideals with which our Constitution was first framed at the end of last century. If this Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) Bill passes, and no doubt it will, we are setting the groundwork for a referendum that offers the vast majority of people no choice at all. It is based on a model that does not represent public opinion, nor does it represent any expression of majority will. Polls consistently show that 70 per cent of the electorate want a directly elected President. They want a model that makes that possible. This model does not make that possible. Rather than strengthen the separation of powers, this model destroys the separation of powers. It neuters the role of the President and leaves the dominant party of the day in total control of the political processes, while major party support in the electorate continues to erode.There is just no-one or nothing to check on executive government in this model. While painted as minimalist, the model is in fact radical. It does change the current system dramatically by embodying the right of instant dismissal of the President by the Prime Minister of the day. The Prime Minister need pay no attention at all to the President under this political establishment model. If Gough Whitlam could have dismissed Governor-General John Kerr he would have. This model will ensure the PM of the day will be able to take such a course of action. The Prime Minister becomes not only de facto but also essentially the head of state. The President should have the power to call for a general election at a time of constitutional crisis or when a government lacks support.It is interesting to note the publication entitled Discovering democracy distributed recently by the government. How ironic that we are debating this undemocratic model as the government, no doubt with Labor endorsement, peddles information about our wonderful democratic model. On page 45 there are details about how important American founders regarded the separate election of the President. It says:The American founders believed all governments tended to threaten liberty.It goes on to say how the American constitutional drafters believed that `power must be dispersed. No one group or individual could then capture all the centres of power and each power centre would keep the others in check'. The American founding fathers were right when fearing that the placing of the executive and legislature together would threaten democracy. According to our founding fathers, by placing the executive in parliament the ministers were responsible to parliament and if ever they threatened citizens' rights, the parliament, elected by the people, would control them. Unfortunately, the founding fathers did not count on the discipline, the arrogance and the undemocratic nature of the political party process, with its adversarial two-sided debate and its one-sided executive dominance, reinforced by the winner-take-all, illegitimate, mandate argument. It is interesting that Manning Clark described our very first constitutional convention thus:It was for the most part the big men of the established political and economic order, the men of property or their trusted allies who moulded the Federal Constitution Bill.Not much has changed. That 1890s process can well describe the setting up of this most recent Constitutional Convention, with one addition: half the delegates to the 1998 Convention were appointed, to all intents and purposes, by the government. We did correct the absence of youth, Aborigines and women, but the appointed delegates succeeded in swinging the Convention towards the conservative model favoured by the Prime Minister and away from the people's choice. Let us not forget just 73 delegates, less than half the 1998 Convention, voted yes to the so-called bipartisan appointment model. Bipartisan says it all. The Oxford Dictionary defines bipartisan as `of or involving two (esp. political) parties'. We had 73 yes votes, 57 no votes and 22 abstentions. Despite the model not gaining support of an absolute majority, or 77 of the delegates, the question was declared carried as more people had voted yes than no—more people from a Convention deliberately designed to achieve an outcome contrary to public will.That will represents the greatest challenge yet to the power of the parties and the power of the executive. The Labor Party, bruised by history as it is, knowing that it might get back into power one day, has supported that model, knowing that it isolates the President from any role in the political process. The High Court recently ruled that we are independent. But to enshrine that independence we must have a republic model that is truly democratic and representative. Should this referendum be lost—and I hope that is the case—then the will of 70 per cent of people will cry out to be properly represented by a proper model. This cleverly camouflaged republic model will, I hope, fool no-one. Those nervous nellies who say, `You must vote for this imperfect model. It is the only chance we have,' are falling into this major party-establishment trap. There is absolutely no imperative to reach republic status by the year 2001 save for the symbolism of doing it for the start of the new millennium.A former eminent member of this place, Sir James Killen, who does not support any republican model, says that this proposed legislation means the President `would be very much a tool in the hands of the Prime Minister of the day'. ARM Chairman Malcolm Turnbull said in the same debate in which Sir James spoke that this model was a `minor and substantial' change. In saying that, he inadvertently gave the game away. The substantial changes are being camouflaged by the minimalist rhetoric. True democrats are not fooled.The public participation in this republic model is illusory. While it allows any Australian to nominate someone for President, it is a Clayton's nomination process, something which exists in name only. The committee of 32 which nominates the eventual candidate is appointed by the Prime Minister of the day. The report of that committee, containing the short list of nominees, need not be tabled in parliament and thus would not be open to public scrutiny.Former conservative Attorney-General Bob Ellicott believes that the consultative committee process will throw up compromise candidates. Tellingly, he says that if they represent the people's choice it will be by accident, because the committee, with a large component of government nominees and politicians, is unlikely to be representative of ordinary Australians. Mr Ellicott is spot-on when he derides the Republican Movement members who say, `Support this model and change it later.' He quite rightly points out that `this is a reckless and irresponsible approach to basic constitutional reform'. He says that `the likelihood of it being changed, if adopted, is quite remote as anybody who has any experience or in-depth knowledge of constitutional amendments in this country should know'. But if we introduce the kinds of amendments we know the people want—that is, direct election of a President—then people will be far more likely to support it, knowing that it is about lessening rather than strengthening executive power.Those who argue how unlikely is the passage of referenda in this country should look closely at the reasons why. I would suggest it is all about the well-founded suspicion and fear of government and executive dominance. The direct election presidential model would in fact appease those suspicions and fears.This bill will almost certainly be passed. On 6 November, a referendum will be held posing a question that will be rejected if public opinion polling accurately reflects the mood of the Australian people. Those people know that this model is not about shifting the portrait of Sir William Deane from one place on the wall to another and simply rebadging the brass plaque. They know it is about reducing that portrait by more than half and that the title `President' will always be embraced by inverted commas. It would be a republic in name only. If the Prime Minister's motion for appointment of a President were not approved, the Prime Minister of the day could leave the position vacant. The Prime Minister could keep a compliant President in office and ensure compliance by offers of continuation in office.No grounds are specified for removal of a President by the Prime Minister. There is no provision for the grounds for dismissal to be made public. There is no provision for both houses to be recalled should a dismissal occur. There are no provisions to cover any lack of support from the House of Representatives for the dismissal of a President. Any acting presidents could be dismissed by serial dismissal notices. The Prime Minister would be sole judge of any incapacity on the part of a President. The royal prerogative would be fixed in the Constitution and monarchical powers would in effect transfer to the Prime Minister, the people nowhere to be seen. Under the Presidential Nominations Committee Bill 1999 to be introduced in parallel to this bill, the Prime Minister would have exclusive control over nominations to the Nominations Committee, apart from party or state nominees who would effectively be controlled by the majority parties in the state lower houses. The Prime Minister would in fact have the numbers on the committee, even without his or her own party supporters, by appointing the non-politician members who would make up half the membership and by appointing the convenor who would have a casting vote. Only lower houses of state parliaments would nominate state members, thus ensuring state governments controlled nominations and excluded minority parties and independents represented largely in upper houses but in both houses.The Prime Minister would have virtually complete control over the terms and conditions of appointment to the Nominations Committee. Under clauses 13 and 15 the Prime Minister could manipulate vacancies and dispose of unfavourable members of the committee. Under part 5 the nomination process would be entirely secret, with the public—remember them?—having absolutely no way of judging whether the best nominee has been chosen by the Prime Minister. This Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) Bill 1999 should be opposed because it sets up a referendum that is inherently undemocratic in not posing the question people want. Ian Ireland and Joanna Longley of the research services of this parliament have quite clearly stated in their paper how the dismissal process alone in this bill is `the only model which does not provide a ground or grounds for dismissal or require that reasons be given. Moreover, there is no other precedent among republic dismissal models for prime ministerial removal of the President'. The Clerk of the Senate, Harry Evans, quite firmly believes that this model, the offspring of a non-democratic process, would increase the unhealthy concentration of power in the Prime Minister. He says that the `provision of constitutional safeguards is quintessentially republican. A country without safeguards is no republic'. In a republic the power of the monarchy must be substituted by the power of the people. The head of state must be the representative of the people, not the representative of one or either side. As most of those in this debate keep saying, there are not two sides, there are many sides now representing the increasing plurality of the Australian electorate.The real debate we should be having is one leading to a plebiscite or referendum—and I would prefer the plebiscite option—of whether or not people wish to break our links with the monarchy. We should have had such a plebiscite before any convention. Only after such an indication from the people can we have a proper debate—without the current divisiveness, the obfuscation and the complete hiding of the true germ and kernel of what people want—on constitutional reform, not this attempt to graft an unwanted and far inferior substitution for the Governor-General onto a rickety Constitution in need of wholesale reform. The Leader of the Opposition in his contribution urged direct election advocates to not oppose this model. He spoke of the reluctance of the parties to put this matter on the agenda again if this referendum fails. What if the people out there want it on the agenda? And they will. It will not go away. He spoke of national humiliation if this referendum is lost. He spoke of how infinitely harder it would be to bring about constitutional change should the people say no. In all of this, there was very little, if any, mention of the express will of the people for a directly elected President. If we do have in our parliamentary ranks direct election advocates on both sides of the House, then it will take but a properly constituted convention to design a model approved by the people—one that codifies the power of the President and one that codifies the proper powers of any Prime Minister. Under the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act, only those members who oppose the legislation setting up such a referendum can contribute to the official no case against the question distributed by the Australian Electoral Commission. I call on the member for Flinders, who has been so vocal on the direct election model, to join me in voting against this bill so that his arguments can be included in the official no case. I also call on those direct election supporters hidden in the ranks of both government and opposition to throw off their party shackles and begin the process towards a true republic by voting against this flawed and inherently deceitful referendum bill.20:27:008142Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—in reply—The government has put before the parliament two bills: the Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) Bill 1999 and the Presidential Nominations Committee Bill 1999 . They give expression to the Constitutional Convention's model for an Australian republic. In drafting the bills, the government's aim has been to present the people of Australia with a safe, workable proposal for a republic that continues our tradition of stable parliamentary democracy. This proposal would not dramatically change the way our system of national government operates. The object of the bills is to give Australia an Australian President who can fit effectively into our current arrangements in place of the Queen and her representative in Australia, the Governor-General.I thank members in the debate so far who have considered the government's referendum proposal on its merits and contributed accord ingly. We should remember that the tone of the debate in the Commonwealth parliament will affect the tone—perhaps even set the tone—of the ensuing debate in the broader community. A constructive debate is essential if we want to produce the best possible legislation and the best possible proposal to put to the Australian people at the referendum.The proposal set out in the republic bill must be one that can be supported by those who support change, but it must also be one that those who do not support change—both within the government and elsewhere—can support as a reasonable proposal to put to the Australian people at a referendum. The statement by the Leader of the Opposition that his party will cooperate with the government in producing the best possible bill is very welcome, as are the acknowledgments by the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Barton that the republic bill is a faithful reflection of the outcome of the recommendations of the Constitutional Convention. It is an indication of the constructive approach that has been adopted that members such as those for Bradfield, Calwell, Chifley, Kooyong and the Northern Territory, who represent a diverse range of views on the question of a republic, can all support the passage of the republic bill and its presentation to the people at a referendum.The bills have been the subject of close scrutiny by the Joint Select Committee on the Republic Referendum. The government welcomes the committee's report. On behalf of the government, I congratulate the chairman, deputy chairman and other members of the committee for completing a challenging inquiry in such a short time. At the outset, the chairman identified three broad objectives. The first was to determine whether the bills reflected the recommendations of the Constitutional Convention. The second was to determine whether, if a republic were approved at the referendum, the proposals set out in the bills would be effective and safe. The third objective was to give the Australian people the opportunity to have a say on the bills. With this third objective clearly in mind, the committee engaged in an extended series of public hearings to collect evidence on the bills.The committee did not limit itself to the capital cities. As the chairman indicated in the final hearing in Canberra at the end of July, the committee well and truly covered Australia. It took evidence in Canberra, Adelaide, Brisbane, Broome, Darwin, Hobart, Melbourne, Newcastle, Perth, Sydney and Townsville. Between the government's own extensive consultation through the exposure draft process and the officials committee of the Council of Australian Governments and the joint select committee's wide consultation, the government and the parliament have ensured that the referendum legislation has been subject to rigorous scrutiny at many different levels across Australia.The government welcomes the findings of the majority of the joint select committee. The majority found that generally the bills faithfully reflect the resolutions of the Constitutional Convention. The government has also noted the brief dissenting reports which addressed particular elements of the majority report or aspects of the convention model. The fact is that the bills have together attracted strong support from a range of eminent commentators as a fair and effective legislative expression of the convention model.However, the majority of the committee has recommended that consideration be given to some modifications. The committee's recommendation on the long title has been noted and the Prime Minister has announced that the government will move to replace the current long title with one which represents clearly and simply the essential purpose and outcome of the referendum proposal. The government believes that it has taken account of the committee's recommendation. Accordingly, I will be moving a motion to amend the long title in the consideration in detail stage of the bill. The government will consider the committee's other recommendations and any related proposals for amendment of the bills and will provide its response to these recommendations shortly. Any further amendments that are proposed by the government will be moved in the Senate.The Presidential Nominations Committee Bill 1999 is not a bill for a constitutional amendment but a bill for an ordinary Commonwealth act. As has been discussed, it provides in more detail for the establishment and role of the nominations committee and, in doing so, it fleshes out the very broad outline provided by the Constitutional Convention for the process of community consultation and evaluation of nominations. This bill does not have to be approved at the referendum and the government does not propose that this bill be passed before the outcome of the referendum is known. Accordingly, the government proposes that the bill not go forward to a third reading or to the Senate at this stage. Of course, this would not prevent the government, in the light of the joint select committee's report, giving undertakings to amend the nominations committee bill in the event that the republic bill is approved at the referendum. The government would propose that the nominations committee bill, with any amendments, go forward to a third reading and then to the Senate only if the republic bill is approved.This referendum will be unusual in that government members will not necessarily support the referendum proposal once it has been passed by the parliament. It is a matter of public record that government members will be allowed a conscience vote in the referendum. Some members are likely to vote for change and others against it. This means that government members must be given an opportunity to participate in the formulation of the official or parliamentary no case as well as the official yes case.Under the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984, only those members who vote for the republic bill as it goes through the parliament can participate in the formulation of the official 2,000-word yes case. Only those who vote against the bill can participate in the formulation of the official 2,000-word no case. In order that government members may participate in the no case, the government will be making arrangements to ensure that some of its members vote against the republic bill at the relevant time. These arrangements are simply part of the government's broader plan to ensure that government members may participate in the debate as their conscience dictates and to ensure that both sides of the debate are put to the people when they vote on the referendum proposal in November.The government has not wavered in its commitment to put the convention model for a republic to the people. The republic bill sets out a model which, unlike others such as the direct election model, is not designed to fundamentally alter the balance of our constitutional arrangements. It is, as I have said, intended to present the people of Australia with a safe and workable proposal for a republic that continues our tradition of stable parliamentary democracy. Government members will be allowed a conscience vote in the referendum. As I have indicated, some members are likely to vote for change and others against it, but the government is united in its commitment to let the Australian people decide whether Australia is to be a republic.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.8144Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.20:37:008144Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—I move:(1) Title, page 1 (lines 1-5), omit the title, substitute"A Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic, with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by an Australian President".That is an amendment to the long title of the Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) Bill 1999 and would be the question which would, were it to be successful through all stages, be placed before the Australian people. That amendment of mine is not of Labor derivation; it is a proposition put forward by the all-party joint parliamentary committee, which we established, as the most appropriate way in which this question ought to be phrased for consideration by the Australian people.I do not know how much faith you place in public opinion polls, either on the day they are taken or on their subsequent meaning for an outcome, but it is quite clear from the polling today that a question phrased like that carries with it a dramatically increased chance of successful passage than does the one which was proposed originally by the government. One suspects that the government amendment which has emerged represents yet another retreat to yet another trench line in order to prevent such an outcome. This is a very great shame.The defence of the government's proposition as opposed to the joint parliamentary committee's proposition by the Prime Minister is that this is insufficiently explanatory. The answer to this was given quite nicely by one of the government members on the joint committee when he said, `The question here, phrased in this way, relates to the outcome of the successful vote as opposed to a process.' I thought that was a very nice way to put it. If you are going to incorporate process, which is essentially what the government's proposition does, then an honest presentation of that would present a total process. The government's proposition as announced by the Prime Minister today is `an act to alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority,' et cetera.A couple of points need to be made about this immediately. In the first case, it does not have the qualification on the President of an Australian President. That is a very important qualification. The Queen of Australia is manifestly not an Australian. The Governor-General need not be an Australian.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—But he always is.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—No, he is not. Indeed, for much of our history the Governor-General has not been an Australian. But the point of such a change would be `an Australian President' and the Australian President would have to be an Australian. It is a relevant definitional change if you want, as the Prime Minister says, this to be an accurate reflection of the process that is taking place.The second point is that, if you are going to talk about the two-thirds majority and incorporate that in the question, it ought to be preceded by the fact that there is public consultation on nomination followed by agreement between the government and the opposition on the presentation of a name and then approval of that proposition by two-thirds of the members of the Commonwealth parliament. Of course, the question that properly reflected that would amount to at least the paragraph of an essay. But if your defence of the government's proposition is that you need to be clear on process and not simply on outcome, then being clear on process requires integrity and honesty in presentation—and this does not have integrity and honesty in presentation. Therefore, let us go to outcomes.It is no good for the Prime Minister to try to sneak this one through; he will subsequently live with the consequences of that if he is successful in getting its defeat. It will be a hollow victory because the Australian people now are determined that they will have an Australian head of state. They may not yet agree on process, but what has been offered in this particular bill is a safe outcome, a safe process, to achieve what is the fundamental change—the establishment of an Australian republic with an Australian head of state. With this proposition, every Australian kid can aspire to be our head of state. It will not be determined by the operations of a hereditary principle in another country; it will be determined by a decision by the Australian people. This recommendation will greatly assist that process. (Time expired)20:43:008145Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLPAged Care10—It is important for me to speak in this discussion in detail of the Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) Bill 1999 because, under the convention that applies, ministers may not speak in the second reading debate on bills that are introduced by another minister. Accordingly, this is an appropriate time for my intervention. I have just heard a lot of bumf and outrage from someone who carries on a treat in this parliament with feigned anger in many an instance. But the real issue here is to look at the good sense of the Australian people and their desire to be informed about what is really being proposed. It is a fallacy that somehow we do not have an Australian head of state—last time I looked at Bill Deane he looked pretty Australian to me.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—He is not the head of state.SE4Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOP—He is the de facto head of state, which was quite simply proven when the Governor-General sacked the Prime Minister, much to the chagrin of the people who sit on the other side. When the then Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam, was sacked by the Governor-General, the Queen was powerless to do anything about it. That is a set of facts, and that indeed makes the Governor-General the de facto head of state in this country. Her Majesty the Queen is a very good mechanism by which we appoint an apolitical head of state and, indeed, we have a head of state who does not have a mandate for anything in particular.The point at issue here is whether we want to swap our apolitical head of state and a system that serves us well where no individual or group of individuals can usurp power, where no Prime Minister can go outside the Constitution—as the then Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam, attempted to do—and where no Prime Minister can indeed usurp power that is not constitutionally given. This is a very important issue for us to debate.The proposal at issue is one that would give an elected President. The word in the referendum to go to the people is the word `appointed', but the appointment is the result of the election by two-thirds of the members of parliament—which presumes of course that there must always be a strong two-party preferred system, because otherwise you could not guarantee the numbers. That will not go down terribly well with the minority parties and those who aspire to representation. Nonetheless, the basis of the proposal is an elected President. Just as President Clinton is elected by a college of votes, not by the American people, the college that would be formed here is the college of the parliament, which would elect that presidential person. Nobody is going to be put up by any individual, someone from the general public at large or by someone more influential, unless they stand for something—anything but something. Once some body says, `Choose me because I stand for this,' you start to have a mandate, you have a person chosen because of what they stand for, and they are seeking office because they say they are a good person. When that endorsement is given, you then have a competition between the President, as that person would be, and the Prime Minister.You are all well aware that in our current Constitution there is no mention of a Prime Minister, and yet under the proposals we would have a President who would in fact be a person who would bring about a total change in the way our system operates. So to say it is a minimalist change which would bring to bear no real change on what would occur here is just a nonsense.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—Sixty-nine changes.SE4Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOP—Sixty-nine? And that is only at the start. Name me one bill that has gone through this parliament that has not had to have changes to it because of unforeseen consequences. With referenda you cannot do that; you cannot simply have another bill to fix up the mess you have made.I do not say that in the future there may not be need for a change—there could be—but I am saying that this change is not for the benefit of Australians. If the elites want it and politicians want it, the good sensible people of Australia know it is not in their best interests.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—They'll say no.SE4Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOP—And they will say no. This is going to be a question of the cheque books of the elites and the powerful versus the $5 donations of the ordinary Australian people. (Time expired)20:48:008146McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—It is curious, isn't it, this quandary that monarchists have as to who is our head of state? While the Minister for Aged Care was speaking I had cause to put my hand into my pocket and pull out a coin—and, lo and behold, on that coin is the image of Queen Elizabeth; it is not the image of Sir William Deane. All Australians know that that representation is, for all intents and purposes, as the Constitution says in section 2, our head of state. The dilemma that we as Australians have is that two-thirds of Australians regard the monarchy as now being irrelevant to modern Australian life—to such a point that we will not be having either the Queen or the Governor-General opening the Australian Olympics. The ambiguity has caused us international embarrassment. According to the Prime Minister's edict, we are having the Prime Minister opening our Olympic Games—a partisan politician, a politician indeed supported by less than 50 per cent of the voters. So instead of having a unifying figure representing us to the rest of the world we will have a partisan political figure because of this ambiguity, this refusal to acknowledge the issue that needs clarifying in this referendum.But we are proposing this change to the question because the current title is poor, indeed misleading. The amendment that the government will be proposing leaves that misleading indication. It is misleading because it is asking Australians to back a one-legged horse. It is asking them to back a horse on which the only thing visible is the final step in the outcome—that is, the affirmation, as the bill reads, by a two-thirds majority of the parliament, of a necessary prior procedure. That necessary prior procedure is threefold—to make the other legs of the horse.Firstly, the President must be, for the first time, as specified in the Constitution, an Australian citizen—hence there would have to be an Australian President. Any child born after 6 November could aspire to become the Australian head of state. That is the first leg. The second leg is, for the very first time, the involvement of the community in the selection of the head of state. At the current time there is absolutely no involvement. One person, the Prime Minister, determines who is our Governor-General. For the very first time Australians will be able to nominate the person they want to be head of state. Indeed, the community will have a say in who is proposed, what short list of notable Australians is going to be a proposed to the Prime Minister from whom he will select in practice the presidential nominee. That person, far from being a politician, will have to be above politics. Why? Because the nomination has to be seconded by the Leader of the Opposition. Clearly, the Leader of the Opposition is not going to second the nomination of a party political figure, so Australians are going to get a President who is above politics, a person who is acceptable to all sides of politics, who can act as a unifying force. That is the second step.It is only after those steps are taken—the Australian citizen, the community involvement in the nomination process and the dual nomination by the Prime Minister—that those preconditions lead to the fourth and final step, and that is the affirmation by two-thirds of the parliament. It is not two-thirds of the House of Representatives but two-thirds of the parliament, being members elected directly by their constituents, as we are in the House, and senators elected by proportional representation with the minor parties being represented. You could not have a more democratic body representing the Australian people. It acts as a final check, if you like, but not as the selector. It acts as a final check on a person who comes through that procedure. That is a great improvement on what we have today. It is an improvement that is going to involve all Australians in the process. It is going to enable all Australians to identify who they regard as Australia's most notable and indeed best citizens. The person will have to be above politics and will have to have the approval of two-thirds of the elected representatives before they are selected as President. (Time expired)20:53:008147Abbott, Tony MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPEmployment Services10—I rise briefly to congratulate the Prime Minister, the cabinet and the government on the proposed wording of the question to go to the people on 6 November. In light of the comments earlier of the Leader of the Opposition, without betraying the confidence of the party room, I should point out that Bob Charles, the chairman of that bipartisan committee, said very clearly that, in the light of the discussion, he supported the position that the government had taken, and there was no coalition member of that committee who dissented from that in the party room.As anyone who has followed this debate knows, I support the existing Australian Constitution, including the Crown, not because I think it is perfect but because I think it is better than all the alternatives. It is my strong view that a system which has stood the test of time, which has served Australia well through all the challenges of the century, is worthy of respect. Certainly it deserves to be given the benefit of the doubt. Republicans have placed this issue on the national agenda and therefore this debate is the debate we had to have, and 6 November is the vote we have to have to resolve this issue, if not for all time then certainly for our time.I will be voting no on 6 November, but obviously this is going to be a vote unlike almost any other. Many people will be voting no for many different reasons: some because they support the existing system, including the Crown; some because they see no alternative which is preferable to the existing system; and some, such as the member for Calare, because they see a better alternative to that which is on offer on 6 November. Some people will be voting yes for very different reasons: some because they support the alternative on offer; some because they would support any alternative to the existing system; and some because they fear an even worse alternative. But it is absolutely vital that this issue be put to the people, and that is why both republicans and anti-republicans will be voting in favour of this bill—not because they necessarily support it but because they support the bill going to the people. I guess the final paradox of this debate is that it is necessary for some people to prepare the no case, and that means voting against the bill even though they support the bill being put to the people. I intend to vote no on the third reading for that reason.Finally, I say that this is a special moment in the life of the parliament. We are either preparing for historic change or else preparing for a moment when Australia triumphantly reaffirms the system which has helped to make us, in my opinion, the freest, the fairest and the most prosperous country on earth.20:56:008148Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—I rise to support the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition because it mirrors the unanimous recommendation of the Joint Select Committee on the Republic Referendum in deliberation, on which I was pleased to serve as a member. It seems to me to be a little sad that the government cannot embrace the whole concept of having a republic. No-one doubts the Prime Minister's position about being a monarchist, but in looking at the fact that we are going into a new century, a new millennium, 100 years of Federation, and we will still be lock-step with something which has outlived its usefulness, it is a pity that he could not have said, `Look, I am a monarchist, but I ask people to understand that I now support a referendum and I now support a republic as we go into the new millennium.' I find that a little disappointing. Others might not find it disappointing.The committee had deliberated on adding some further words that do not appear in its recommendation—that the President would have the same powers as the Governor-General. The difficulty with that was that in evidence monarchists believed that, because a Prime Minister can no longer appoint a chauffeur as a Governor-General—that is, that there is a nomination process where citizens can recommend people to be considered for President, the committee considers a short list and from that short list both the Prime Minister and presumably the Leader of the Opposition will agree to bring forward one name—the nomination process really does change the power. Learned witnesses before the committee said no, that was not the case. But, as I say, monarchists argued that that change in the procedure, plus the change to the dismissal procedure, had an impact on the powers of the President and so you could say `similar' but not `the same', and in the end we dropped that out.I mention this because I think there is a natural tension in the long title between wanting to put in as much as you can to give an idea of what is happening and keeping it simple so that the vast majority of Australians would understand the process. For example, is the two-thirds appointment part of the nomination process the key element or is it the fact that every Australian in the future, if this were to be accepted, would have the right to nominate who might be considered to be a President of Australia? As I say, there would be a whole process to that.At the moment there is absolutely no process—this was confirmed by Malcolm Fraser. There is no process; a Prime Minister does not even have to take it to cabinet for approval. It is not even an under the line cabinet decision; it is just an announcement by the Prime Minister. As I say, I do not think any Prime Minister of any persuasion would appoint his chauffeur but there is absolutely nothing at the moment to stop a Prime Minister appointing his chauffeur to be Governor-General. We are changing that. We are actually putting some safeguards into it. We are actually putting some democracy into the process, yet people object to it. I find that very sad.I want to reiterate that, as for the committee deliberations, I have respect for all the members of the committee who participated in the inquiry, particularly those who turned up to consider the chairman's draft report. It is a fact that every person there, whether they were Labor or Liberal or National, all agreed unanimously that this was the best long title to take to the Australian people. If the committee system is to mean anything, it behoves the government to explain why they think a bipartisan committee process should be overturned.I think the long title is simple. It focuses on the key elements of the change. People will appreciate its simplicity and its relative brevity and it does not wish to disguise in any way the changes that would be made. In fact, I say again: why have the two-thirds appointment process in there and not the reference to the nominations committee or the dismissal procedures? And then you would get something that is probably about 80 words long. In conclusion, I support the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition. (Time expired)21:01:008149Southcott, Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—I rise to support the government's amendment, which I think is a fair amendment, mentioning both the appointment system and the replacement of the Queen and the Governor-General. I want to make several points in the context of this consideration in detail stage.Mr Rudd interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Griffith! Everyone is entitled to be heard in silence.TK6Southcott, Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTT—First of all, there are a number of conservative arguments in favour of a republic, in favour of a yes vote on 6 November. Edmund Burke, the father of conservative thought, supported the concept of organic change where defence of the status quo was no longer feasible. As Conor Cruise O'Brien has stated in his 1992 biography of Burke and in his 1997 National Review lecture with regard to an American republic, initially, from 1765 to 1775, Burke opposed American independence through such measures as the repeal of the Stamp Act. But from 1778 on he supported an American republic. That is the Burkean tradition—organic change when the status quo is no longer viable. Similarly, with independence for Ireland, O'Brien believes that Burke would have supported the recognition of the independence of Ireland, but he opposed a French republic.Australian historian John Hirst first outlined the argument in Quadrant in 1991 that there are good conservative reasons for supporting a minimal republic. Put simply, Hirst argued that the Queen no longer occupied the central role in civic life that she played 40 years ago or even 20 years ago. To argue about whether the Governor-General or the Queen is Australia's head of state resembles theological arguments about how many angels you can fit on the head of a pin. If the Queen is not Australia's head of state, why is she on the $5 note?When the Australian colonies were granted self-government in the 19th century, it was argued that it was not necessary to replicate exactly the Westminster model as the Australians could be relied on, as British citizens, to adopt a similar form of government. The same argument, without those politically incorrect overtones, still applies today. There are any number of plausible arguments that we can run against any model of government but what we should bear in mind is that Australia has a democratic tradition almost 150 years old and that it is the behaviour and the respect for rules and conventions which underpin our stable democratic tradition. In other words, it is not so much the structure as the behaviour of the participants which underpins our stable tradition.The Constitution in 1901 and the Constitution in practice today are vastly different but most of the change has been evolutionary. Most of the change has occurred without referenda. It has occurred through legislative change, changes in the conventions and changes in the common law. Australia has evolved from the position of a dominion, through things like the Balfour Declaration in 1926, the Statute of Westminster in 1931—adopted in Australia in 1942—and the Australia Acts of 1975 and 1986, to a point where we are now, to all intents and purposes, a federal republic. We do have a republican form of government—Brian Galligan has called it `a federal republic'. But we are a crowned republic. It is almost like Barataria in Gilbert and Sullivan's Gondoliers in that we are a `monarchy tempered with republican equality'.So the argument for 6 November is essentially about repatriating the appointment process. There are arguments saying the Governor-General is Australia's head of state—and he does wield those powers. But the true de jure head of state is the Queen of Australia and this is about repatriating the appointment of the person who wields those powers.On 2 March 1996 the coalition government was elected and within a week the ministry was sworn in. The Prime Minister is not mentioned in the Constitution. How we handle transfers of government is not codified in the Constitution. Yet it all occurred without the parliament meeting. It occurred because of the respect for convention and the respect for democratic tradition. By contrast, tonight in Russia Boris Yeltsin dismissed his fourth Prime Minister. It would be misleading to suggest that Australia, by moving to a republic, will adopt this sort of behaviour. Rather than being defined by the written Constitution, our stability is circumscribed by the conventions and our respect for them. They will continue under a republic. I support the government's position. I will support a yes vote on 6 November.21:06:008150Roxon, Nicola, MPMs ROXON83KGellibrandALP00—It is a very funny world that we are in up here, isn't it! Before I was elected in October last year, my friends and family all said to me, `You're going to a funny old world up there.' I thought that they were right, but not for the reasons that I have heard tonight. I never expected to hear all the constitutional monarchists refuse to mention the Queen. I feel like we are in a Basil Fawlty movie or something, `Don't mention the Queen.' Anybody who wants to keep the constitutional monarchy in place does not want to mention the Queen.I wish that we could have this debate with the people who are opposed to my personal view at least prepared to argue on the issue of substance—at least prepared to say, `We want the Queen to stay because we reckon she's all right. We don't mind if the next monarch we have is King Charles. We don't mind if the next monarch is King William. We think Lizzie has had a few problems but basically they have served us well.' Argue at least the substance, because I did not expect to be in this place having a debate about what I believe in, and what other people believe in, with everybody refusing to deal with the issues that we are talking about. It becomes very important when we are debating this long title.As a member of the Joint Select Committee on the Republic Referendum, I was very impressed with the committee's capacity—across parties and across houses—to come up with a sensible proposal which would fairly describe and put a question to the people which makes clear the fundamental change that will be proposed when we vote on 6 November. I was disappointed that the Prime Minister, despite having said that his personal view will not interfere with his public office and that he will allow this question to be put fairly, was not prepared to accept the recommendation of that committee and has made some significant changes which make the question substantially worse.One of the important recommendations that the committee made was that the words `Queen and the Governor-General being replaced by an Australian President' be added to the question. This is the amendment that has been moved by the Leader of the Opposition. It is important that it does say `an Australian President'. For all of the anger and confusion that the direct electionists and the constitutional monarchists want to argue about—whether the Queen is the Queen of Australia or whether the Governor-General is an Australian—they need to look at the Constitution. There is nothing to stop the Governor-General from being Chinese, a New Zealander, Latvian or English. There is nothing in our Constitution that requires our Governor-General to be an Australian.Mrs Bronwyn Bishop interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The same admonition that applied to the member for Griffith applies to the Minister for Aged Care.83KRoxon, Nicola, MPMs ROXON—Further, we can look at the very interesting concept—and I love it when constitutional monarchists get into this, but I notice that both ministers were not prepared to today—of this notion of divisibility of the Queen. Although the Queen is the Queen of Britain, there is some concept that she can be the Queen of Australia and, when she is the Queen of Australia, she is a different person from when she is the Queen of Britain. I love this. We had a fantastic witness in Melbourne who was an old cricketer, English born, who had become an Australian citizen and played for Australia against England. He said, `Look, it just doesn't make sense to me that the Queen of Britain can be the Queen of Australia. It is like saying that the English cricket captain can be the Australian cricket captain when they are playing in Australia. It just doesn't make sense that they can bat for both teams.' I thought that that was very persuasive.It is very unfair to say that we cannot refer to this change as one that converts us to a republic with an Australian President because, if we say that, we have to say that we have an Australian Governor-General and we have the Queen in right of Australia. It defies logic. It is the right of those on the other side to not agree with me but I wish that they were prepared to argue this on the facts rather than the scaremongering that has been going on.I also would like to ask the Prime Minister, when he is determined to have the process of the nomination and final approval by the two-thirds majority of the parliament, what he thinks is the most important step in becoming elected as a Prime Minister of this country. What would he describe as the most important step? Is it when the party room supports him? Probably in his seat it might be when his pre-selectors support him. Is it when he is elected by the people in his electorate? Or is it when he gets sworn in by the Governor-General? Unless we are going to use the comparable process for this President, we should not put part of the nomination process in and leave the other part out. It is quite misleading. I think that the Prime Minister really needs to look at his own position. What is important? When the community elects him? When there is a public nomination process? When he gets sworn in? Let us be consistent about the way we deal with these issues. I commend the amendment that has been moved by the Leader of the Opposition. (Time expired)21:11:008151Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—I am very pleased to support the Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) Bill 1999 . This government has promised that we will deliver to the people of Australia the form of government they want, unlike the Keating Labor government, which sought to impose on the Australian people its form of republic. Having said that, it is also important to recognise that this referendum is not about whether or not Australia should become a republic; it is about whether the republican model on offer is better or worse than our current system, which has delivered to Australia freedom, stability and a way of life that is the envy of people throughout the world.This model has a number of very serious problems. I am totally opposed to the amendment before the chamber, moved by the Leader of the Opposition. What the Leader of the Opposition is seeking to do with his proposed change is to confuse and distort the question, with a view to tricking the Australian people by not explaining to them that the republic that is on offer is indeed a politician's republic and not a republic which is controlled by the people.There are a number of grave faults with the model. Firstly, there is the appointment mechanism, and then there is the dismissal mechanism for the President. There is the question of the powers of the President, and there is the question as to whether those powers are justiciable or not. We also have to consider the question of the conventions of constitutional monarchy and whether or not they will survive in a republic. We have to look at whether, with the Keating-Turnbull republican model, which is the only republican model on offer, we will have the checks and balances in Australia which we have had since 1901, and which, through its unique genius, denies too much power to any individual.I oppose the proposal being put by the Leader of the Opposition. I very strongly support the mechanism that the Prime Minister has put in place, and I also intend to back the amendment which will be moved by the Attorney-General that will indicate quite clearly the substance of the question which will be before the Australian people on 6 November. The republic, which the people of Australia will have the opportunity to vote for or against, will be a republic where the President is appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth parliament.Every opinion poll which has been published in Australia shows that if Australia is to become a republic then the people want to have a say.Opposition members interjecting—0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—And yet the chardonnay socialists opposite—the Bollinger Bolsheviks opposite—want to exclude the people of Australia from having any say in who should be Australia's President. The onus is on those who advocate change to make sure that change is better than the system which we now have. If you listen to Labor Party luminaries, they stand up here and claim that they seek, through the Keating-Turnbull model which is on offer, to preserve the benefits of Australia's Westminster system while bringing about change as we move into the next century.I want to stress that I am someone who did stand on the sidelines for some time. I looked at the proposals of the Keating republican advisory committee. I waited to be convinced. I was interested in what was on offer, and I have to say that those people who advocate the change which the Labor Party wants are asking us to simply chart a course into the unknown. They are asking us to accept a republic where the President's powers are not defined, where the President's powers are non-justiciable, and where the President's powers at the end of the day will be what he chooses them to be, and we cannot restrain him in any way, shape or form. We are asked to give the President virtually unfettered power to appoint a Prime Minister from outside the parliament. Such a Prime Minister, of course, would in due course have to find a seat in the parliament, but it is not beyond the realms of possibility that, if he or she could not, the President could then indeed appoint someone else from outside the parliament to be Prime Minister.The reason I highlight just a few of these problems is to indicate that the model on offer is fatally flawed. Whether you think Australia should or should not become a republic, the model which the people of Australia have to vote for or against on 6 November is substantially inferior to the system of government which we have—a system of government which has made Australia one of the greatest democracies in the world. I am proud of Australia. I think we ought to reject the Keating-Turnbull model. (Time expired)21:16:008152Danby, Michael, MPMr DANBYWF6Melbourne PortsALP00—For the Australian public, the key recommendation of this report is in its long title. As the member for Chifley said in his remarks earlier, the Joint Select Committee on the Republic Referendum took testimony all over Australia. It spoke to people all around this country. As `the modest middle-bencher' over there said, it spoke to people from Broome to Darwin to Townsville—all over this great country. Some of the speakers opposite—and, I believe, the Liberal Party room—have shown great discourtesy to the people all over Australia who contributed to the unanimous, as far as I was concerned, recommendation of the joint select committee. It was based on the testimony that people on the committee received and understood. Members of the Liberal Party voted for the resolution as it originally stands, as proposed by the Leader of the Opposition.The stream of consciousness we heard from the member for Mackellar and the abuse of the chardonnay socialists that we heard from the member before me underline what I think lies behind a lot of the hostility to the proposal for a republic. That is an unreasoning hatred of the Australian republic movement and the fact that members of the Labor Party support this change. It has nothing to do with the national interest.SE4BISHOPMrs Bronwyn Bishop—Oh, really!WF6Danby, Michael, MPMr DANBY—Yes.SE4BISHOPMrs Bronwyn Bishop—Oh, goody gumdrops!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Minister!WF6Danby, Michael, MPMr DANBY—The committee made a great effort to ensure that there was no anti-British sentiment and no hatred of our great Westminster system in its report. It made very clear, in its final recommendations, that there will be no change to the flag, for those people who are concerned about that. We will not be leaving the Commonwealth Games. We will allow all clubs such as the Royal Canberra Golf Club and the Royal Sandringham Yacht Club to keep their royal prefixes if they so desire. Every scare tactic of the constitutional monarchists opposite was dealt with. In particular, we dealt with the scare tactic of the dismissal of the President and the unfettered powers that the previous speaker suggested that he would have. This is absolute nonsense, and it is best outlined in the testimony of your former conservative Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser. If you had the time to read the testimony of Mr Fraser, you would see that he said very simply that the power of the President as outlined in the report of the committee is exactly what the situation is at the moment. It would simply be a matter of a few short hours. The Queen, of course, would take the current Prime Minister's advice to remove the President. There would be no change to the power of the President as outlined under the new system.One of the most important aspects, which I will return to, is the idea that an Australian should be able to be our head of state. I do not know why those opposite are so anxious to see that this is not mentioned in the proposed referendum. They know, as outlined in newspapers today, that the wording proposed by the committee—by Mr Charles, who so ably chaired the committee and, as I said in my remarks this morning, was inscrutable and neutral, during the committee's proceedings—would receive 57 per cent support. When you start putting the mechanics into the long title, you start to confuse people. Of course no-one is being dishonest, and of course we are suggesting that the President would be elected by a two-thirds majority of parliament. This is outlined in the bills. But when you start putting in mechanics, you know that people will start voting against it, because they do not understand it. This will be the first occasion when many people look at the bill, and in my view the inclusion of the long title by the government is a deliberate attempt to sink the bill. The republic stands or falls on the wording of this long title that goes before the Australian public, and I believe that the original wording put up by the committee was based on testimony from Australians all over this country. (Time expired)21:21:008153Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH2K6LongmanLP10—One thing I am sure we can all agree on here tonight is that on 7 November—the day after this referendum—Australia will not be somehow confronted with a civil war. We all know that, whatever the result, the Australian public have enough good sense and enough judgment to move on and Australia will continue very much as it was on 5 November. I believe that is very much the reason why we have had one of the most successful democracies in the world. It is not because of our Constitution; it is because of the quality and judgment of the Australian people. We as a nation have been through some very difficult times. But, in doing so, we have never once moved towards civil conflict since Federation, and I do not believe we will after this vote is taken.Many emotive issues will be raised. There will be many misrepresentations made on both sides of this argument, and some of them we have heard here tonight already. But what concerns me is the lack of bipartisanship. If you wish to say that the Prime Minister's original position and that of the government's was to push this debate one way and to give an unfair advantage, then just as equally you could say that the amendment proposed by the Leader of the Opposition could do just the same.I would actually question how many people in this place would know enough about the Constitution to be able to make fine judgments about what the Governor-General can and cannot do and the powers of the Prime Minister in particular circumstances. I certainly do not have that detail, and I am sure that the majority of the electors of Longman do not have that detail. What they want to know is: will we have an Australian head of state? Will we remain with the status quo? How is that person to be elected? Whether or not that person can dismiss the Prime Minister, or whether the Prime Minister can dismiss that person, will be open to conjecture for many of them. That is not the detail which many of them are going to ever get around regardless of whether it is in this question or not.I believe that the amendment moved in this House tonight and on which we will vote is a right and proper question to put before the people. It states quite clearly and succinctly that we will be moving from a Queen and a Governor-General to a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth parliament. People can make a judgment knowing how that person is to be appointed. Sure there are other processes to be followed, and they will form part of the argument for those who wish to support a republic, just as those supporting the monarchy and the status quo will no doubt rile against such moves.For those who claim that the Prime Minister will have so much more power over the President, reflect back to 1975. It is my clear understanding that, if the Prime Minister of the day, Gough Whitlam, had thought for one moment that Sir Roden Cutler would have actually dismissed him, he would have jumped first and sacked the then Governor-General and perhaps put in his place Sir Roden Cutler—83REDWARDSMr Edwards—What if the Governor-General was Sir John Kerr?2K6Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH—Sorry, Sir John Kerr. The point I was going to make was that he perhaps might have put in his place Sir Roden Cutler, the Governor of New South Wales, whose clear point was never to act in such a way.Therefore, the powers that we are debating tonight and the powers that will be debated in the two to three months ahead are really not relevant to the question. What is important is whether Australia wants to take the next deliberate step forward in becoming a republic and becoming self-sufficient in all its forms. I believe that the time is right. I believe it is right because it is a time when Australia is not in conflict and is not tearing itself apart. It is a time when we can have a debate and when, if you call a public meeting, you are likely to get 50 people there. That is because it is not a top of the mind issue. Perhaps this is the best time in which to decide these things: when a lot of the emotion is out of it and we get down to people actually having to make a decision—and, in doing so, making a rational decision.OT4CHARLESMr Charles—It is still pretty emotional.2K6Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH—Yes. As I have just been reminded by my colleague, it is still very emotional for some. But it is not for the greater majority of Australians.Mr Speaker, I end where I began: regardless of this decision, Australians will wake up on 7 November in the same peaceful nation that we reside in today—with a few people with a few more headaches celebrating one way or another that Australia's great state will continue because of the quality of the people who make up this nation.UNKNOWNOpposition members interjectingOpposition members interjecting—Where do you stand?2K6Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH—I'm a republican.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! One would have thought that the sort of maturity that allowed people to hear differing views in silence would at least exist in this debating chamber.21:26:008155Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—As a member of the Joint Select Committee on the Republic Referendum, I rise to support the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition and the position adopted unanimously by the joint select committee at its deliberations last Tuesday. I find it most disturbing that the Prime Minister is ignoring the recommendation of the committee—a committee that he himself established and one that came down with what all the members of that committee believed was a very fair and reasonable question to be put to the Australian people.I have to refer to some of the arguments that have been put forward by previous speakers. In doing so, I note the absence of the member for Cook and the member for Sturt, who were both present at that final deliberation and who support wholeheartedly the recommendation that was put to the parliament today—the recommendation that contained the question that the Leader of the Opposition put to the parliament. The Minister for Aged Care showed her total lack of understanding and knowledge of the Australian Constitution with her contribution tonight. She distorted the issue and debate and was running a scare campaign in all her argument. It is quite obvious that she does not really understand the Constitution, the issue or the question that will be put to the Australian people.The Minister for Employment Services congratulated the Prime Minister and the cabinet on the question that is going to be put to the Australian people. At the same time he states that he is a monarchist and is supporting that position because he is a monarchist—just as all the monarchists that we heard during the deliberations and the public hearings supported the first question—and because he knows that it is a distorted, misleading question and because he knows that it is a question that will influence the Australian people to vote the way that he wants them to. He is not prepared to let the Australian people vote on a neutral, unbiased question. He is saying that we are having the vote that we have to have and we are going to decide on an issue for our time. There is the warning for the Australian people: the question of whether Australia will become a republic will be decided now once and for all; otherwise, it will not come up again during the time of the Minister for Employment Services.The member for Boothby said that it is a fair question, that he supports Australia becoming a republic and that he will vote yes. I do not understand how he can support this question if he truly supports a republic. The member for Fisher said that this is going to deliver the kind of government that the Australian people want. If it is the kind of government the Australian people want, at least let them have a say. At least present them with an honest question. Do not try to distort the issue. That is what this is about—distorting the issue, not trusting the Australian people. He talked about the checks and balances currently in place. He tried to run a scare campaign, insinuating that, if Australia becomes a republic, if this legislation passes through the parliament and if the referendum question is passed, all of a sudden the checks and balances which are in place in Australia will disappear. He is also trying to say that the President will have the power to appoint a Prime Minister. With the system of government we have, we all know how the Prime Minister is appointed, and it will not change if Australia becomes a republic. The member for Melbourne Ports said that no higher authority than a former Liberal Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser, denied the fact that the system would be any different from the one that is operating at the moment.I am disgusted that the Prime Minister and those monarchists on the other side of this House do not trust the Australian people enough to let them have a say and make a choice by offering them an unbiased question. Instead, they try to mislead the Australian people by presenting them with a dishonest referendum question. (Time expired)21:31:008155St Clair, Stuart, MPMr St CLAIR84BNew EnglandNP10—What a historic occasion tonight is, and I think that is reflected on both sides of this House. It is certainly one of the great issues that I have looked forward to since coming into parliament last year. Having talked to the people in the electorate of New England for the last two years, I have found no-one particularly enthusiastic about any change from the system we have. The interesting part about it is that we have proposals put up and bills put up—and we have another one today—but as far as I am concerned I have not yet seen a system being put forward that is any better than the system we have.My family came here from Ireland in about 1842. They went to Ireland from Scotland because they had been fighting the Poms for hundreds of years. Some say that they should have stayed in Ireland. Thank goodness they came here.There has not been any great change wanted. Unlike some of the city electorates which have one or two schools, my electorate has just over 100 schools. As I go around my electorate, it is quite amazing that, as I speak to year 11 and 12 students in particular and address their regional conferences where they discuss issues of the republic, the preamble, et cetera, there is no-one looking for change. Everyone seems to be comfortable. So I am certainly looking forward to the people of Australia making that decision on 6 November.I have a belief that we should be looking at the Constitution in the way that the nation is governed, rather than worrying about whether or not we go to a republic. I believe that the nation, as it goes into the next millennium, should be saying, `We have three levels of government in Australia. Is that the way we want to do it? Do we want to have states? Is it quite comfortable to have regional government?' et cetera. I think there are far more important things to be discussing rather than simply looking forward to some sort of change that some people are proposing. I look forward, with the rest of my people in New England, to voting no on 6 November.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Before I call the next speaker, I want to make it quite clear that Mr Speaker has indicated that his expectation is that this debate will see every member heard in silence. If anybody wants to ignore the request of the Speaker, it can easily be arranged that you are not here for the division.21:35:008156Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—This evening's debate on the Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) Bill 1999 is a major debate in the history of the nation. It is about how we see ourselves and about how others see us. It is not about marginalia. It is not a second or third order issue, as many of those opposite tend to describe it. It goes to the core of who we are as a people and whether we wish independently to shape our political future. When in 100 years time our successors look back on the debates contained in the Hansard of this evening, I think there will be a degree of puzzlement about the contributions to this debate by the government and by the Prime Minister. They will be puzzled as to why this government and this Prime Minister place, and have placed, every conceivable obstacle in the path of this nation achieving its final act of independence. They will be puzzled as to why this government and this Prime Minister lacked courage and clarity of vision to embrace our future, instead preferring to cling to a past that has already passed us by.To the `imperial nostalgiacs' who sit opposite, I say that once the monarchy made sense. When we had a thing which was indivisible under the monarchy called the British Empire, which had about it a logic which was a common imperial defence, a common market, a common monarchy actually made logical sense in terms of our practical, political arrangements. Those days have passed. For the information of those opposite, the changes in that direction were not initiated by us. They were initiated in Westminster.If you look at the history of Australian defence policy, you will see that the winds have changed. British defence policy east of Suez was initiated by Macmillan—by nobody in this country—in the early 1960s. When we turn to the common market, an initiative of the British government in 1970 under Edward Heath—Macmillan and Heath were both conservative Prime Ministers, I would remind the Minister for Aged Care, sitting opposite—decisions were taken by the British govern ment at the time about where its interests lay—and they did not lie in the perpetuation of this entity called the British Empire, which had served, to some extent, the practical realities of the 19th century, and they did not for the second half of the 20th century. Those realities have passed us by, yet we still have the overhang of the constitutional arrangements which underpinned it.The logic of the republic is unassailable in two essential respects. The first is that our head of state should be one of us. It is part, as the member for Boothby said before, of the evolution of our constitutional arrangements. There was a time when it was regarded as near-heresy for governors and governors-general of this country to be nominated and appointed from Canberra or from the state capitals as opposed to directly from London. It was regarded as heresy when Scullin appointed Isaacs as an Australian-born Governor-General of this country. It was equally regarded as heresy when we had, for the first time, the abolition of appeals to the Privy Council. It was regarded by some as an unfortunate set of developments when we had the culmination of our independent constitutional arrangements underpinned in the Australia Act 1986. The establishment of an Australian head of state is simply the next step in this process—this process of political evolution. Each step along the way has been opposed by political conservatives in this country as somehow being the harbinger of the skies falling in, the heavens collapsing and the world in the future never being like it was in the past.The second unassailable piece of logic which underpins the republic is simply this: for us and our friends in the region the continuation of the British monarch as the Australian head of state is at minimum perplexing and at maximum totally confusing for our regional friends and partners. Many of us in this chamber have worked for this country abroad in various capacities. In my experience, and in the experience of members from the other side who have spoken in this debate today, it is completely incomprehensible to our neighbours that we have as an Australian head of state a British monarch. You cannot clothe that in any other language other than a reality which it underpins.The conclusion on this topic is simply this: the amendment which has been moved by the Leader of the Opposition is essential if we are to have a clear choice when this matter goes to the Australian people for final decision on 6 November. The Australian people will have before them a challenge which will not be put back to them for many years to come. It behoves all those opposite to support it in a clear and forthright manner. (Time expired)21:40:008157Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4LaTrobeLP10—It had been my intention to give a very measured response to this debate on the Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) Bill 1999 tonight, but I have to say that the member for Griffith has rather riled me. He said that the Prime Minister had a case to answer on this issue. Perhaps you need a history lesson, young man, because—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Please address your remarks through the chair and say nothing to the young man or any other young person.OT4Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLES—Mr Deputy Speaker, you might give the young man a lesson in history. I was a member of the shadow cabinet when this issue was first raised and may I tell you that the Prime Minister, through a procedure in shadow cabinet, the outer shadow ministry and the entirety of the party room, after endless consultation, agreed that we would have a referendum. It was agreed that, first, we would have a constitutional convention to decide whether or not a question could be raised that could be put to the people at referendum to change the Constitution. Very detailed proposals were insisted on by members of the backbench, members of the outer shadow ministry, as well as the shadow cabinet, on how the Constitutional Convention itself would be structured and on whether or not an outcome would be put to the people.In all honour and integrity, our Prime Minister, in the lead-up to the 1996 election, took to the people the proposition, amongst others, that he would put to the people an issue for referendum to change the Constitution if a constitutional convention, which he would call, came up with such a proposition. The Constitutional Convention was convened and, in 1998, it came up with an outcome which the Prime Minister accepted as being an outcome which would go to the people in referendum. In no way has Prime Minister John Howard ever not kept faith with the Australian people on this issue.I chaired the Joint Select Committee on the Republic Referendum and this has been the subject of a great deal of debate tonight. It was a great honour to chair that committee. Notwithstanding the fact that we made a recommendation to the House of Representatives today, the cabinet still has a role to play in the parliamentary process, as does the House—and this side of the House happens to have the numbers. I am quite happy about the change to the wording of the long title of the bill which will become the question on the referendum paper put to the people of Australia, theoretically, on 6 November 1999. I am pleased because the Prime Minister, the cabinet and, in fact, the government rooms have seen fit to accept the committee's recommendation that a reference be made to changing the Constitution by replacing the Queen and the Governor-General with a President.I am also pleased that the former question which contained a reference to `chosen' with respect to the parliament of Australia has been changed as well. I accept that `Australian President' more euphemistically described what may happen, but it was a bit emotive and I have no objection to the removal of that term. I accept the decision by the cabinet, the government and all those on this side of the House. I think it is a sensible compromise. The committee should be pleased that we had such an outstanding outcome. It is highly unusual for a committee in this place, particularly on such a highly politically charged issue, to have a Prime Minister and a cabinet agreeing that the committee had a point. I do not claim victory, because there is none. I simply claim that I am pleased with the outcome today. (Time expired)21:45:008158Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—Like the member for Flinders, I support the direct election of an Australian President, but unlike the member for Flinders I will be voting yes at the referendum in November. I believe that a direct election republic has much to commend it. It certainly gets closest to the true republican philosophy of entrusting direct sovereignty to the people of a nation. It certainly matches my own philosophy supporting the devolution of power. I see the true socialist principle of our time to be the dispersal of economic and political power at every opportunity. The direct election model also has the advantage of countering public cynicism and distrust of these parliamentary processes, and for that reason it would be the most likely model to succeed at a referendum question. Finally, I believe that a direct election republic can be codified; the powers of a President can be codified. I subscribe to the longstanding Whitlamite principle that a head of state should follow the advice of his or her Prime Minister; that codification is good enough for clearing up the powers of a directly elected President.But, despite those things, I will be voting yes on 6 November, and voting yes for very good reasons. A true republican would support republican principles first and foremost. A true republican would turn to questions of detail and the method of election only as a secondary matter. The main matter at hand for true republicans is to move from an English head of state to an Australian head of state and to worry about questions of detail and method of election as a secondary question. The main issue, the central issue, indeed the overriding issue, on 6 November is to establish an Australian head of state, a head of state who is one of us.I think it needs to be recognised that our Constitution is in a permanent state of evolution. Direct election republicans can vote yes in November knowing that further down the track they will have the chance to advance their argument for further evolution in our Constitution. If I can survive in this place, I would like to see the day where I could be party to such a process, to have a republic established in November, and then for those direct election republicans to take the constructive role of advocating a better method of election thereafter. I would urge that approach on the member for Flinders. True republicans do not spoil when they have the chance to move from an English head of state to an Australian head of state—someone who is one of us. That principle is so important. No true republican would turn it down at any opportunity. They would argue the constant state of evolution and put their case for a different method of election further down the track. I would urge any republican who supports, as I do, the direct election model to vote yes in November. It is the best way to move towards our preferred choice, to establish the Australian head of state as the first principle, and to move to the details as a secondary matter. The principle is so important.It always saddens me to see Liberal Party members opposite—the party that was founded on the principles of opportunity, a party that often talks about the possibilities of the next generation—turn down the opportunity to give young Australians a chance at everything in this nation. In this era of unlimited possibility, technological change and educational advance, if you are a young person in this country you can do anything. You can pretty well do anything in this world of possibility except, in this country, one thing: you will never, ever be our head of state. To deny that possibility to young Australians is a shameful thing as we move into the next millennium. Why should young Australians have that possibility denied to them? Why should that position be reserved not for an Australian but for a British citizen—not for a British citizen even elected by their own people but someone reserved by hereditary privilege under the House of Windsor? For the so-called small `l' liberals to do that is a shameful thing.Every young Australian should have the opportunity to be what they want to be in life, to follow their ambition. If that takes them to one of the highest offices in the land—the head of state in this country—then they should not be denied that possibility. They should not be denied that opportunity. That is the passion that burns in the hearts of true republicans. I say to not only the member for Flinders but people like Ted Mack and Phil Cleary, former members of this place: if that passion truly burned in their hearts and they believed in the constant evolution of our Constitution, they too would be voting yes on 6 November and then advancing their best arguments thereafter to move to the direct election model. (Time expired)Question put: That the amendment (Mr Beazley's) be agreed to. The House divided. [9.56 p.m.](Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 ——Voting lists are recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Question so resolved in the negative.21:59:008159Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I move:(1) Title, page 1 (lines 1 to 5), omit the title, substitute:A Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament.This amendment replaces the long title of the Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) Bill 1999 . The government has always sought to have a long title of the republic bill which accurately and fairly reflects the referendum proposal. The long title is particularly important because the words form the basis of the referendum question. In the bill as it is presently before the House, the long title is:A Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with a President chosen by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament.The proposed long title is:A Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the Commonwealth Parliament.The wording of the long title has been the subject of significant debate, not only tonight but on a number of occasions. In the report of the Joint Select Committee on the Republic Referendum which was tabled today, the committee recommended a change to the long title. I will come back to that as I want to comment on what the committee recommended.The government does not agree with the committee's recommendation on this point. In the light of this recommendation, the government proposes two significant changes to the long title of the republic bill as introduced. The government is confident that the amended long title is a fair compromise. The proposed changes are, first, after the statement that the purpose of the bill is `to alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic', the amendment inserts the words `with the Queen and the Governor-General being replaced by a President'. The committee suggested that these words would present, clearly and simply, the essential purpose and outcome of the proposed legislation.The government accepts that the proposed words are appropriate. However, the government still believes that it is important for the long title to give an indication of the particular republic model to be put to the vote. The long title will therefore continue to refer to the method by which the President is to be appointed. The current wording refers to `a President chosen by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament'. These words were the subject of consideration by the committee. In particular, witnesses before the committee questioned the use of the word `chosen'. The government has noted these concerns. The second amendment is, therefore, to replace the word `chosen' with the word `appointed', which better reflects the parliament's role in the process. The government believes that the long title as amended will accurately and fairly reflect the contents of the proposal and will appropriately form the basis of the referendum question.While it is commendable that the committee was able to agree—if not unanimously, at least by a substantial majority—on a new long title, the committee's recommendation is defective. It is very important that the question that is put to the people is regarded by both sides—the yes supporters and the no supporters—as putting the issue fairly before the people and not weighting it in either direction. In this respect, the no supporters can be critical of the committee's proposal because in one place it uses the word `Australian' in respect of the President but fails to use that adjective in relation to the Governor-General.Secondly, supporters of both sides could potentially criticise it for not putting the issue of the preferred model fairly before the people. It is as consistent with the direct election model as it is with the parliamentary election model. On that basis, it is not supported. The government supports the amendment that has been circulated in my name. I present the supplementary explanatory memorandum.22:05:008160Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—I am somewhat confused by the advocacy of the Attorney-General for his own position. I know he does not support it. I am confused as to why he would bother to try to demonstrate his support for it with the words he has just used. I am confounded by the propositions which he has put in saying that the supporters of the no case would be confused and the supporters of the yes case would be confused. Frankly, the bottom line is very simple: there is no acknowledgment by the government, by the Prime Minister, by his cabinet, by his ministry or by his party that an Australian should be the head of state. That is a very simple question.This question as it stands is going to confuse and confound. The merits of the argument were put to this House earlier this evening by the member for Griffith and the member for Werriwa as to why the term `Australian as a head of state' should be put in this long title. The electorate I represent has gone through a process whereby there was a referendum on a question to do with becoming a state. The question was confusing and the population voted accordingly—just as the Prime Minister hopes that the question that will be put to the people on the referendum will confuse them and they will vote accordingly.When the Attorney-General says that the question should not favour one side or the other, I agree. But the most generous interpretation I can give to the question which would be framed if we were to support the amendment put by the government is that it supports the no case. The confusion it will cause by its wording will inevitably lead people to vote against the proposal as it is being put. The simple question that the Australian people want asked is whether they should have an Australian as head of state. The motion just voted on and voted down by the government was the question the Australian people want.I know from my own experience in my own electorate that people who do not have the understanding of the Attorney-General or his colleagues about the Australian Constitution will be confused when they see the words as they are being proposed by the government and they will ask the question, `What is this about?' I can say what I think it is about: it is about the primacy of the Prime Minister; it is not about asking a reasonable question of the Australian community. This is a Prime Minister who said last week that he did not think there should be a change to the question. Then this morning he says, `Yes, we will have a change.' The question has been changed in the way it has been put by the Attorney-General, only to reflect the Prime Minister's view, as it was with the debate on the preamble.I again refer to my own electorate. Thirty per cent of my electorate are Aboriginal people. Quite a large proportion of them have English as a second language, just as many migrants in the Australian community have English as a second language. To them, the reading of this question will be confusing.SE4BISHOPMrs Bronwyn Bishop—What?IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDON—Whilst you protest that this will have an outcome of having an Australian head of state, nowhere in this question is there any mention of the word `Australian'. We have a `President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of parliament', not an Australian President; not even the simple acknowledgment in this question that we want an Australian President. It is open for the Governor-General to be anyone. The Governor-General can be a United Kingdom citizen. The Governor-General has historically been a non-Australian. The Australian community demands that the head of state be an Australian. The simple proposition that you should be putting to the Australian people is that question. I note the member for Werriwa has taken the position which I adopt. Whilst I do not accept his position on the republic, I recommend that all those republicans oppose the motion put by the government.22:10:008161Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLP10—I commend the government for bringing forward this legislation, and I particularly commend the Attorney-General for the amendment agreed to today by cabinet because it does take very seriously the work of the committee and it includes the words now of `replacing the Queen and the Governor-General with a President'. The government is also fulfilling its promise, as has already been stated, to hold a referendum and to provide the Australian people with the opportunity to make a choice. This is an occasion when the vote of each individual in my own electorate will be of equal importance to my own, and I shall vote yes on 6 November.Those who support the current arrangements are correct to say that the constitutional monarchy has served us well. Australia has one of the longest continuous democratic federations in the world and has remained socially and politically intact throughout two world wars, the Depression and countless natural disasters. To this fact, it is too easy to give the very Australian response, `If it ain't broke, don't fix it,' but this is a recipe for mediocrity—it drains passion, innovation and the pursuit of excellence from society and sends younger members of the community very damaging messages. Sir William Deane is an Australian and is very respected, but he represents the Queen.A laconic approach to constitutional change is at odds with the determination we have shown as a nation in academia, on the sporting field and in defending our values. We are a small nation with a very short history yet we have influenced world affairs to a degree well out of proportion to our size. This has not come about by taking a laid back and reserved approach to changing times and attitudes. Any institution, including our system of constitutional monarchy, must remain relevant to the everyday lives of the communities it seeks to serve. It is clear that an Australian head of state is necessary if we are to be taken seriously internationally. Was there a greater example of this than when the President of the United States toasted the good health of the Queen when he dined in the Great Hall of the Australian Parliament? He should have toasted an Australian as the representative and head of a strong and independent nation confident of its identity, purpose and mission.In the past, Australian icons have centred on bronzed lifesavers, stoic drovers and lovable larrikins. While these are still important, today's Australia is far more diverse and rich. Our cultural and political institutions should reflect this. An Australian republic has a capacity to embrace the new Australia and lead our community into the millennium in a manner that the old constitutional monarchy cannot. Our chosen system of government does send a powerful message to the international community about how we, as a community, define ourselves and what our aspirations are for the future. To move to becoming a republic is a statement of self-confidence and shows a willingness to evolve.There has been significant debate about the method of electing a future Australian President. The republican model as recommended by the Constitutional Convention and the Australian Republican Movement is careful and will avoid the single greatest potential pitfall which lies in the move to a republic—namely, the politicisation of the position of President. We do not want a President chosen by the popular press, a talk show host or even Shane Warne, whom I admire. We need someone with bipartisan support, who has merit and the confidence of this Australian parliament. The office of Presidency should never be compromised with the tarnish of popularism or the appeal of celebrity status. The President should not be a politician. Small states like South Australia would never have a representative if there were a popular election. There are those in my electorate—members of the RSL and others whom I respect—who will have a different view from me. But I did ring my father tonight, who is also a returned serviceman and 86 years old. I asked, `How will you vote on the republic?' He said, `I will vote yes.' I said, `Why?' and he said, `We have moved on. We have moved on from the monarchy and we are now independent.'In closing I commend the Prime Minister for fulfilling the promise he made to hold a referendum, and I reject arguments put by the opposition that do not respect the effort that has come from the government in seeing this question go forward. I look forward to 6 November. As I said, I will be voting yes, and I am confident that the yes argument will be successful.22:15:008162Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—The referendum question that has been crafted by the Prime Minister is a deliberate and cynical attempt to provide the no case with the only possible available, even vaguely credible argument that will enable it to derail the referendum campaign, and that is to attack the appointment method that is provided for in the model that is being put to the people. Of course, we have already seen the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business coming out and saying that he is such a strong republican, he is so strongly in favour of the republic and people's involvement in it, that he is actually going to vote for the monarchy. Of course he is a direct electionist, and that is the excuse he is using as to why he will be voting to retain the monarchy—that the President will not be directly elected and that therefore that is an inadequate model.I too am a supporter of direct election—I have been publicly since 1994—and I sincerely hope that at some future time we will have a directly elected President. But I am not going to allow my disappointment at the outcome of the convention process and the decision making processes of government with respect to the method of election to determine how I will vote on the much bigger question of how Australia should determine its head of state—whether we should have an Australian head of state or retain the British monarchy. It is long overdue in this debate that, in spite of the manoeuvring of people like Mr Reith and in spite of the attempt by the Prime Minister to obfuscate, we brought the focus back on to the central question: are we going to continue with the British monarchy as our head of state or have an Australian head of state? Are we going to continue to have the monarch of another country as our head of state and be in a position where not one Australian can aspire to hold that seriously important position in our system of government?The no campaign in this referendum is going to be a very interesting and peculiar bunch. In my home state of Victoria you have that great Irish republican, Phil Cleary, campaigning to retain the British monarchy in Australia and you have the ultimate cynical politician, the minister for workplace relations, campaigning for the no case because it will advantage his prospective hopes in the Liberal Party against the Treasurer. And of course you have the Prime Minister just hoping fondly that it will all go away and that he can escape responsibility for the prospect of Australia making a decision at the turn of the millennium to retain the British monarchy as our head of state. You have the three leading Liberals in Australia with three different positions—the government in complete confusion on it. You have monarchists such as the Minister for Employment Services, there at the front bench, saying, `It ain't broke, so why fix it?' On that logic Australia would still have OBEs, we would still have appeals to the Privy Council, we would still have us all as British citizens rather than Australian citizens, and we would have our defence and foreign affairs policies being run by the British government. He is correct. The British monarchy in Australia is not broke; it is just simply no longer appropriate. It may have been appropriate in the past but it is no longer appropriate now.I would very strongly urge the direct electionists to consider the bigger question that we face here. Yes, there is a serious question about the method of election, but compare the model that is being put forward with the status quo. The model that is being put forward involves the elected representatives of the Australian people in the Australian parliament electing a President. That surely is a major step forward from the status quo where the person who holds the position is determined by birth, is not Australian and her representative is appointed purely by the Prime Minister.You can put forward arguments about what may happen if this referendum is defeated. Peter Reith can argue that if this referendum is defeated we will then have a referendum at some point down the track where a direct election model will be put forward. That is a possibility. But it is equally possible that if this referendum is successful there may be a future government of either political persuasion that puts forward an amendment to that system to introduce a directly elected President. It is pointless to speculate on all of these possibilities. We have to confront the merits of this issue here and now.To those who say we have had insufficient debate I would suggest that this was first put on the public agenda at the 19991 Labor Party National Conference and in the 1993 election campaign by the then Prime Minister, Paul Keating. We have had over six years of public debate. The time is nigh for Australia to make that fundamental choice: are we to have as our head of state the British monarchy or an Australian President? That is the single question we have to address, and no amount of obfuscation, no amount of trickery by the Prime Minister with respect to the question that is going to be on the ballot paper should divert Australians—be they supporters of direct election for a President—from that core question: are we going to have a head of state where the position is open to all Australians or are we going to continue with the British monarchy? (Time expired)22:20:008164Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—I do not intend to trivialise the debate by seeking to apply political semantics to the question that is before the House. I regret that members of the opposition have chosen to do so. What I want to do is place on record, especially to my electorate, my very strong support for the question that will be put to the Australian people. I support Australia becoming a republic, and that is entirely consistent with everything that I stand for and that I have stood for in the past.I do so on the question of fundamentals. Do I believe that any individual should be entitled by birthright to a title or to leadership? No. Do I believe that any individual, by virtue of their religion, should be entitled to lead a nation? No. Do I believe that a man should enjoy a privilege ahead of a woman to lead a country? No. Do I believe that an Australian should be the head of state of Australia? Yes, and I believe it passionately. I believe it passionately because I believe passionately in Australia and its future. Most importantly, I believe passionately in the people of Australia.When one enters this House, one does so carrying a very significant weight on their shoulders, the weight of representation. In many of our cases there are over 140,000 people in our electorate. I have consulted widely with the people in my electorate about this issue. I understand the differences in opinion. I understand how passionate returned servicemen are about the fact that they fought for Australia and they felt they were fighting for God, Queen and country, and for some God, King and country. I understand their sense of history. But my job as a legislator and as a representative of the people in my electorate is to look forward; it is to care not only about the people who live today but about Australians who will be living in 2050 and 2100 and the years beyond that.What is important to those people is the symbol of nationhood, and the symbol of nationhood is about the inherent and intrinsic beliefs of each and every Australian, that is, that each and every Australian should have the opportunity to be our head of state, that any Australian, notwithstanding that they are Jewish, Catholic, Protestant or Moslem, should be entitled to be our head of state; that any Australian, notwithstanding whether they are born or resident in Coober Pedy or Cremorne, should be entitled to be our head of state. That is the nation that so many Australians have fought for and that is the nation that so many representatives in this parliament stand in here day in day out seeking to defend.From my perspective, there is no question about which way I will vote when it comes to the referendum. I am not interested in entertaining some spurious arguments about direct election, because the direct election proponents are arguing for a change to the democratic system. They are not arguing for a change in the head of state; they are arguing for a change in the system. There are some aspects in a true liberal democracy that we should preserve. We should preserve those things that work well, but we should always seek to improve on the things that seek to make us a better nation. And this makes us a better nation, because it makes us a better people. It gives young Australians the opportunity to aspire to lead their nation. As far as I am concerned, that is my primary motivation for supporting the yes case.22:25:008164O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—I commend the member for North Sydney on his passion on this issue. It is a real pity that his leader could not bring himself to the same position and stop mucking around with amendments that have been made to this bill and to complicate the issue for the Australian public and their consideration of it.I stand here tonight to oppose the amendment to the Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) Bill 1999 as proposed by the Prime Minister. I would like to restate on the floor of this House my support for an Australian head of state. It is a position which I and many in the Labor Party have held passionately for a long time. I am pleased that the national debate has been brought to this particular position. At least we are considering a proposition that an Australian should be Australia's head of state. In doing so, I acknowledge the important contribution to our historical development, to our political and legal system and, indeed, to our cultural heritage of the legacy from Great Britain. But there is a moment in history when an idea must be fulfilled. There is a point at which nations shape their destiny in a new way, and we are at this particular point now.I think it is a very sad day for the Liberal Party and it is a sad day for the Australian people when the Prime Minister of this country cannot come into this House with an amendment or a bill that shows real leadership but seeks to tinker with the question to deliberately deceive, to deliberately confuse and to achieve a political objective other than the one which the Australian people now aspire to, and that is to have an Australian as Australia's head of state. I cannot comprehend a Prime Minister who could come into this parliament in all sincerity and delete from the title of this bill the word `Australian' and then put in half the story or a third of the story. It is an extraordinary situation.I have to say to members opposite that many of you have come up in this debate and you have stood on the floor of this House and declared your position on the Australian republic and your support for it and your support for an Australian head of state. I came into the parliament in 1993 with Christopher Pyne from the great Adelaide seat of Sturt, and I know that this particular point of view was one that he held for a long period of time. But there was a point when the member for Sturt was pilloried in the Liberal Party and in the National Party for holding these views We had to lead the coalition by the nose. Labor Prime Minister Paul Keating put on the political agenda the really tough question. This was a tough one. This was a question that Australians were going to bleed over in a political sense, and the coalition squibbed it. You squibbed it as political parties, both of you, and now you come into the House beating your breast about whether we should have this in the amendment or that in the amendment.It is a very simple proposition that the Prime Minister has to accept. Now is the time for an Australian to head Australia. It is time for an Australian to be Australia's head of state. It is time for my children and my children's children to have the opportunity to lead their country. There is no compromise on this and there is no equivocation about it. But there is one thing that stands in this debate, and that is the failure of the Prime Minister to show some real leadership for once. We are not asking for much as Australians except to have an Australian as our head of state.Debate interrupted; adjournment proposed and negatived.22:30:008165Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLPAged Care10—We have just heard a number of speeches in which people have claimed to be passionate and have claimed some passion. I too am passionate. The thing that brought me into this parliament and indeed caused me to wish to be a politician, someone who is elected, is that I was passionate about the freedoms of the people of Australia. I think the mark of nationhood is how free we as a people are, how free we are from intimidation, how free we are from having our rights taken away from us and how free we are from people being able to usurp power. During the process in my teenage years when I decided I wanted to be a politician, studying history taught me many lessons. One of those lessons was that if Germany had had the constitution it has today, instead of the Weimar Republic constitution, Hitler could never have become Chancellor. In other words, the very structure of your constitution matters.The rhetoric that we have heard today about an Australian head of state, that somehow the Prime Minister's wording was not presenting the case as it really is, is totally false, as is the allegation that the committee that sat in judgment upon the long title was somehow unanimous. It was not. The member for Page put in a dissenting report, the member for Wannon put in a dissenting report and Senator Abetz put in a dissenting report. That is not my version of `unanimous'. The long and the short of it is that people like me will vote no at the coming referendum, people like me who believe that the most important and paramount question to be asked is: are the rights of the people adequately protected by the constitution we have and how will any change to that constitution make things better for the people of Australia? Nobody to this time has answered that question. Nobody has said how this change to the Constitution will make it better for the people of Australia. That is the one question that is vital to me.When Sir William Deane, the Governor-General, presided at the tragic funeral in Switzerland of the young Australians who were dreadfully killed, I was proud of him as my head of state. I was proud of Sir William's words and of his action in taking wattle from the garden of Government House and spreading it on the waters that had taken away the lives of those 14 young Australians, and he looked pretty damned Australian to me when I took a look. Passion is something that many of us have and those people who say that republicans are the only people who are passionate had better think again. This is a debate which will engender passion because people do honestly believe in things, and the thing that will always be the determinant for me is not some esoteric wonderment of whether or not you use the term `President' but whether or not you put at risk the rights of the people which are now protected under our Constitution.It is our Constitution which is tried and true, our Constitution which has been subject to being trialled through the courts, our Constitution which has been able to grow with needed change and I have no doubt it will continue to do so. We got our Constitution because we had two imperatives driving it: we needed an Australian defence force and we needed to get rid of tariff barriers which were growing up between the states, hence section 92. We had real reasons to change it. We have been debating a republic since 1850, not since Paul Keating put it on the agenda. It has been a long debate and again and again when it comes up I will put my money on the good, sensible Australian people who know when there is some other agenda pushing what is alleged to be a simple question.Immediately when I saw the poem in the paper this morning, the first thing that occurred to me was this: they removed the fact from the question that the people were not going to elect this President but that the parliament was going to appoint the President, and so suddenly they thought it was acceptable. The question as moved by the Attorney-General adequately reflects what has to be decided. But the real questions at issue are these. Does it do anything to adequately protect the rights of the people of Australia? Does it improve the situation? Does it mean that Australians will have a better lot in life? If you think the answer to that is no, then vote with me. Alternatively, vote no if you feel that when in doubt—(Time expired)10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I call the honourable member for Page.22:35:008166Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY4K6PageNP10—Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have listened quite intently tonight to the debate and I have to say to you that—Ms Macklin interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I hesitate to interrupt the member for Page but the member for Jagajaga has pointed out to me that I was in error. I have called the member for Page but I will recognise that as appropriate.4K6Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY—I am sorry but I was on my feet, Mr Speaker.PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—Someone else was too.4K6Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY—I was a member of the joint standing committee and I think I do have a right to say something in this particular debate. The debate has focused on the long title, which I find to be a pedantic argument, one which quite frankly ignores the real issues in this particular debate. I came to this question with an open mind and I challenge some of those opposite who have spoken tonight to say that they did so, because I do not think they did. They came with a pre-conceived position which was totally in favour of a republic.I happened to take the position that I do not believe that we need change at the present time but I am also honest enough to believe that we will evolve and that we need to look very carefully at the way we change in the future. I took the opportunity to listen very carefully to evidence given to the committee about the proposals, particularly those in the bill, and I want to remind this House that if this referendum question is carried the bill itself will become the Constitution of Australia.That is the most important point. You can talk about all these emotive issues about whether we are Australian or whether there is an Australian head of state, but the most important point is that the bill that is proposed, if the referendum is carried, will become the Constitution of Australia. That is the point that I took issue with, and that is the point that I put in a dissenting report.I asked Malcolm Turnbull in Sydney whether he could give me one example of where our present Constitution had failed us. He said, `No, except that we haven't got an Australian head of state.' It is his opinion that we have not got an Australian head of state. It seemed to me that the position was being pushed from the particular perspectives of members of the Labor Party and members of the republican cause in Australia. All the evidence we heard was in that vogue. I did not get any evidence that showed to me that there would be a simple change—that the powers of the President would be exactly the same as the powers of the Governor-General. Much is being made of what Malcolm Fraser said in Melbourne, but again it has never been tested.Mr Danby interjecting—4K6Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY—The member for Melbourne Ports attended only a couple of hearings. He comes in here tonight and puts on a great performance. I attended the hearings, as did the member for Shortland. I think that the member for Melbourne Ports should at least listen to what I have to say. There is no precedent for what might happen should a Prime Minister go to the Queen to ask for the removal of a Governor-General, so we can only speculate what might happen. The fact is that you cannot say honestly that the position would be exactly the same, because at least the Prime Minister would have to approach the palace and it would take at least a day or two days or whatever to get a decision. I happen to take the view that the palace would do everything in its power to see that the Australian people have a vote on what should be the future of their country.I find it quite untenable that the powers in this bill give the Prime Minister the right to dismiss the President without any reason, effective immediately. In fact, as the previous speaker has said, it is very close to the situation that we had in the Weimar Republic. I am not prepared to accept that. I have an open mind and I am prepared; I do not want an American republic. You need to at least reduce the powers not just of the President but of the Prime Minister as well so that in any constitutional crisis the question must always come back to the people. For those reasons, I am not prepared to support the proposition before the House. I believe that it is a dangerous proposition. In fact, most witnesses who came before the committee did not agree with the bill, but they said that they were prepared to accept this bill and amend it in the future. I think that, given the history of referenda in Australia, that is a very dangerous position to take. I am not prepared to take that position. If I amend the Constitution of Australia, I want to know that it is right. (Time expired)22:40:008167Gibbons, Steve, MPMr GIBBONS83XBendigoALP00—I rise to reject the amendment by the government and, in doing so, I would like to speak for a few minutes about change. The new millennium provides us with a once only opportunity for our country to come of age after the referendum on 6 November. The Joint Select Committee on the Republic Referendum, as speakers have indicated previously, arrived at a reasonable set of words which the Prime Minister has now distorted to enable his personal views to gain an advantage.This Prime Minister and this government have no difficulty introducing change to our taxation system and our industrial relations system. Of many other quite radical changes most, if not all, have divided this country in a manner not seen before. Now, when there is widespread support for a change that the whole country can participate in in a constructive and worthwhile manner, our Prime Minister manipulates the debate to maintain the status quo. This Prime Minister will not trust the Australian people to make a decision that may affect this country for decades.I believe Australians should select our head of state. We are a mature nation, if still a very young nation, and I believe our people are capable of making the decision that reflects that maturity. Obviously the Prime Minister and some, if not most, of his government prefer to impose their will on this important process.The opposition, as usual, rejects the backward looking attitudes of this government. We believe we have reached a crucial stage in our development. We are in the last year of the second millennium and we should be looking with confidence and pride to that new millennium. As Australians we have shown that we are as good as any other country in the world in facing up to new challenges and succeeding. All we need is the opportunity to bring ourselves together as a nation. That is why Labor believes it is important that Australians be given a real opportunity to decide their own future in the question of who shall be our head of state.22:43:008168Edwards, Graham, MPMr EDWARDS83RCowanALP00—I have followed this debate closely and am very pleased to have been one of those people who were elected to attend the Constitutional Convention last year. I must say that I have had a strong view that, right from the word go, the Prime Minister has never wanted this question to succeed. In my view, the Constitutional Convention was put together particularly to ensure that the question of Australia becoming a republic fell over.We see that in the Prime Minister's attitude, in his demeanour and in the things that he says. He at least admits that he is a monarchist. I think the truth in that admission is reflected in this amendment that has been put by the government and was further reflected when the amendment put by Kim Beazley was defeated. The simple question is this: do we want an Australian as our head of state? That is the question and that is the principle, and that is what should be put to the people of Australia. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why the Prime Minister and those members of the government could argue for any other position to be put or for any other question to be put.I must say that, having gone through the Constitutional Convention and having listened intently to the arguments, I came away with a sense of respect and appreciation for those people who are the dinkum monarchists—those people who simply say, `I want the Queen to continue to be our head of state.' I do not agree with them, but I respect their position because they are forthright in that position and they are honest. But I must say that I have no respect whatsoever for those who have become the spoilers in this argument—those who say, `I am a republican but I won't be voting yes.' How can you possibly be a republican? How can you possibly have a principled position which says, `I want an Australian as a head of state, but I am going to vote no; I am going to vote for the outdated position that Australia has'? At the Constitutional Convention, I think for the first time in modern history, a group of Australians came together and put forward a different point of view.Our conventions are not what is always written, and I think the strength of our conventions is in the spirit of what has kept Australia strong over the years. That comes back to the principle, and the strength of that principle is: do we want an Australian as our head of state? The answer has to be yes, and I cannot understand why the question is not being asked in those terms. If we want to give the spoilers—those grandstanders—a further chance to destroy this question, then the amendment that has been moved by the government will give those spoilers that great chance. So I am really disappointed.I listened quite intently to the Minister for Aged Care, and I have no doubt that she is one of those genuine people who have a love of the monarchy and who do not want Australia's position to change. But I just ask her to think back to the time of Gallipoli, for instance. It is one thing to have passion, but passion without judgment and without trust is what those British commanders had when they committed Australian troops ashore at Gallipoli. It is the passion that they had when they sat offshore on ships and gave the orders for Australians to be sacrificed for King and Empire. It is time for passion, but it is also time for judgment. This is a decision for this generation to make, and if we do not make it we will have to explain ourselves to those young kids I speak to—16- and 17-year-olds who say, `We wish we had a vote, because if we had a vote we would be voting yes.' I will be voting yes, and I will be encouraging all Australians to vote yes. If we are defeated, I will be able to stand up proudly and say, `I believe in the principle that we should have an Australian as our head of state.' (Time expired)22:48:008169Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUSCU4HindmarshLP10—As a member of the yes coalition and as an an avowed republican, I would like to express my disappointment at how this debate has gone. Like many here, I would have preferred a different question. As I said, I am avowed republican, and I would like the question to be a bit more on my side. But then monarchists would like it to be a bit more on their side. What we have in the end is a compromise, and my disappointment is with the members of the opposition because they have chosen to make this debate into a partisan debate. Remember it was this government that brought about the Constitutional Convention. It is this government, not the Labor Party, that is bringing forth this referendum. Yet people in this House tonight have used this debate not just to talk about a republic or the status quo; you have used it in a party political way. Can I warn you that the consequences of this are a jeopardy to achieving the republic that I want and that I believe you want because you are creating a perception that the opposition is for the republic and the government is not. And that is not the case.You are doing your best to say to Liberals out there: `We are going to polarise you so that if you want to vote for the republic you are going to feel like disloyal Liberals.' If you do that, you will lose your republic. So just think, when you use this debate for party political purposes, what you are doing for your goal—which is also in this case my goal—of achieving an Australian republic. Think very carefully about it, because when we go to the people we do not want them to be taken up with concerns of, `How should I, as a good Liberal, vote?' or `How should I, as a good Labor Party member, vote?' but `How should I, who have the interests of Australia and the future of Australia's children at heart, vote?' Don't let party politics get into this. Let people make their own decisions.In echoing what some people have already said, I also say that, given a choice, I am well on the record for being in favour of a direct election. But that is a procedure for choosing the Australian head of state. It is only a secondary question. The main question Australians have to deal with on 6 November is whether they want an Australian head of state or whether they want to continue with a head of state who is not really a citizen of Australia, who does not live in Australia, whose children do not live in Australia and whose primary loyalty is to another country. That is the main question that we must put to the people of Australia on 6 November, and I approach the people on the other side to address this question and not mix it up with questions of party politics, because there are very many people on this side of the House who are strongly in favour of an Australian republic and who do not want to be distracted by the petty politics of a Labor Party which cannot rise above party political issues.22:53:008169Wilkie, Kim, MPMr WILKIE84GSwanALP00—It becomes obvious under even the slightest scrutiny that, unfortunately, some of the members opposite seem to have missed the plot completely when it comes to understanding just what this referendum is all about. This referendum is about Australia coming of age. It is about completing a process which began almost 100 years ago when we chose to become Australians. One hundred years ago, we decided that we were not just colonists from a far off country, we were also Australians. We formed our own government and we paved the way to the point we now reach. But what are we doing? Are we moving forward into the next century, as did our predecessors, with a vision for the nation or are we going to go backwards? The answer is obvious: we must move forward. Australia is its own country and must finally be recognised as such by having an Australian as its head of state.I am disgusted that the Prime Minister has chosen to continually try to blur the debate by making the question as complicated as possible in order, I believe, to have the question defeated. The preamble debate and the complicating of the current question is, I believe, a smokescreen designed to suit the agenda of the no brigade. I have heard many arguments on the republic issue over many years. They have included such drivel as `You might have to change the flag'—there is a classic—`The powers of the Governor-General will be too great' and `We will not be part of the Commonwealth and we won't be able to participate in the Commonwealth Games'. The reality is that these arguments are all contrived by monarchists to have the question defeated.The classic remains the view that they have not heard one good reason to change the current system, and I have heard that a few times today. But the reality is that not one good reason has been put forward to not proceed—not one good reason. The main argument against having change has always been the powers of the Governor-General. For those who bothered to read the Turnbull report on these issues, they would have noted that the question was put and answered by legal experts. The answer is that the changes can be made. The question really facing Australians is whether they want an Australian as head of state.Let us face reality. Australia has a diverse and varied population who are not just from one part of the world, as they were when the country was settled. Whilst my father's family migrated here some generations ago from Scotland as carpenters, my wife and her family came here from Italy around 35 years ago. What relevance does the Queen of England have to these other Australians? Are they less important than those people who came here from England?As I mentioned when I first spoke in this place, I remind the House that, whilst someone who migrates to this country and achieves citizenship swears loyalty to Australia and her people, if they achieve office they must swear allegiance to the Queen of England, her heirs and successors according to law. I think this is ridiculous.Other great Australians have written many words over many years about why we should become a republic and why we should have an Australian as head of state, but for me Bruce Woodley and Dobe Newton summed this up very eloquently when they wrote the words to a song. They said:We are one, but we are many. And from all the lands on earth we come. We share a dream and sing with one voice: I am, you are, we are Australian.Let us have an Australian as head of state.22:58:008170Thompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON84CBlairLP10—While we are on the subject of songs, I would like to talk about the Australian national anthem which says, `Australians all let us rejoice for we are young and free,' and it goes on. It is a fantastic anthem, and I think it sums up all the things that are fantastic about living in Australia. However, having a President is not going to make any difference. I cannot see us getting up on the morning of 7 November and shouting out, `Australians all let us rejoice for we are young and free and we have a President.' I do not think it is really going to be that big a note.The concern that I have had all the way along—and it has been referred to already tonight—is that the Labor Party has colonised this debate from the start. We have this glib position being adopted by members opposite. Continually tonight we have had the Labor Party talking about the position being adopted by the Prime Minister. It is just unfair. I think it is a cynical exercise. It began that way under Paul Keating and it has continued. It has sustained the ALP in moments of deep depression ever since.I am not concerned about the impact of constitutional change leading to civil war or about the likely behaviour of any particular President. Those things are not really in my mind. The things that really should be in the minds of those in the parliament are the big issues—jobs and things like tax, drugs and crime. Those sorts of things are the number one issues. Anyone who remembers the 1998 election would recall that the republic was not an election issue. No-one here was appointed to stuff about with the Constitution. That is a fact. It was not an election issue.What we need to look at, if we were going to be looking at the Constitution, would be the substantive issues, things like the distribution of power between the Commonwealth and the states, the role of local government, even the boundaries of states. The Labor Party has not looked at those issues. I think the last person in the Labor Party who did that was Bob Hawke and, the moment he did it, he was hurried out the back door and replaced; he got sacked as a result. I have an electorate—and I should know about this—where we have the phenomenon of One Nation. When people have all the concerns about issues like crime and drugs, it is not good to be hearing from people like Malcolm Turnbull and Paul Keating about what is in it for us. What is in it for the average bloke? Stuff all. That is the fact.Tonight we have heard a lot from the politically correct police. If you have had to deal with One Nation, you know that they are the ones who really get those people going. We have heard about who is a true republican and who is not a true republican. I think that is really quite irrelevant. Some of the people who were making those statements were not selected by anyone to represent republicans. Over and over again tonight we have seen demonstrated the narrow group that the Labor Party in this parliament represents. We do not have any monarchists over there. We have a straight out group which has an adopted position ordained by their former leader.Australians have various views. That seems to have escaped the opposition. I am sure some of you have constituents who are monarchists who share the concerns about the maintenance of a system that has served Australia well. On this side of the House we have people from all sides of the debate. I am very proud that we have such a comprehensive, representative position. Clearly, I represent and I support the great system that has made Australia what it is today. We can sing `Australians all let us rejoice', for we are young and free and we are in a very good position to be able to go on and do so. But the concern I have is that over and over again we are having a political exercise being diverted away from the true interests of this debate.The debate we should be having is about the future of our country. It is not about the colonising of republicanism by the Australian Labor Party. Members opposite should really get their focus back on the game, if they are true republicans. The rest of us—people like me who are monarchists and people who might be direct presidential electionists—deserve to be able to put our position clearly and in a straightforward way, without this political brow beating that we have seen again and again from the Australian Labor Party. (Time expired)23:03:008171McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—One of the problems with the government's question is that, in telling only part of the story, it is misleading. There are a number of aspects of the Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) Bill 1999 which are very important and the Australian people should know about them. I daresay that most of the speakers on the other side, and I suppose it would be most of the speakers on our side, have not read our Constitution. Very few Australians have read our Constitution. Indeed, very few law students have read our Constitution. If you read it, the black and white document does not reflect the reality. Why? Because of the tremendous powers given to both the Queen and the Governor-General under our current Constitution. For instance, most people are not aware that the Governor-General has an absolute discretion as to whether he assents to any legislation, under the black and white wording of the Constitution. Most people are not aware of the Queen's power to disallow any law within 12 months. Most people are not aware of the power of the Governor-General to appoint the ministers of the day.Mrs Bronwyn Bishop interjecting—JK6McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLAND—The minister says that they will not be changed, but something will, which I will come to. Most Australians are not aware that the Governor-General presently has a power to appoint ministers. They do not even have to be elected to parliament. They have a three-month period of grace for that to occur. Most people are not aware that the Governor-General is the commander-in-chief of our armed forces and has absolute discretion. These powers would give that person—the Governor-General or the Queen—if exercised, greater powers than any dictator in the world. Why are they not exercised? They are not exercised—and this answers the minister's question—because of the existence of conventions that the head of state, whether it be the Queen or the Governor-General for the purpose of the argument, acts on the advice of the government of the day. It is part of our system of responsible government, but that is not reflected in the Constitution.If there were a constitutional crisis, there is nothing in the black and white document confirming that they will act on advice. That will change under the proposed bill. Clause 59 of the bill will actually specify that in exercising powers—other than the reserve powers, which are limited to four issues—including exercising prerogative powers, the President will specifically be compelled to act on the advice of the government of the day.A former speaker said, `What's in it for Joe Blow?' It will be for the first time that the actuality of our system of government will be reflected in the black and white text of our Constitution and you minimise prospects for national trauma which certainly could occur under our present system if our head of state chose to exercise those black and white powers. For the first time, our black and white legal document will reflect the actuality.The Joint Select Committee on the Republic Referendum, of which I was a member, recommended a number of amendments to enhance those powers and I seek leave to table suggested amendments which the Labor Party proposes to the government.Leave granted.JK6McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLAND—I know the amendments will be the subject of debate in the Senate and I do not propose to debate each of them now. Indeed I note, in fairness to the government, that they are considering the report of the joint select committee and are in the process of considering amendments which appropriately arise from the committee's report. The Labor Party has tabled our document with a view to indicating how the proposals can be strengthened. For instance, we have recommended in the committee report that the Prime Minister have regard to considerations of diversity in appointing the Nominations Committee to propose a list of eminent Australians. We have proposed some strengthening of the accountability provisions by compelling the Prime Minister, should it be necessary to dismiss the President, to table as soon as practicable, but certainly within 30 days, his reasons for the dismissal before parliament considers the matter. So again that is another very significant area of accountability. We have recommended that the conventions relating to the source of power and the development of conventions be specifically recognised. These things coming out of the committee process are there to strengthen what we think is a very good bill. (Time expired)23:08:008172Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I will be very brief. I think the time has come to put the matters to the vote. The government is giving consideration, as I intimated earlier, to the 13 recommendations that follow the first recommendation. As I have previously intimated to the member for Barton, we anticipate that any amendments that result from a consideration of the committee report will be moved during the Senate debate. The amendments that he has tabled, as I understand it, represent a legislative form of the committee recommendations. They will, of course, be considered in the context of the government response to the report. We hope the government response to the report will be in advance of the debate of the bill in the Senate.Question put: That the amendment (Mr Williams's ) be agreed to.The House divided. [11.13 p.m.](Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 ——Voting lists are recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Question resolved in the affirmative.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—In accordance with standing order No. 231, the question now is that the title, as amended, be the title of the bill.Title, as amended, agreed to.Bill, with an amended title, agreed to.8173Motion (by Mr Williams)—by leave—proposed:That the bill be now read a third time.23:18:008173McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—If I may speak briefly, Mr Speaker: despite the question of the title of the bill being amended in the House today, Labor will be supporting the third reading. We reserve our right, of course, to move further amendments in the Senate and to consider those that the government has foreshadowed. In supporting the third reading, we are firmly of the opinion that what is proposed in the bill is a very significant advance for the Australian people. For the first time, it will involve the community in the selection of our head of state. For the first time, that head of state will be an Australian citizen. It will also introduce greater measures of accountability in respect of our system of parliamentary democracy and in particular our system of responsible government where the executive of the day is responsible to the parliament as elected representatives of the people. For these very significant and historical reasons, the Australian Labor Party will be supporting the third reading.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The question is that the bill be now read a third time. All those of that opinion say aye, to the contrary no. I think the ayes have it.UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—No! A division!ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Mr Speaker, before the question is put, can I just make it clear—Opposition members interjecting—ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—I am seeking indulgence, Mr Speaker, and I am perfectly happy for the same indulgence to be given to the Leader of the Opposition.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! Members on my left! Before I call the Prime Minister I should point out to him that, in fact, the question was put, a division was called for and I was about to proceed with the division. I will allow the Prime Minister to speak briefly and the Leader of the Opposition may respond.23:20:008173Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I want to make it clear that it is clearly government policy to have this referendum and therefore this measure has the support of the government. But, because of the provisions in the referendum legislation, if there is to be a formal no case circulated there must obviously be managed opposition to the bill. That is the reason why some of my colleagues, with my full support and authority, are going to vote against this measure, so they can be the authors of the no case.Mr Leo McLeay interjecting—Mr Martin interjecting—ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—The derisive responses of those opposite are an indication of their ignorance of the provisions of the laws of Australia.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The Chief Opposition Whip and the member for Cunningham will exercise some restraint. Does the Leader of the Opposition wish to respond to the Speaker's invitation to indulgence?23:21:008173Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—On indulgence, we do understand the constitutional processes that are engaged in here. We agree that the people who are about to vote against this need a great deal of management, as their contributions showed. Managed opposition is about the best way you could describe them on this particular occasion. But I do note that both the Prime Minister and I are hopelessly out of order in speaking on this matter.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I will presume the Leader of the Opposition's comment was not a reflection on the ruling. I thought, given the moment, it was appropriate to allow both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition to make a contribution. A division has been called for. The House will divide.Question put:That the bill be now read a third time.The House divided. [11.26 p.m.](Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 ——Voting lists are recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Question resolved in the affirmative by an absolute majority as required by the Constitution.Bill read a third time.Miscellaneous8174817423:32:008174Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—I seek indulgence to add to an answer to a question I gave at question time today.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Minister for Foreign Affairs may proceed.4G4Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER—During question time today I told the House that I was unaware of any United States request for Australia to participate in a United States peace enforcement force in East Timor. That statement was of course true. I am advised by my department that no formal United States government request to Australia to participate in such a force has ever been made.The House would be aware that a range of contingency plans have been discussed by United States and Australian military officials for a possible military presence in East Timor in the future. I made this quite clear on the Sunday program on 1 August. After question time, I asked my department to double-check its records. This evening, my department informed me that apparently at one meeting of military officials in June the issue of peace enforcement was informally raised by American military officials who asked hypothetically whether we would participate in a peace enforcement force. Australian military officials apparently gave a noncommittal response.This was not a formal United States government request, nor did it reflect United States government policy. I have been advised that this was never subsequently raised with the Australian government nor, as far as I know, with the United States government itself by the military officials. I want to confirm to the House that this could in no way be construed as an indication of United States government policy to send in a peace enforcement force, and I underline that there is no substantive difference in Australian and United States government policy on East Timor.House adjourned at 11.35 p.m.Miscellaneous81748174Mr Price asked Mr Speaker on 28 June 1999:What has been the length of service as Clerk for each of the Clerks of the House.10000SPEAKERMr Speaker—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:CLERKS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Period of officeyearsmonths1JENKINS, George Henry, CMG (Acting) (later Sir George)1.5.1901 to 6.7.1901*02DUFFY, Charles Gavan, CMG8.7.1901 to 31.1.1917157GALE, Walter Augustus, CMG1.2.1917 to 27.7.1927106McGREGOR, John Robert1.9.1927 to 28.9.192701PARKES, Ernest William, CMG27.10.1927 to 22.3.193795GREEN, Frank Clifton, MC (later CBE)23.3.1937 to 25.6.1955183TREGEAR, Albert Allan (CBE after retirement)27.6.1955 to 31.12.195836TURNER, Alan George, CBE (Sir Alan, after retirement)1.1.1959 to 10.12.19711211PARKES, Norman James, CBE11.12.1971 to 31.12.197651PETTIFER, John Athol, CBE1.1.1977 to 15.7.198256BLAKE, Douglas Maurice, VRD (AM after retirement)16.7.1982 to 30.7.198530BROWNING, Alan Robert31.7.1985 to 22.3.199158BARLIN, Lyndal McAlpin, AM23.3.1991 to 26.7.199764HARRIS, Ian Charles27.7.1997—* Mr Jenkins was never formally appointed Clerk of the House, was paid no salary during his term as Acting Clerk and resigned to resume his office of Clerk of the Parliaments of Victoria.1 rounded to the nearest monthNotices8175The following notices were given:Ms Roxon to move:That the House:(1) notes the report of the Joint Select Committee on the Republic Referendum and its bipartisan recommendations;(2) notes the importance of the referendum that goes to our identity as a nation and our system of government;(3) notes that our stable democracy would continue and be strengthened if this referendum question were to be approved by the people of Australia;(4) urges the Prime Minister and all Members of this House, whether monarchists, republicans or direct election supporters, to participate honestly in the referendum campaign; and(5) deplores misleading and mischievous scare campaigns on such an important national issue.Answers to Questions in Writing8176The following answers to questions were circulated:8176(Question No. 90)908176Andren, Peter, MPMr AndrenKL6CalareIND00 asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 23 November 1998:(1) What sum did his Department pay in (a) overtime and (b) travel allowance to (i) personal and (ii) electorate staff of each incumbent Member and Senator between 31 August and 3 October 1998.(2) What was the average monthly sum of (a) overtime and (b) travel allowance paid by his Department to (i) personal and (ii) electoral staff of each sitting Member and Senator in 1997-98.8176Fahey, John, MPMr FaheyHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:See attached spreadsheeet.OFFICEPERSONAL STAFFELECTORATE STAFFElection PeriodAverage 97/98Election PeriodAverage 97/98 OvertimeT/A OvertimeT/AOvertimeT/AOvertimeT/AAbbott T MP$111.00$1,214.00$4,681.00$2,665.00$1,493.00$538.00Abetz E Sen15,926.00$4,107.00$1,675.00$970.00Adams D MP$7,362.00$3,201.00$1,026.00Albanese A MP$417.00$1,962.00$843.00Allison L Sen$2,118.00$1,180.00$2,044.00$1,123.00$991.00Alston R Sen$28,119.00$738.00$6,463.0011,159.00$1,242.78$757.00Anderson J MP$113.00$7,149.00$460.00$1,952.001,434.00$3,146.00$32.00$241.00Andren P MP$990.00235.00$477.00$851.00Andrew N MP$1,128.00$1,187.001,661.00$1,214.00$1,012.00$884.00Andrews K MP982.00$1,127.00$1,153.00Anthony L MP$147.004,390.00$878.00$1,269.00Bailey F MP1,871.00$1,014.00$852.00Baldwin P MP$18.00$63.00$667.00$979.00Baldwin R MP8,829.00$4,755.00$965.00Barresi P MP12,890.00$2,991.00$925.00Bartlett A Sen$2,867.00$26.00$1,505.001,229.00$582.00$512.00$634.00Bartlett K MP3,048.00$1,963.00$957.00Beazley K MP$51,962.00$79,615.00$19,852.00$12,915.0012,277.00$2,609.00$184.00Beddall D MP$1,239.00$1,169.00Bevis A MP$4,936.00$2,148.00$1,769.0010,302.00$1,364.00$911.00Billson B MP$6,525.00$870.00$950.00Bishop B MP$20,088.00$3,769.00$3,655.00$1,983.00$889.00Bishop M Sen$2,652.00$759.00Bolkus N Sen$902.00$308.00$3,807.00$1,857.00$645.00Boswell R Sen$175.00$977.00$589.00$954.00Bourne V Sen$4,480.00$1,674.00$1,503.00$1,212.00Bradford J MP$81.00$49.00$4,195.00$582.00$2,747.00$948.00Brereton L MP$633.00$124.00$1,129.00$2,959.00$1,524.00$555.00Broadbent R MP$1,006.00$5,456.00$1,864.00$1,006.00Brough M MP$8,170.00$1,778.00$137.00Brown B MP$297.00$790.00$1,119.00Brown R Sen$1,738.00$863.00$710.00$249.00$613.00Brownhill D Sen$1,953.00$1,431.00$754.00$893.00$445.00Cadman A MP$1,300.00$2,550.00$471.00$3,719.00$8,926.00$2,959.00$88.00Calvert P Sen$3,095.00$1,832.00$627.00$1,095.00Cameron E MP$5,262.00$865.00$2,345.00$1,239.00Cameron R MP$7,862.00$1,841.00$927.00Campbell G MP$930.00$9,706.00$5,565.00$530.00$1,258.00Campbell G Sen$1,282.00$801.00$1,011.00 Campbell I Sen$11,140.00$13.00$2,618.00$3,821.00$857.00$953.00Carr K Sen$2,185.00$1,706.00$1,028.00Causley I MP$1,780.00$251.00$690.00$1,351.00Chapman G Sen$2,548.00$1,848.00$1,339.00Charles R MP$8,258.00$1,688.00$975.00Cobb M MP$836.00Collins J Sen$369.00$2,096.00$829.00Colston M Sen$1,272.00$863.00$1,296.00$2,463.00$96.00$335.00Conroy S Sen$2,379.00$1,461.00$810.00Cook P Sen$810.80$3,104.00$2,268.00$6,646.00$5,112.00$3,389.00$796.00Coonan H Sen$1,392.00$618.00$875.00$946.00Cooney B Sen$1,461.00$900.00Costello P MP$2,294.00$23,212.00$2,117.00$5,722.00$1,703.00$352.00$43.00Crane W Sen$2,320.00$1,165.00$1,447.00Crean S MP$6,290.00$10,201.00$3,678.00$1,596.00$1,367.00$877.00Crosio J MP$1,174.00$626.00$927.00Crossin P Sen$1,394.00$3,410.00Crowley R Sen$1,002.00$1,797.00$1,015.00Dargavel S MP$1,189.00Denman K Sen$1,114.00$1,107.00$909.00Dondas N MP$3,635.00$319.00$1,088.00$509.00Downer A MP$11,674.00$2,058.00$1.00$56.00Draper T MP$126.00$470.00Eggleston A Sen$3,942.00$2,609.00$701.00$1,340.00Ellis A MP$1,509.00$2,900.00Ellison C Sen$3,870.00$15,222.00$1,788.00$5,796.00$6,523.00$480.00$1,772.00$63.00Elson K MP$6,603.00$4,362.00$1,533.00$588.00Entsch W MP$3,368.00$360.00$2,434.00$1,351.00Evans C Sen$151.00$10.00$188.00$2,609.00$1,825.00$2,126.00Evans G MP$3,962.00$11,951.00$2,757.00$2,983.00$1,127.00$467.00Evans M MP$224.00$701.00$1,343.00$1,188.00$305.00Evans R MP$11,388.00$2,811.00$1,217.00Fahey J MP$22,098.00$583.00$2,880.00$918.00$78.00Faulkner J Sen$2,440.00$1,103.00$1,322.00$669.00$834.00$1,249.00Ferguson A Sen$910.00$1,190.00Ferguson L MP$109.00$483.00$439.00$893.00Ferguson M MP$382.00$3,343.00$1,243.00$3,071.00$640.00$984.00$359.00Ferris J Sen$1,909.00$1,006.00Filing P MP$204.00$11,693.00$2,419.00$1,458.00Fischer T MP$27,120.00$178.00$4,848.00$4,841.00$143.00$1,410.00$488.00Fitzgibbon J MP$814.00$1,196.00$893.00Forrest J MP$7,155.00$1,788.00$1,227.00Forshaw M Sen$1,558.00$1,339.00$1,156.00Gallus C MP$7,300.00$2,117.00$976.00Gambaro T MP$6,930.00$1,696.00$947.00Gash J MP$5,111.00$2,531.00$1,113.00Georgiou P MP$2,693.00$5,878.00$1,234.00$980.00Gibbs B Sen$479.00$612.00$891.00Gibson B Sen$2,520.00$843.00$1,017.00Grace E MP$6,050.00$3,610.00$749.00Grace T MP$2,211.00$1,049.00Griffin A MP$2,839.00$910.00Halverson R MP$119.00Hanson P MP-$1.00$930.00$4,809.00$580.00$2,899.00$1,239.00Hardgrave G MP$1,634.00$921.00$1,108.00Harradine B Sen$4,303.00$919.00$553.00$1,012.00$967.00Hatton M MP$2,106.00$1,347.00$1,273.00Hawker D MP$3,472.00$1,316.00$1,019.00Heffernan W Sen$1,534.00$3,436.00$2,615.00$851.00Herron J Sen$17,072.00$2,655.00$2,100.00$356.00$146.00$16.00Hicks N MP$407.00$773.00$1,392.00Hill R Sen$8,283.00$29,375.00$1,524.00$5,363.00$5,221.00$1,598.00$12.00Hockey J MP$3,797.00$1,428.00$829.00Hogg J Sen$1,822.00$2,172.00$867.00Holding C$2,287.00$506.00Hollis C MP$2,430.00$777.00$1,032.00Howard J MP$22,277.00$160,009.00$7,126.00$17,555.00$4,750.00$108.00$189.00Jeanes S MP$8,498.00$2,203.00$2,637.00$968.00Jenkins H MP$694.00$496.00 Johnston R MP$11,660.00$1,151.00$974.00Jones B MP$566.00$763.00Jull D MP$796.00$4,204.00$272.00$645.00Katter R MP$5,450.00$257.00$4,110.00$2,051.00Kelly D MP$2,831.00$1,195.00$1,327.00Kelly J MP$4,403.00$2,929.00$917.00Kemp D MP$2,465.00$145.00$7,840.00$462.00$75.00Kemp R Sen$846.00$6,736.00$964.00$3,377.00$658.00$614.00Kernot C MP$860.00$1,363.00$278.00$25.00Kerr D MP$6,599.00$633.00$2,393.00$7,633.00$2,271.00$896.00Knowles S Sen$1,491.00$2,190.00$1,461.00Latham M MP$1,604.00$1,277.00$815.00$1,430.00$893.00$27.00Lawrence C MP$126.00$1,407.00Lee M MP$453.00$2,199.00$484.00$570.00$2,534.00$1,680.00$1,439.00Lees M Sen$1,193.00$15,066.00$2,433.00$4,256.00$1,841.00$1,325.00$384.00Lieberman L MP$90.00Lightfoot R Sen$2,549.00$1,572.00$1,456.00Lindsay P MP$7,192.00$885.00$1,187.00Lloyd J$2,926.00$1,324.00$1,092.00Lundy K Sen$1,522.00MacDonald I Sen$1,236.00$1,235.00$3,890.00$1,723.00$792.00Macdonald S Sen$1,910.00$2,960.00$1,416.00$1,270.00MacGibbon D Sen$904.00$705.00$932.00Mackay S Sen$864.00$271.00$2,440.00$1,179.00Macklin J MP$1,648.00$1,184.00$1,756.00$2,240.00$12,802.00$3,349.00$172.00Marek P MP$3,698.00$2,089.00$1,290.00Margetts D Sen$1,727.00$1,410.00$3,179.00$207.00$1,356.00Martin S MP$2,882.00$2,259.00$1,591.00$834.00$7,687.00$2,147.00$1,178.00Martin-Sullivan K MP$6,088.00$679.00$901.00$544.00$13,164.00$1,269.00$178.00Mc Arthur S MP$241.00$624.00Mc Dougall G MP$9,154.00$2,321.00$1,238.00Mc Lachlan I MP$3,707.00$13,255.00$1,703.00$3,637.00$264.00McClelland R MP$1,471.00$1,654.00$738.00McGauran J Sen$1,122.00$845.00$755.00McGauran P MP$568.00$764.00$407.00McKiernan J Sen$2,119.00$1,232.00$998.00$1,488.00McLeay L MP$818.00$2,270.00$211.00$125.00McMullan R MP$2,398.00$1,895.00$1,030.00$300.00Melham D MP$716.00$900.00$77.00$480.00Miles C MP$2,160.00$4,538.00$876.00$2,277.00$5,229.00$710.00$98.00Minchin N Sen$28,874.00$878.00$335.00$1,813.00$1,559.00Moore J MP$1,819.00$17,053.00$2,270.00$7,925.00$278.00$1,404.00$1,532.00Morris A MP$873.00$1,574.00$885.00Morris P MP$265.00$903.00Mossfield F MP$329.00$690.00Moylan J MP$2,999.00$3,485.00$5,197.00$587.00$991.00$426.00Murphy S Sen$468.00$1,048.00$1,056.00Murray A Sen$910.00$999.00$1,064.00Mutch S MP$200.00$1,111.00$903.00Nairn G MP$1,135.00$2,279.00$73.00Neal B Sen$910.00$1,579.00$1,905.00$366.00Nehl G MP$1,683.00$1,732.00$1,185.00Nelson B MP$1,865.00$1,058.00$1,075.00Neville P MP$1,557.00$466.00$815.00$1,326.00Newman J Sen$11,384.00$100.00$1,987.00$4,163.00$882.00$415.00$191.00Nugent P MP$6,521.00$1,019.00$872.00O'Brien K Sen $7,262.00$4,228.00$2,734.00$416.00O'Chee B Sen$1,116.00$1,364.00$632.00$1,147.00O'Connor G MP$414.00$925.00$801.00O'Keefe N MP$8,368.00$2,177.00$3,351.00$1,619.00$6,488.00$5,170.00$1,200.00Parer W Sen$8,100.00$135.00$2,181.00$1,546.00$898.00$338.00Patterson K Sen$3,492.00$1,607.00$1,432.00Payne M Sen$1,020.00$1,017.00Price R MP$807.00$350.00$873.00Prosser G MP$74.00$103.00$5,814.00$894.00$650.00Pyne C MP$883.00$1,004.00Quick H MP$2,901.00$493.00$449.00Quirke J Sen$1,092.00$947.00$866.00Randall D MP$13,968.00$2,188.00$1,254.00 Ray R Sen$1,803.00$1,113.00Reid B MP$188.00$1,061.00$854.00Reid M Sen$4,748.00$151.00Reith P MP$3,188.00$25,198.00$898.00$8,717.00$7,215.00$468.00$135.00Reynolds M Sen$47.00$192.00Rocher A MP$2,307.00$1,287.00$241.00Ronaldson M MP$6,246.00$1,300.00$378.00$1,783.00$1,709.00$628.00Ruddock P MP$31,277.00$20.00$4,766.00$1,324.00$1,499.00$218.00Sawford R MP$716.00$1,634.00$797.00Schacht C Sen$3,422.00$2,812.00$2,807.00$1,593.00$1,681.00$2,021.00$2,125.00$879.00Scott B MP$2,740.00$3,264.00$656.00$1,102.00$5,150.00$1,462.00$1,561.00Sercombe R MP$1,211.00$1,237.00Sharp J MP$407.00$1,845.00$661.00$782.00Sherry N Sen$366.00$774.00$718.00$1,678.00$909.00Sinclair I MP$1,092.00$235.00Slipper P MP$1,211.00$1,203.00$10,495.00$2,088.00$1,442.00Smith S MP$154.00$1,142.00$533.00$2,847.00$1,364.00Smith T MP$4,198.00$4,249.00$4,504.00$901.00Smith W MP$463.00$20,825.00$251.00$1,360.00$5,769.00$1,984.00$134.00Somlyay A MP$9,735.00$553.00$3,994.00$4,783.00$225.00$1,290.00$717.00Southcott A MP$474.00$938.00Stone S MP$1,422.00$785.00Stott Despoja N Sen$3,282.00$141.00$522.00$977.00$956.00$640.00Synon K Sen$843.00$664.00$1,092.00Tambling G Sen$2,533.00$1,415.00$1,128.00$152.00$680.00$1,088.00Tanner L MP$3,066.00$749.00$2,465.00$1,194.00$3,132.00$951.00Taylor W MP$394.00$215.00$958.00Theophanous A MP$4,178.00$2,492.00$1,081.00Thomson A MP$5,636.00$175.00$3,315.00$8,693.00$1,308.00$158.00Thomson K MP$576.00$576.00$728.00Tierney J Sen$3,666.00$4,743.00$1,413.00$787.00Troeth J Sen$4,442.00$165.00$425.00$731.00$528.00Truss W MP$7,256.00$2,288.00$756.00$519.00$830.00Tuckey W MP$5,281.00$1,957.00$2,354.00$1,482.00Vaile M MP$1,183.00$10,917.00$418.00$5,159.00$4,699.00$1,342.00$657.00Vale D MP$5,047.00$1,859.00$258.00Vanstone A Sen$12,918.00$3,846.00$390.00$899.00Wakelin B MP$4,106.00$3,546.00$1,455.00$1,094.00Watson J Sen$559.00$845.00$1,170.00West A MP$5,862.00$1,292.00$978.00West S Sen$886.00$246.00$1,118.00Williams D MP$18,933.00$3,059.00$249.00$249.00Willis R MP$429.00$324.00$908.00Wilton G MP$1,131.00$757.00Woodley J Sen$66.00$1,358.00$272.00$878.00$1,197.00Wooldridge M MP$13,276.00$2,298.00$5,969.00$5,367.00$1,854.00$30.00Worth T MP$5,262.00$1,577.00$9,672.00$798.00$868.00Zammit P MP$17.00$6,166.00$1,571.00$468.00Notes:Overtime paid during the election period relates to payments made on the paydays 1 October 1998 and 15 October 1998. These are the two paydays for which the majority of overtime relating to the election period was paid. The Department's computer system reports the date that overtime is processed and not the date it is incurred.The amount shown for travelling allowance is the combined figure for all staff in that office who received travelling allowance during that period.8180(Question No. 374)3748180McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 8 February 1999:Has his attention been drawn to a report of the New South Wales Parliament's Standing Committee on Social Issues regarding hepatitis C which was tabled in the Legislative Council on 11 November 1998; if so, (a) has he determined whether any aspects of the report can be pursued at the Commonwealth level and (b) will the Commonwealth Government take further action in combating hepatitis C.8180Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(a) My department is presently analysing this report and the recommendations contained within it to ascertain the issues needing consideration at the Commonwealth level. These issues will also be addressed in the development of Australia's 1st National Hepatitis C Strategy, with extensive consultations being conducted between July and November 1999.(b) The Government is committed to further action to combat the spread of hepatitis C and providing support for those affected, with hepatitis C identified as a national priority for public health activity. This commitment is demonstrated by funding for national prevention initiatives during 1998/99 of $1.7 million, $1 million of which was for social and behavioural research that will assist in the development of more effective programs to combat hepatitis C in the community. This was in addition to the $1.425 million in the Population Health Division budget for hepatitis C education and prevention activities committed by the previous Government in 1995/96.Further demonstrating this Government's commitment to this serious public health issue is the hepatitis C education and prevention initiative announced in the 1999/2000 budget. Commonwealth funding of $12.4 million (over 4 years) has been provided in addition to existing funding levels to lower the current rate of transmission of hepatitis C in Australia, and to provide support for those already affected, through the provision of improved education, prevention and health maintenance initiatives.8180(Question No. 501)5018180Andren, Peter, MPMr AndrenKL6CalareIND00 asked the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 22 March 1999: (1) What sum of Commonwealth funding was spent on advertising the private health insurance rebate incentives in regional and rural (a) newspapers, (b) radio, and (c) television.(2) Who decides which regional and rural outlets are chosen for advertising similar campaigns and what selection process is followed.(3) Why were communities, like Oberon, NSW, with independent newspapers overlooked in the health insurance campaign.8180Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The amount spent to date on advertising the Private Health Insurance Rebate in regional and rural areas was $1,043,799. No radio was involved. TV and Newspaper expenditure was broken down follows: TV—$336,357; Newspapers—$707,442.(2) Mitchell Media Partners Pty Ltd is the Commonwealth Government's master media planning and placement agency. They are solely responsible for deciding on the most appropriate and efficient media to deliver coverage for Government campaigns according to budget.The Government approved regional newspaper selection system was employed for the Federal Government 30% Rebate on Private Health Insurance campaign. The Group A classification regional newspapers were selected—publications with circulations 11,500 and over. Group A papers deliver 83.5% of regional newspaper circulations.To include the remaining smaller and less efficient B, C and D group newspapers would have cost as much as Group A coverage—doubling the cost to gain the additional 16.5% coverage.(3) The Oberon Review was not included. It has a circulation of 1,300. The Oberon district would receive some coverage from the Bathurst Western Advocate, and full coverage by the regional NSW television activity.8180(Question No. 505)5058180Evans, Gareth, MPMr Gareth EvansVD4HoltALP00 asked the Minister for Aged Care, upon notice, on 22 March 1999:(1) Was 30 September 1998 the closing date for applications for Home and Community Care funding; if so, on what date will community groups who have applied for funding be advised whether they have been successful.(2) Will compensation be provided to groups which are adversely affected by a delay in the announcement of funding.8180Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs Bronwyn BishopSE4MackellarLPAged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The day to day administration of the Home and Community Care (HACC) program is the responsibility of each State and Territory. As part of that responsibility State Governments may set a closing date for applications for available growth funding. The role of the Commonwealth in this process is to agree either a package of project approvals for those States and Territories operating under original HACC Agreements or an Annual Plan with details of proposed outputs by service types for regions for those jurisdictions operating under revised HACC Agreements.(2) Applications for funding affected by joint approval processes relate only to funding for new and expanded services.8181(Question No. 517)5178181McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 23 March 1999:(1) Who are the members of the Australian National Group who will make nominations for the election of 5 members of the International Court of Justice for the 9 year term beginning on 6 February 2000.(2) By what date does Australia have to lodge nominations.(3) Which states have made declarations accepting the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court.(4) Which states have included reservations in their declarations accepting the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court.8181Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Australian National Group is made up of the Australian members of the Permanent Court of Arbitration established under the 1907 Hague Convention for the Pacific Settlement of Disputes. The current members of the Australian National Group are:The Right Honourable Sir Ninian Stephen, K.G., A.K., G.C.M.G., G.C.V.O., K.B.E., HON.LL.D., Q.C.Dr Gavan Griffith, A.O.,Q.C.Consideration is being given to the selection of two further Australian members of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (the limit is four) who would also become members of the National Group.(2) In accordance with the Statute of the Court, the nominations of candidates for election to the International Court of Justice are made by the Australian National Group. The UN Secretary-General has sought nominations by 31 August 1999. (3) The list of declarations held by the Secretary-General of the United Nations as depository indicates that the following states have accepted or have been deemed to have accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court under Article 36(2) of the Statute of the Court:Australia*, Austria*, Barbados*, Belgium*, Botswana*, Bulgaria*, Cambodia*, Cameroon, Canada*, Costa Rica, Cyprus*, The Congo, Denmark, Egypt*, El Salvador*, Estonia*, Finland, Gambia*, Georgia, Greece, Guinea*, Guinea-Bissau*, Honduras*, Hungary*, India*, Japan*, Kenya*, Liberia*, Liechtenstein, Madagascar*, Malawi*, Malta*, Mauritius*, Mexico*, Nauru*, Netherlands*, New Zealand, Nigeria*, Norway*, Pakistan*, Paraguay, Philippines*, Poland*, Portugal*, Senegal*, Somalia*, Spain*, Sudan*, Suriname*, Swaziland*, Sweden*, Switzerland, Togo, Uganda, United Kingdom*, Yugoslavia*, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Haiti, Luxembourg*, Nicaragua, Panama, Uruguay.(4) Those states which are marked with an asterisk in the answer to question 3 have included express conditions on their acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court under Article 36(2). For this purpose limitations on the duration of the acceptance of the Court's compulsory jurisdiction have not been categorised as a condition of acceptance. Also, since reciprocity has been treated by the Court as inherent in the system of compulsory jurisdiction and applies to all states accepting that jurisdiction, an express reference to reciprocity in an Article 36(2) declaration made by a state has not been categorised as a condition of acceptance.8181(Question No. 545)5458181Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KerrRH4DenisonALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Justice and Customs, upon notice, on 24 March 1999:(1) Has the UK Government requested the extradition of Mr Peter Clarence Foster; if so, what sum has the Commonwealth spent in pursuing the request.(2) Did counsel appearing for the Commonwealth in the Federal Court before Justice Spender state that all costs related to the extradition proceedings against Mr Foster had been met by the requesting country; if so, has the requesting country met all costs related to the proceedings; if not, what action will the Commonwealth take to rectify the misrepresentation.(3) Has the Commonwealth established the period of imprisonment for which Mr Foster is liable if he is convicted for the offences for which his extradition has been sought. (4) Is it a fact that (a) Mr Foster has spent 25 months in maximum security prison and 15 months solely waiting for the extradition proceedings; and (b) the total period he has been detained is longer than the period referred to in part (3).(5) Has the UK Government sought a waiver of the specialty assurance in relation to 1 3 charges listed in the original warrant for Mr Foster's extradition; if so, (a) is the Government considering the request, (b) what precedents exist for waiving specialtY assurances, (c) what action will the Government take and (d) have Mr Foster or his solicitors been told of the seeking of a waiver; if not, why.(6) Is the Minister able to say A ether charges brought by the British Serious Fraud Squad against Mr Foster's co-accused, Mr Christopher Williams, in September 1998 were dismissed.(7) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to answers by l:he Lord Chancellor in the UK House of Lords to questions by Lord Spens about the extradition of Mr Foster; if so, (a) do the answers contradict submissions made by the Commonwealth to Justice Spender in the Federal Court and (b) will the Minister clarify the situation.8182Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The Minister for Justice and Customs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) The UK Government formally requested the extradition of Mr Peter Clarence Foster in May 1997. 1 am advised that as at 24 March 1999 the Commonwealth had spent $92, 824.45 on the extradition proceedings. This figure comprises professional fees (including those of the Australian Government Solicitor), disbursements, transcript costs and airfares. It does not include the costs of staff time for officers of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecution, the Attorney-General's Department or the Australian Federal Police.(2) I am advised that counsel appearing for the Commonwealth did not state that all costs related to the extradition proceedings against Mr Foster had been met by the requesting country. I am advised that counsel stated that the UK authorities would be responsible for costs involved `in getting [Mr Foster] back to the UK' and that they were `prepared to go to the expense of bringing [Mr Foster] back' . Counsel has confirmed that in making these statements he was referring to the costs which would be associated with the physical removal of Mr Foster to the UK. Under normal extradition practice, the country from which extradition is requested generally bears the costs associated with the extradition proceedings, other than costs associated with the escort of the person to the requesting Country. (3) The offences for which Mr Foster's extradition was originally sought comprised one count of conspiracy to use false instruments, two counts of conspiracy to defraud, and three counts of using a false instrument. Each of these offences carries a maximum sentence of ten years imprisonment on trial upon indictment. On 30 March 1999 I determined that Mr Foster should be surrendered to the UK with respect to the three counts of using a false instrument. If Mr Foster was convicted of these offences, he would be liable to a maximum sentence of ten years on each count. The actual sentence to be imposed would be a matter for the sentencing judge in the UK.(4) I am advised that as at 24 March 1999 Mr Foster had spent nearly 21 months in custody within Australia, most of which had been at a high security prison in Brisbane. Nearly 15 months of this period had been spent while the extradition hearing and associated proceedings were being conducted. The total period for which Mr Foster has been detained is not longer than the periods referred to in part (3).(5) As noted in the answer to part (3), Mr Foster's extradition was originally sought with respect to six charges, not 13. I am advised that the UK Government has not sought a wavier of the speciality assurance which it provided in relation to the original request.(6) Yes. On 23 September 1998 the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) wrote to the Attorney-General's Department and advised that the proceedings against Mr Christopher Williams had been discontinued, and that it no longer intended to proceed with the conspiracy charges against Mr Foster.(7) Yes, my attention has been drawn to answers provided by the Lord Chancellor in the UK House of Lords between 22 February and 30 March 1999 in response to questions asked by Lord Spens about the extradition of Mr Foster. I am advised that there is no contradiction between the answers provided by the Lord Chancellor and submissions made by the Commonwealth to Justice Spender in the Federal Court proceedings.However, there are some matters raised in the answers which may be clarified. The Lord Chancellor stated on 22 February that the SFO `currently seeks the extradition of Mr Foster on sixteen charges', whereas, as noted in the answer to part (3), the UK Government originally requested Mr Foster's extradition on six charges. I am advised that the Attorney-General's Department wrote to the Serious Fraud Office on 26 February to clarify the situation. In response) the Serious Fraud Office stated that it would wish to pursue additional charges against Mr Foster, and said that if Mr Foster was surrendered, the SFO would seek a waiver of speciality. On 10 March the Lord Chancellor stated that the evidence contained in the papers supporting the extradition request disclosed the commission of 16 offences, three of which were listed in the original extradition `warrant' (which formed the basis of the UK request). He stated that the Australian authorities had been informed that the UK Government will seek waiver of the speciality rule in relation to the remaining 13 charges. However, I am advised that the UK Home Office has since confirmed with the Attorney-General's Department that the UK Government has not yet made any decision as to whether a special waiver would be sought and that any such decision is a matter for the UK Government rather than the SFO.On 10 March 1997 the Lord Chancellor stated that `the cost of conduct of extradition proceedings in Australia is borne by the authorities there in accordance with reciprocal arrangements.' The issue as to submissions made by the Commonwealth to Justice Spender on the question of responsibility for costs is dealt with in the answer to part (2).8183(Question No. 577)5778183Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 11 May 1999:(1) Has the Australian Government been involved in the development of the proposed ILO convention on child labour expected to be finalised at the ILO Conference in June 1999; if so, what are the details.(2) On the basis of work undertaken at the 1998 ILO Conference, will the Australian Government support the proposed declaration at the 1999 ILO Conference; if not, why not.(3) Has the Australian Government considered the common policy of the World Bank's Multilateral Guarantee Agency and the Internal Finance Corporation to include in all their contracts a prohibition on the use of forced labour and exploitative child labour; if so, does the Australian Government incorporate a similar policy in its overseas aid agreement.8183Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Australian Government has supported the concept of a new ILO Convention and Recommendation aimed at eliminating the most exploitative forms of child labour since the proposal was initiated by the ILO in 1997. In the first discussion about the proposed new instruments at the 1998 International Labour Conference (ILC), the Australian Government supported the adoption of a flexible, non-prescriptive Convention which will focus on the most extreme forms of child labour. My department also provided a response to the ILO for the second discussion at this year's ILC, and engaged in the preparatory work.(2) At the June 1999 International Labour Conference, Australia voted in favour of the adoption of a new Convention and Recommendation on the worst forms of child labour.(3) The Government is aware of the use of such contract provisions. The Government is not satisfied that such provisions would be effective in addressing the root causes of exploitative child labour practices, primarily poverty and lack of education. I am advised that AusAID does not include specific contract provisions prohibiting child labour or forced labour in overseas aid agreements. Careful consideration is given in the selection of projects to their effect on fundamental rights.The World Bank's International Finance Corporation and Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency operate in a quite different environment from AusAID. The multilateral agencies have contracts with private sector agencies in developing countries. Child labour provisions in contracts seem appropriate for these agencies. AusAID advises that, for the most part, they engage Australian and New Zealand companies to provide consulting services overseas under contracts governed by Australian law.8183(Question No. 588)5888183Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin ThomsonUK6WillsALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 11 May 1999:(1) Does the proposed new tax system provide that a charitable organisation selling raffle tickets will be required to impose a 10 per cent goods and services tax on the sale of each ticket.(2) Will commercial gambling operations be provided with goods and services tax concessions; if so, is this consistent with concerns he has expressed about gambling.(3) Will he refer the matter to the Productivity Commission to be included in its review of gambling.8183Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Charitable organisations selling raffle tickets will not be required to impose a 10 per cent goods and services tax on the sale of each ticket.(2) There will be no concession or monetary benefit given to casinos. (3) The matter will not be referred to the Productivity Commission.8184(Question No. 592)5928184Wilkie, Kim, MPMr Wilkie84GSwanALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 11 May 1999:(1) Is he able to say how many injuries were caused by accidents involving the use of cigarette lighters in Australia in 1998.(2) How many of the accidents referred to in part (1) involved children.8184Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Injury data is not available to the level of specificity required to answer the member's questions.8184(Question No. 593)5938184Wilkie, Kim, MPMr Wilkie84GSwanALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 11 May 1999:(1) Are married couples entitled to prescriptions at no cost when more than 52 prescriptions are made in a single year.(2) To how many free prescriptions are single persons entitled annually.(3) Is reducing the free prescription rate for single persons being considered.8184Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) For concessional patients—yes. For general patients—no.(2) For general patients—none. For concessional patients—as many as required after reaching the safety net, provided there is no brand or therapeutic group premium applicable.(3) No.8184(Question No. 607)6078184Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 12 May 1999:(1) When was the Regional Assistance Program (RAP) introduced.(2) What are the guidelines relating to its operation. (3) Who is involved in the selection of RAP projects.(4) With respect to each RAP project approved since 2 March 1996, (a) what was the project, (b) in which electoral division did it operate, (c) what sum was allocated to it and (d) how many (i) full-time, (ii) part-time and (iii) casual jobs did it generate.8184Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Regional Assistance Program was established on 1 July 1997.(2) A new National Policy Framework and Guidelines for RAP are currently being developed in consultation with ACC Chairs and Executive Officers. A guide for applicants is being updated.(3) Area Consultative Committees (ACCs), the relevant State office of the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business and the National Office of the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business.(4) (a) Attached is a recently prepared list of projects based on historical data from 1 July 1997. The department is currently developing a database of RAP projects. (b) We do not have this information for the period in question. (c) The amount approved for each project is provided in the attached list. (d) To date there has been no formal mechanism to evaluate the impact of RAP projects. The department has engaged consultants to develop an evaluation tool, in consultation with ACCs.StateACCProjectTotal funding ($)NSWACTJohn Knight Business Centre, Tuggeranong (BI)500,000NSWACTWoodlawn Assistance Priority8,950NSWACTMapping the Fitness Industry24,700NSWACTGuide to Careers in Arts19,000NSWACTACT Region Wine Industry Audit25,400NSWACTEnvironment Industry Cluster20,400NSWACTBusiness Ideas Competition21,000NSWACTInfo.& Commun Industry Survey23,700NSWACTPartners in Design20,000NSWACTCapital Country Tourism Strategy25,000 NSWACTWomen in Business—Mentoring7,500NSWAustralia's Holiday CoastFarm Diversification Education Program for the Gloucester District3,000NSWAustralia's Holiday CoastCoffs Harbour Technology & Business Development Park Feasibility Study20,000NSWAustralia's Holiday CoastRegional Agribusiness Development Coordinator70,000NSWAustralia's Holiday CoastRegional Cuisine Program40,000NSWAustralia's Holiday CoastRegional Agribusiness Data Base20,000NSWAustralia's Holiday CoastTaree (Manning Gloucester) BI498,800NSWAustralia's Holiday CoastCoffs/Port Macquarie Business Incubator feasibility study40,000NSWAustralia's Holiday CoastProduce & Services Outlet—Feasibility Study25,000NSWAustralia's Holiday CoastConpact Big Business31,000NSWAustralia's Holiday CoastLabour Market Analysis50,000NSWAustralia's Holiday CoastBusiness Angels75,000NSWAustralia's Holiday CoastSilver Perch20,000NSWAustralia's Holiday CoastAgribusiness Market Development & Coordination30,000NSWAustralia's Holiday CoastCapacity/Capability Study54,400NSWAustralia's Holiday Coast Midco Meat Feasibility Study20,000NSWAustralia's Holiday Coast Training and Skills Programme (Task Green)20,700NSWAustralia's Holiday Coast Compact big business—strategic planning for success80,000NSWAustralia's Holiday Coast Identification of Strategies to increase employment opportunities for ATSI people in the AHC Region30,000NSWAustralia's Holiday Coast Promoting Traineeships and Apprenticeships—Case studies of Good Practice6,100NSWBroken Hill Regional Consultative CommitteeBroken Hill Convention Bureau35,000NSWBroken Hill Regional Consultative CommitteeThankakali Cultural Centre30,000NSWBroken Hill Regional Consultative CommitteeBush Tucker 98/99(JOINT PROJECT WITH ORANA)165,000NSWBroken Hill Regional Consultative CommitteeBroken Hill Regional Skills Audit52,000NSWBroken Hill Regional Consultative CommitteeBroken Hill EDC BI303,000NSWBroken Hill Regional Consultative CommitteeBush Tucker 97/98130,000NSWBroken Hill Regional Consultative CommitteeVET 97/9812,500NSWBroken Hill Regional Consultative CommitteeGuide to EET10,500NSWBroken Hill Regional Consultative CommitteeWestern Research Institute 97/9850,000NSWCapital Region Employment CouncilSport & Recreation Centre Feasibility Study28,000NSWCapital Region Employment CouncilCanberra Airport Skills Capability20,000NSWCapital Region Employment CouncilFuture of Work15,726NSWCentral CoastCentral Coast Hydroponics Industry Development Program110,000NSWCentral CoastCentral Coast Tourism Development Investment Prospectus 85,000NSWCentral CoastConference Market development90,000NSWCentral CoastThe Central Coast Telecommuting and Multimedia Feasibility Study10,500NSWCentral CoastThe Central Coast Call Centre Attraction Strategy30,000NSWCentral CoastYouth at Work—Stage 232,000NSWCentral CoastWorkplace Assessor Training24,180NSWCentral CoastLabour Market Analysis50,000NSWCentral CoastGreat Eastern Centenary Walking Track20,000NSWCentral CoastHospitality Centre for Excellence20,000NSWCentral CoastSmall Business Mentor Program—Stage 240,000NSWCentral WestFeasibility Study—Economic potential of Advance Energy Administration Building—Gulgong25,000NSWCentral WestVetNet 9916,800NSWCentral WestEducation for Employment29,200NSWCentral WestAboriginal Business Database10,000NSWCentral WestNative Growers20,300 NSWCentral WestYouth Aspirations31,900NSWCentral WestLithgow Skills Survey17,250NSWCentral WestSkills Gap Analysis53,370NSWCentral WestBlayney Coordinator23,400NSWCentral West ACCBathurst BI500,000NSWGROW Employment CouncilInvestigation and Initial Implementation of the Great River Walk (GRW) Project33,500NSWGROW Employment CouncilHospitality Jobs Forum `9840,000NSWGROW Employment CouncilSmall Business Information Research Project20,000NSWGROW Employment CouncilDiscover Sydney's Inner West Tourism Potential120,000NSWGROW Employment CouncilBlue Mountains Business Planning85,000NSWGROW Employment CouncilBiomedical Business Park Feasibility Study50,000NSWGROW Employment CouncilHalal Industry Development36,000NSWGROW Employment CouncilPublic Housing Tenants174,000NSWGROW Employment CouncilAudit of IT Capability of Industry60,000NSWGROW Employment CouncilInvestigation of Youth Employment Projects29,500NSWGROW Employment CouncilManufacturing Technology Centre100,000NSWGROW Employment CouncilJob Readiness75,000NSWGROW Employment CouncilStrategy for Start Up Businesses108,500NSWGROW Employment CouncilRegional Investment Promotion71,000NSWGROW Employment CouncilMacarthur City Farm Feasibility Study25,000NSWGROW Employment CouncilLiverpool & Regional Business Improvement Network (LARBIN)78,500NSWGROW Employment CouncilCulturally Specific Small Business Development62,500NSWGROW Employment CouncilSpecial Services Job Network Directory100,000NSWGROW Employment CouncilJobnetwork Directory63,543NSWGROW Employment CouncilAgribusiness Co-ordinator50,000NSWGROW Employment CouncilDulwich Hill Vet60,000NSWGROW Employment CouncilDesign Competition255,000NSWGROW Employment CouncilSchool to Work Macarthur15,000NSWGROW Employment CouncilIndigenous Business Development81,900NSWGROW Employment CouncilVolunteer Adviser Network (VAN)87,000NSWGROW Employment CouncilEvaluation of 97/98 RAP projects102,500NSWGROW Employment CouncilMAC 2 GO72,700NSWGROW Employment Council Career Links Database48,816NSWGROW Employment CouncilFairfield Business Incubator feasibility study30,000NSWGROW Employment CouncilCentre for Contemporary Craft500,000NSWGROW Employment CouncilContemporary Craft Centre (Pyrmont)150,000NSWGROW Employment CouncilDesign West Incubator49,500 NSWGROW Employment CouncilNirimbi Business Development Centre500,000NSWGROW Employment CouncilMt Druitt Community Cottage55,000NSWGROW Employment CouncilSt Bart's Church20,000NSWGROW Employment CouncilAgribusiness Liaison Officer 97/9874,000NSWGROW Employment CouncilIndustry Dev Officer 97/9874,000NSWGROW Employment CouncilHIV Project65,616NSWGROW Employment CouncilOlympic Venues Trail75,000NSWGROW Employment CouncilGW Sydney Industry Plan40,000NSWGROW Employment CouncilGROW Network Development75,500NSWGROW Employment CouncilDesign West Feasibility Study & Business Plan Analysis4,116NSWGROW Employment CouncilAboriginal Research/Education Centre251,000NSWGROW Employment CouncilAgritourism Audit20,000NSWGROW Employment CouncilIT Skills in Small Business40,000NSWGROW Employment CouncilFarm Tourism18,250NSWGROW Employment CouncilBaulkham Hills Tourism12,000NSWGROW Employment CouncilTourism & Hospitality Industries28,000NSWGROW Employment CouncilIntel Bid25,000NSWGROW Employment CouncilMacarthur Business Incubator500,000NSWGROW Employment CouncilBlacktown Day Trip11,800NSWGROW Employment CouncilDesign West Incubator(The Business Village)395,000NSWGROW Employment CouncilCareer Links Database50,000NSWGROW Employment CouncilBus Survey St George/Suth28,000NSWGROW Employment CouncilWork Profiles180,000NSWGROW Employment CouncilBI FS Fairfield30,000NSWGROW Employment CouncilEmployer Communi- cation Strategy60,000NSWGROW Employment CouncilSMART Community Enterprise68,500NSWGROW Employment CouncilUWS Value Added Export Ind79,000NSWGROW Employment CouncilBlue Mountains Events Coordinator60,000NSWGROW Employment CouncilTourism Investment Research65,000NSWGROW Employment CouncilW Sydney Industry Promotion60,000NSWGROW Employment CouncilManuf Technology Ctr FS102,000NSWGROW Employment CouncilLocal Government Study28,350NSWGROW Employment CouncilKnowledge/Info Industries20,000NSWGROW Employment CouncilFashion Design BI FS25,000 NSWGROW Employment CouncilMarrickville BI FS25,000NSWGROW Employment CouncilEnvironmental BI FS25,000NSWHunterHunter News Bureau10,000NSWHunterUpper Hunter Youth Services Directory Addendum3,750NSWHunterStrategic plan for sustainable industry growth and value added timber industries in Dungog Shire10,000NSWHunterFeasibility Study into the design, development and creation of prototype reef module to assist coastal protection20,000NSWHunterLake Macquarie Charter Boat Base17,000NSWHunterNew Elaborately Transformed Manufacturing Opportunities for Regional Economies22,000NSWHunterPoultry Industry Cluster Development in the Lower Hunter10,000NSWHunterYouth Information Card3,000NSWHunterTomago Marine Industrial Park—Feasibility Study20,000NSWHunterCareer Forum—Increasing Employment Outcomes through informed job choices9,461NSWHunterLocation Portfolio for Film and Television Production20,000NSWHunterFeasibility Study for the National Horse Museum at Scone20,000NSWHunterEvaluation of Conference Industry in the Hunter Region30,000NSWHunterHunterNet Cooperative Web Site Development7,500NSWHunterSchool to work mechanisms.30,000NSWHunterHunter Valley Wine Country Tourism Monitor20,000NSWHunterThe Shootout—a film/video making event15,000NSWHunterHunterNet Trading Company20,000NSWHunterExport Skills Gap Analysis27,600NSWHunterSustainable jobs in Film,TV and Media30,000NSWHunterMusic Industry Co-ordinator30,000NSWHunterLAEPC20,000NSWHunterHunter Business Incubator feasibility study24,710NSWHunterCessnock BI500,000NSWHunterHunter BEC (Lake Macquarie BI)500,000NSWIllawarra ACCIndustrial Escape Spending Research project15,700NSWIllawarra ACCFeasibility Study: potential for cross sectoral Traineeships in the Illawarra Region14,000NSWIllawarra ACCDevelopment and Production of an Illawarra Regional Youth Strategy27,073NSWIllawarra ACCEmployment in Tourism—Developing Conferencing in the Illawarra30,000NSWIllawarra ACCFilm Making Why not the Illawarra?54,279NSWIllawarra ACCWollongong Revolve Reuse Recycle & Repair Centre Plan7,100NSWNew England NorthwestEvaluation of Economic Devel. in Gunnedah Region: Assess regional employment initiatives7,500NSWNew England NorthwestGuyra Information Bank10,920NSWNew England NorthwestPaddock to Plate18,200NSWNew England NorthwestBetter DA Model24,500NSWNew England NorthwestConference Destination9,640NSWNew England NorthwestSydney Franchising & Business Opportunities Expo16,000NSWNew England NorthwestIntermodal Rail Terminal6,500NSWNew England NorthwestRegional Economic Advancement23,330NSWNew England NorthwestIntensive Agricultural Opportunities + Tamworth19,500NSWNew England NorthwestIdentification of Niche Markets in Baking industry30,200NSWNew England NorthwestSchool to Work Moree15,000NSWNew England NorthwestInfrastructure Bank FS20,000NSWNew England NorthwestNatural Gas15,000NSWNew England NorthwestInverell Motor Museum9,000NSWNew England NorthwestPt Lookout Environment Centre23,000NSWNew England NorthwestRegional Investment Exchange15,000NSWNew England NorthwestPaulownia Timber Mkt Plan5,000NSWNorthern RiversNorthern Rivers Regional Strategy—(NRRS) Phase II Implementation strategy15,000NSWNorthern RiversTurning a Pest into Profit—Camphor Laurel10,500NSWNorthern RiversDevelopment of interest by farmers in Emerging Rural Industries (Stage 1)25,000NSWNorthern RiversAudit of Medicinal Herbs currently grown in the Northern Rivers Region25,000NSWNorthern RiversEconomic input/output survey of Maclean LGA15,500NSWNorthern RiversPort of Ballina15,500 NSWNorthern RiversTweed Enterprise Opportunities21,000NSWNorthern RiversRegional Coordination Forum7,000NSWNorthern RiversDevelopment of interest by farmers in Emerging Rural Industries (Stage 2)20,000NSWNorthern RiversComplementary Medicines15,500NSWNorthern RiversInfo book for young Kooris10,000NSWNorthern RiversRegional Forums/Workshops15,500NSWNorthern RiversLocal Aboriginal & Torres Straight Islander Employment & Promotion Committee32,000NSWNorthern RiversRemoving Investment Impediments in the Northern Rivers Forestry Industry25,000NSWNorthern RiversStrategic Plan for the expansion of value adding in the Beef Industry20,000NSWNorthern RiversLismore Business Incubator feasibility study28,250NSWNorthern RiversByron Community Centre Feasibility Study6,936NSWNorthern RiversStorage, Packaging, Distribution & Transportation of Agricultural Products20,000NSWNorthern RiversExport of Fruit & Veg to Asian markets25,000NSWNorthern RiversBush Tucker 97/9812,000NSWNorthern RiversFeasibility Study—Development of Historic Port of Ballina20,500NSWNorthern RiversRAEPC20,000NSWNorthern RiversNorLink10,000NSWNorthern RiversPracitce Firms Network10,000NSWNorthern RiversNatural & Complemen- tary Medicines30,000NSWNorthern RiversExport Development Officer30,000NSWNorthern RiversClarence Valley Employment Impact25,500NSWNorthern RiversIndustry Futures—an action Plan for Economic Growth in Murwillumbah16,500NSWNorthern RiversGrafton BI245,000NSWODECAboriginal Business database8,000NSWODECOrana Carp25,500NSWODECWhite Cypress20,500NSWODECMacquarie River Badging18,700NSWODECSurvey Macquarie Valley23,800NSWODECBusiness Research 35,000NSWODECCobar Feasibility103,000NSWOranaFeasibility Study—Dubbo International Drag Strip17,000NSWOranaFeasibility Study—Narromine Aviation Heritage Museum25,000NSWOranaFeasibility Study—Brewarrina Visitor Information and Business Centre24,000NSWOranaMiNET Capability Study20,000NSWOranaDevelopment & Implementation Strategy for Narromine/ Orana Rail Museum Tourist Complex15,000NSWOranaOrana Regional Economic Development implementation16,500NSWOranaOrana in Focus30,000NSWOranaAcoustic Study10,400NSWRiverinaRACC Information Guides6,000NSWRiverinaTumbarumba Survey and Skills Audit1,800NSWRiverinaWagga Input/Output15,150NSWRiverinaRiverina Regional Business Survey and Skills Audit Analysis25,500NSWRiverinaRiverina Regional Business Survey and Skills Audit32,300NSWRiverinaRiverina Labour Attraction Strategy175,500NSWRiverinaReal Jobs Junee13,250NSWRiverinaRedeployment4,800NSWRiverinaAspirations students15,000NSWRiverinaReview Cootamundra15,000NSWRiverinaRoyal Easter Show20,000NSWRiverinaHay Shire9,800NSWShoalhavenShoalhaven Small Business Complex (BI)500,000NSWShoalhaven ACCShoalhaven Coffee Project10,500NSWShoalhaven ACCIndustrial Development Project45,500NSWShoalhaven ACCUlladulla Summer Games20,500NSWShoalhaven ACCIntegrated Transport Study40,000NSWShoalhaven ACCTourism Dev Officer35,000NSWShoalhaven ACCTwo Rivers Walk4,800NSWShoalhaven ACCIllawarra Farm Forestry10,000NSWShoalhaven ACCFarm Forestry project5,500NSWShoalhaven ACCShoalhaven Schools Link12,325NSWShoalhaven ACCYth Development Officer13,061 NSWShoalhaven ACCVincentia Business Skills3,500NSWShoalhaven ACCNowra Business Skills3,500NSWShoalhaven ACCMilton-Ulladulla Conf Promo35,000NSWShoalhaven ACCPositive 10025,500NSWShoalhaven ACCAboriginal Cultural Centre FS10,500NSWShoalhaven ACCSecretariat50,000NSWSouth East NSWEnterprise Challenge10,260NSWSouth East NSWCultured Mussels25,000NSWSouth East NSWBombala Railway Land Use Feasibility Study7,600NSWSouth East NSWBuilding Value-Added Timber15,000NSWSouth East NSWSouth East NSW Labour Market Development10,300NSWSouth East NSWSocial & Economic Effects of Tourist & Air Transport related Development at North Head, Moruya30,000NSWSouth East NSWBoutique Accommodation20,000NSWSouth East NSWAquaculture Plan Development10,000NSWSouth East NSWBusiness Incubator Feasibility Study20,000NSWSouth East NSW ACCSCPA-Mkting & Devel Mgr81,838NSWSouth East NSW ACCEnvironment Industry Facilitator25,075NSWSouth East NSW ACCSmall Business Marketing Seminar9,000NSWSouth East NSW ACCEducation Based Tourism FS9,820NSWSouth East NSW ACCMulti industry Development15,000NSWSouth East NSW ACCGetting local govt out of the way12,500NSWSouth East NSW ACCJobs in Small Business69,600NSWSouth East NSW ACCEvaluation Winegrape potential21,400NSWSouth East NSW ACCEden Marine Discovey Centre FS12,075NSWNSW Business Incubator Survey150,000NSWMaitland Business Incubator200,000NSW GROW Employment CouncilBurwood International Creative Trade Centre113,700NSW GROW Employment CouncilWestern Sydney ITEC Stage 19,900NSW GROW Employment CouncilPenrith Business Development Centre24,510NSW GROW Employment CouncilSydney Business Enterprise Centre (Surrey Hills Expansion/Workventures)20,000NSW GROW Employment CouncilBlacktown Business Enterprise Centre150,000NSW HunterSurf Industry Study15,000NSW HunterMusic Industry Study15,000NSW HunterLawler Davidson 113,500NSW HunterLawler Davidson 23,000NSW HunterLMA50,000NSW HunterSchool Leavers Booklet10,000NSW HunterDefence/Areospace Industry30,000NSW HunterSport & Rec Project48,968NSW HunterSelection & Recruitment Update10,000NSW HunterRetrenchment Booklet10,000NSW HunterUpper Hunter Econ Profile40,000NSW HunterAquaculture Project10,000NSW HunterLife without barriers42,000NSW HunterRAEPC20,000NSW Northern RiversBallina Workspace Centre (Byron Bay)350,000NTNTEast Arnhem Land Tourism Development Officer116,000NTNTEast Arnhem Small Business Incubator37,000NTNTIndigenous Economic Development in Northern Australia38,000NTNTKatherine Region Business Reconstruction Advocate66,000NTNTMining Industry Project Officer73,313NTNTTopend Business Development Centres500,000NTNTTiwi Islands Tourism Development18,000NTNTPeppimenarti Skills Audit and Economic Feasibility21,000NTNTRak Mak Community Business Development15,000NTNTTennant Creek Small Business Incubator Without Walls33,500NTNTEstablish NT Business Skills Program9,000NTNTBrowns Mart Arts Inc—Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Arts Program2,000NTNTWinnellie/Palmerston Incubator (TEBDC )500,000NTNTEconomic Development Officer (Borroloola Reference Group)35,000NTNTEconomic Development Officer/Street Ryan (Borroloola)8,722NTNTUrban based Project Officer (EABDA )45,000 NTNTManagement Review Consultancy (Tiwi Land Council)18,000NTNTAwareness Training and Tourism Venture (Daiwul Gidja)60,000NTNTTennant Creek BARA Committee12,000QLDBrisbane SouthUrban Rooftop Integrated Microfarm Project20,250QLDCentral Qld ACCCurtis Island Development55,057QLDCentral Qld ACCMoura Employment Project91,300QLDCentral Qld ACCEnterprise Diagnostic Report for Fitzroy River Meat (FRM) Industry5,000QLDCentral Qld ACCBindaree Lodge Stages 2 & 350,000QLDCentral Qld ACCOstrich Industry Expansion36,500QLDCentral Qld ACC IncGladstone Shipbuilding Feasibility Study25,000QLDCentral Qld ACC IncCentral Queensland Native Flower Assoc.—IDO34,323QLDCentral Qld ACC IncAUSBUD Industry Development Officer45,300QLDCentral Qld ACC IncCoal Mining Education and Emp. Initiative20,500QLDCentral Qld ACC IncYEP Gathering21,358QLDCentral Qld ACC IncEnergy Expo25,000QLDCentral Qld ACC IncCattle Feed Processing Feasibility Study23,950QLDCentral Qld ACC IncLucerne Product Marketing Study25,000QLDCentral Qld ACC IncCallide Dawson Squab Pigeons26,000QLDCentral Qld ACC IncSeafood Festival5,000QLDCentral Qld ACC IncBlackall Historical Woolscour37,000QLDFNQ Employment Inc (FNQ ACC)1998 Business TNQ: Alliances and Opportunities Conference5,000QLDFNQ Employment Inc (FNQ ACC)Call Centre Attraction Plan10,000QLDFNQ Employment Inc (FNQ ACC)Cairns Seafood & Marine Career Development15,000QLDFNQ Employment Inc (FNQ ACC)NQ IT Business Incubator Feasibility Study24,500QLDFNQ Employment Inc (FNQ ACC)Regional Health Strategy25,000QLDFNQ Employment Inc (FNQ ACC)Strategies for Local Job Creation4,410QLDFNQ Employment Inc (FNQ ACC)Film/Televsion Industry Development25,700QLDFNQ Employment Inc (FNQ ACC)Chinese Language & Culture Training Strategy30,000QLDFNQ Employment Inc (FNQ ACC)Great Green Way Conference Strategy26,100QLDFNQ Employment Inc (FNQ ACC)Rambutan Value Add15,700QLDFNQ Employment Inc (FNQ ACC)Cooktown Part-time Apprentices Strategy25,500QLDGold CoastRegional Youth Services Directory7,000QLDGold CoastCommunications Research Project25,000QLDGold CoastHelensvale State High School—Future Search 9811,000QLDGold CoastSmall Business Success Network Pilot Scheme25,000QLDGold CoastBeaudesert Business incubator Site Valuation1,000QLDGold CoastRegional Database for Small Business33,800QLDGold CoastBusiness Outlook27,500QLDGold CoastSmall Business Performance Indicators32,790QLDGold CoastSchool Hospitality Links Program8,500QLDGold CoastOpportunities Expo 1998 25,000QLDIpswichIpswich CBD Project officer56,000QLDIpswichBoonah Shire—Awaking Our Potential82,850QLDIpswichA Revised Marketing Plan for Ipswich15,000QLDJobsnet Association Mackay Inc ( Mackay ACC)Bowen-Whitsunday maritime Training Facility56,000QLDJobsnet Association Mackay Inc (Mackay ACC)Regionlink5,000QLDJobsnet Association Mackay Inc (Mackay ACC)Pioneer Valley Tourism Strategy Stage 3(b)10,000QLDJobsnet Association Mackay Inc (Mackay ACC)Eco- Tourism Study30,000 QLDJobsnet Association Mackay Inc (Mackay ACC)School Industry Links Survey10,000QLDJobsnet Association Mackay Inc (Mackay ACC)Backpackers Study (ABBA)15,000QLDMetro NorthBusiness Enhancement Workshops10,500QLDMetro NorthLabour Market Research Project140,250QLDMetro NorthHistoric Rail Village20,250QLDMetro NorthNorth Brisbane Business Incubator Feasibility Study22,000QLDMetro NorthTreasures Downunder15,000QLDMetro NorthRe-Training for Displaced Ford Employees40,000QLDMetro NorthPublication to market school students and youth to businesses.56,000QLDMetro NorthSchool Industry Links Project3,400QLDMetro SouthJobseeker Transport Connection Pilot25,000QLDMetro SouthFeasibility Study, BI, Logan11,540QLDMetro SouthLeadership Program/SWEDN BI500,000QLDMetro South ACCEcotourism Project9,500QLDMetro South ACCLogan Natural Product58,170QLDMetro South ACCFamily Heritage Chest Project3,000QLDMetro South ACCHome Based Business in Redlands area32,900QLDMetro South ACCProject Intensity70,000QLDSouthern Inland Queensland ACCFeasibility study to determine the practicability of value adding to the petrified wood resources industry and the melon growing industry49,500QLDSouthern Inland Queensland ACCIndigenous Marketing Strategy30,000QLDSouthern Inland Queensland ACCGranite Belt Enterprise Association27,920QLDSouthern Inland Queensland ACCVocational Preference Analysis20,000QLDSouthern Inland Queensland ACCKillarney Whiskey Distillary45,000QLDSouthern Inland Queensland ACCInvestments and clustering of compatible business65,000QLDSouthern Inland Queensland ACCCharleville Cosmos Centre Business Plan25,000QLDSouthern Inland Queensland ACCMeat Works Training Package83,120QLDSouthern Inland Queensland ACCBI Feasibility Study7,500QLDState WideUniquest Review of ACC Strategic Regional Plans and Business Plans19,760QLDSunshine Coast ACCKey Tourists Events Sunshine Coast50,000QLDSunshine Coast ACCYouth EmployNet22,000QLDSunshine Coast ACCBusiness Outlook10,220QLDSunshine Coast ACCDevelopment of Strategic Regional Plan & Annual Business Plan20,000QLDSunshine Coast ACCBriteside Industries Feasibility Study and Business Plan14,452QLDTorres Strait Regional Employment Committee (Torres Strait ACC)Plumbing Hygiene36,250QLDWide Bay Burnett ACCCooloolah Employment Training Program31,610QLDWide Bay Burnett ACCWine Industry Project27,600QLDWide Bay Burnett ACCEstablishment of Game Fishing Industry at Hervey Bay49,050QLDWide Bay Burnett ACCJoint Airport Feasibility Study15,000QLDWide Bay Burnett ACCFraser Coast 4X4 Hire Assoc5,000QLDWide Bay Burnett ACCCooloola Region Events Initiative39,000QLDWide Bay Burnett ACCHervey Bay Short Term Economic Development Initiative14,000QLDWide Bay Burnett ACCHervey Bay Tourism Industry Development & Enhancement30,000QLDWide Bay Burnett ACCCooloola Region Hardwood Industry Economic Strategy 1999.$16,000QLDWide Bay Burnett ACCArchery Events Unlimited$3,000QLDWide Bay Burnett ACCWorm Industry Wasste Management Public Awareness 30,250QLDWide Bay Burnett ACCYitchi `Fresh From The Underground' compilation CD4,000QLDWide Bay Burnett ACCCooloola Tourism Monitor25,500QLDWide Bay Burnett ACCTourism Database$25, 500QLDWide Bay Burnett ACCKingaroy BI490,000QLDWide Bay Burnett ACCEstablishment of an economic development bureau3,650 QLDWorknorth Advisory Group Inc (North Queensland ACC)Hells Gate Feasibility Document10,000QLDWorknorth Advisory Group Inc (North Queensland ACC)The Drovers Camp—Camooweal Feasibility Study22,500QLDWorknorth Advisory Group Inc (North Queensland ACC)Burdekin-Bowen Export Partnership60,000QLDWorknorth Advisory Group Inc (North Queensland ACC)Kickstart Bowen—Signage49,915QLDWorknorth Advisory Group Inc (North Queensland ACC)Palm Island YAA Small Business Training70,700QLDWorknorth Advisory Group Inc (North Queensland ACC)Wanamara Cultural Centre Business Plan12,000QLDWorknorth Advisory Group Inc (North Queensland ACC)Gubinbara Boomerang Project3,500QLDStanthorpe Business Incubator Feasibility Study7,500QLDThuringowa Enterprise Centre181,350QLDMackay Enterprise Centre50,000QLDBeaudesert Business Incubator150,000QLDDEETYA/ACC Seminar3,433QLDDEETYA/ Strategic Planning Workshop1,900SAAdelaide MetropolitanSurvey of Incubators51,000SAAdelaide MetropolitanAssistance to Regions—Woodbridge Hendersons30,000SAAdelaide MetropolitanSA Youth Entrepreneur Scheme (SAYES)60,000SAAdelaide MetropolitanFactory Operatives Study8,500SAAdelaide MetropolitanIndigenous Business Incubator25,000SAAdelaide MetropolitanBI Study EEDA22,000SAAdelaide MetropolitanVirginia Expo30,000SAAdelaide MetropolitanWestern BEC BI Feasibility StudySAAdelaide MetropolitanCity Faces12,738SAAdelaide MetropolitanWestern BI Port Adelaide489,000SABRMRiverland Business Network40,750SABRMSchools project—BRM ACC VET Program38,750SASouth CentralLobethal Business Incubator—AHRDB Onkaparinga Enterprise Centre81,000SASouth CentralSCACC School VET Project50,000SASouth CentralSCACC Southern Synergy79,500SASouth CentralSCACC Growing Opportunities—Growth Opportunities for the Murraylands Region Project66,500SASouth CentralMurraylands Business Incubator Feasibility Study25,000SASouth CentralKangaroo Island Business Centre Feasibility Study3,000SASouth CentralRegional Export Extension Service (REES)100,000SASouth CentralBusiness Networking and Regional Coordination126,312SASouth CentralYAA Skills Program37,075SASouth CentralOvercoming Impediments to Jobs Growth116,082SASouth CentralLobethal Business Incubator—AHRDB Onkaparinga Enterprise Centre81,000SASouth CentralSCACC Onkaparinga BI Feasibility study25,000SASouth EastSERDE BI Mount Gambier456,000SASouth East ACCSE ACC Skills Audit43,200SASouth East ACCWomen in Regional Development5,000SASouth East ACCStopping The Gaps153,000SASouth East ACCBusiness Expo15,000SASouth East ACCRegional Wine Industry Centre10,000SASouth East ACCCall Cenre Feasibility Study17,700SASRACCSRACC/Spencer BI feasibility5,000SASRACCSRACC/Spencer AEEC7,000SASRACCBusiness and Employer Network60,670SASRACCCareer Expo17,250SASRACCVET Coordination Survey SRDA37,170SASRACCAdnyamathana Environmental Education Centre Feasibility Study7,000SAYouth in Business Enterprise centre171,000 TASTasmanian Employment Advisory Council (TEAC)Young Aussie Car Wash210,000TASTasmanian Employment Advisory Council (TEAC)King Island UHT Feasibility Study78,000TASTasmanian Employment Advisory Council (TEAC)Burnie BI500,000TASTasmanian Employment Advisory Council (TEAC)Feasibility study—canola oil processing33,000TASTasmanian Employment Advisory Council (TEAC)North East Education and Training Project109,000TASTasmanian Employment Advisory Council (TEAC)North East Education and Training Project109,000TASTasmanian Employment Advisory Council (TEAC)People Building Burnie22,000TASTasmanian Employment Advisory Council (TEAC)ANGLICARE/YAA-YOUTH BUSINESS ENTERPRISE CENTRE92,000TASTasmanian Employment Advisory Council (TEAC)ABT rail employment facilitator66,000TASTasmanian Employment Advisory Council (TEAC)Braddon Regional Economic Development Initiative90,000TASTasmanian Employment Advisory Council (TEAC)Indigenous School to Work18,500TASTEACFeasibility study—Emu Bay Rhodedendrum Garden5,000TASTEACLaunceston BI500,000TASTEACMigrant Resource Centre—to develop network of migrant contacts50,000TASTEACEmployment Facility—Port Arthur30,000TASTEACQualitas Wool Project Feasibility Study25,000VICAlbury/Wodonga ACCFRESHWATER EDUCATION & Interpretation CENTRE VIABILITY PROJECT25,000VICAlbury/Wodonga ACCPilot Program to improve links between the Dairy Industry and Careers Counsellors5,500VICAlbury/Wodonga ACCRegional Attraction Guide6,000VICAlbury/Wodonga ACCPost Secondary Education and Training Publication—It's Your Future15,085VICAlbury/Wodonga ACCMarketing Mature Age15,000VICAlbury/Wodonga ACCSecuring a vital industry / livestock market32,000VICAlbury/Wodonga ACCFacilitation of E—commerce and Internet Use by Regional SMEs37,700VICAlbury/Wodonga ACCTechnical Development of Agricultural Industries45,000VICAlbury/Wodonga ACCMetal Trades Apprenticeship Promotion10,000VICAlbury/Wodonga ACCWinning Edge4,950VICAlbury/Wodonga ACC/North East Victoria ACCManaging Skill Transitions in the Dairy Industry—Stage 174,625VICALBURY WODONGA ACCALBURY WODONGA CALL CENTRE PROJECT10,000VICALBURY WODONGA ACCMAPPING OF BUSINESS & GROWTH Opportunities in ALBURY WODONGA20,000VICBallarat ACCMajor Events and Booking Office252,000VICBallarat ACCBallarat Enterprise & Employment Fund 45,000VICBALLARAT ACCBALLARAT COMMUNITY FOUNDATION MANAGER15,000VICBALLARAT ACCGREEN LANDS CO-OPERATIVE MARKET & BUSINESS PLAN6,000VICBendigo ACCAUSTRALIAN EXPLORATION CENTRE12,500VICBendigo ACCCentral Victorian Employment Challenge Project29,800VICBendigo ACCGrowing the Arts Project31,908VICBendigo ACCExpansion of Central Victorian Poultry Industry Opportunities33,000VICBendigo ACCOlive Oil Industry Marketing & Promotion38,000 VICBendigo ACCCONNECT Project Evaluation3,000VICBendigo ACCOpportunity Study for a dedicated Halal Abattoir in the Buloke Shire14,750VICBendigo ACCEmployment Challenge Community Co-operatives/Enterprises138,000VICBendigo ACCBuilding a future for the country175,000VICBENDIGO ACC"BENDIGO CALLING"—OPPORTUNITY STUDY29,000VICBENDIGO ACCE-COMMERCE AUDIT, INDUSTRY ANALYSIS AND STRATEGY Development18,000VICBENDIGO ACCCENTRAL VICTORIAN ARTS BUSINESS & Employment FACILITATOR15,000VICBENDIGO ACCCONSULTANT FOR THE DAVIS POULTRY Maryborough Retrenchees1,000VICBendigo ACC/Central Murray ACCTrains to Paddlewheelers : Meeting of the Whistles40,000VICCentral Murray ACCECHUCA WEST ECO TOURISM PROJECT17,000VICCentral Murray ACCBRIDGING THE GAP60,406VICCentral Murray ACCFESTIVAL AND EVENTS CO-ORDINATOR30,000VICCentral Murray ACCNATURAL GAS EXTENSION OPPORTUNITY STUDY20,000VICCentral Murray ACCRetail Enterprise Development Facilitator40,000VICCentral Murray ACCLinking Schools to the Dairy Industry8,780VICCentral Murray ACCBusiness Enterprise Forum Industry Database 20,000VICCentral Murray ACCMajor Events & Retail Development Co-ordinator 40,000VICCentral Murray ACCRetail Enterprise Growth Facilitator45,000VICCentral Murray ACCRobinvale Aboriginal Co-op46,085VICCentral Murray ACCEmploying People for the First Time—Dairy Labour Market49,675VICCentral Murray ACCStudent Careers Publication11,600VICGeelong ACCINCREASING TOURISM IN THE GEELONG-OTWAY REGION9,300VICGeelong ACCUnemployment & LABOUR MARKET DATA & SKILLS GAP50,000VICGeelong ACCMAJOR EVENTS BUSINESS NETWORK (MEBNET)30,000VICGeelong ACCSMALL TO MEDIUM ENTERPRISE GROWTH FACILITATOR69,900VICGeelong ACCNew Job Network Information Day16,800VICGeelong ACCSurfcoast Businesses Support Program20,000VICGeelong ACCYouth Employment Survey3,700VICGeelong ACCGeelong Otway Strategic International Marketing Initiative85,000VICGeelong ACCGeelong Employment Generation Project158,000VICGeelong ACCCARnet—Geelong Automotive Network45,000VICGippsland ACCFUTURE Develoment OF THE BAIRNSDALE EXTENDED CARE CENTRE12,000VICGippsland ACCJOBS FOR RURAL YOUTH20,000VICGippsland ACCAN EXAMINATION OF THE Horticultural & NURSERY INDUSTRY14,000VICGippsland ACCThe Gippsland Business Awards12,000VICGippsland ACCFeasibility study of `dry yards' livestock trading facility12,000VICGippsland ACCGippsland Business Expo 199910,000VICGippsland ACCDjeetgun Kurnai Women's Business Development Enterprise2,500VICGippsland ACCFeasibility Study for Accredited Training for Harvest Workers5,000VICGippsland ACCSouth Gippsland Vocational and Work Force Development Plan20,000VICGippsland ACCGippsland Food Chain Project40,000VICGippsland ACCYoung Achievement Australia (YAA)23,700VICGippsland ACCBarriers to Aboriginal Employment55,000VICGippsland ACCIntegrated Timber Industry Development Project64,000VICGippsland ACCSTUDY OF ESD FOREST PRODUCTS IN GIPPSLAND13,000VICGIPPSLAND ACCSOUTH GIPPSLAND SHIRE COUNCIL "HOME PADDOCK Cooperative"30,000VICGreater Green Triangle ACCGREATER GREEN TRIANGLE EXPORT Enhancement & NETWORK PROGRAM57,000VICGreater Green Triangle ACCWIMMERA BUSINESS CENTRE OUTREACH15,000VICGreater Green Triangle ACCDAIRY LABOUR Management PROJECT5,500VICGreater Green Triangle ACCEmployment & Business Skills Enhancement Program5,850VICGreater Green Triangle ACCBusiness Planning Skills Project 8,620VICGreater Green Triangle ACCRegional Business Leadership Program35,000 VICGreater Green Triangle ACCCommunity & Business Skills Audit 7,320VICGreater Green Triangle ACCE Commerce Small Business Workshops35,400VICGreater Green Triangle ACCStrategic Marketing, Sales & Customer Service Workshops 70,000VICGreater Green Triangle ACCFestival and Events Audit20,000VICGreater Green Triangle ACCEdenhope on Display5,000VICGreater Green Triangle ACCCorangamite Business Achievements Award 5,000VICGreater Green Triangle ACCVolcanic Region—Tourism Industry Development24,000VICGreater Green Triangle ACCWarrnambool Cut Make & Trim5,000VICGreater Green Triangle ACCWebsite Calender of Major & Rural Events—Western Rural Services Consortium10,000VICGreater Green Triangle ACCPlugging the Leaks15,000VICGreater Green Triangle ACCGrampians Pyrenees Business Achievement Awards5,000VICGreater Green Triangle ACCWarrnambool Connected and On-Line72,000VICGreater Green Triangle ACCColac Otway Shire Strategic Development Master Plan15,000VICGreater Green Triangle ACCEvent Network20,000VICGreater Green Triangle ACCDevelopment of Commercial Rabbit Farming in Victoria's South West5,000VICGreater Green Triangle ACCRural Youth Mentoring Program—Feasibility Study16,313VICGreater Green Triangle ACCWestern Corridor Town Highway Enhancement Strategy100,000VICGreater Green Triangle ACCIsolated Small Business Support24,000VICGreater Green Triangle ACCHome Based Business Research Study29,200VICInner Melbourne ACCRetail Strip Marketing Plans65,000VICInner Melbourne ACCWOMEN'S EMPLOYMENT ADVISORY SERVICE61,957VICInner Melbourne ACCSELF Employment—FULL Employment25,000VICInner Melbourne ACCWORK EXPERIENCE REPORT3,000VICInner Melbourne ACCMarketing and Promoting of RAP projects and ACC—1998/199999,000VICInner Melbourne ACCHome Based Business in Inner Melbourne44,000VICInner Melbourne ACCRetail Strip Marketing Plans65,000VICInner Melbourne ACCRegional Community Employment & Economic Development171,600VICInner Melbourne ACCRegional Newsletter55,000VICInner Melbourne ACCReview three recent research projects for implementation10,000VICInner Melbourne ACCSchools to Business Links Program—Career Options & Youth Entrepreneurship43,150VICInner Melbourne ACCBusiness World Expo10,000VICInner Melbourne ACCWORK EXPERIENCE REPORT3,000VICJobs East ACCYARRA RANGES INCUBATOR313,000VICJobs East ACCPROJECT TO REDRESS SKILLS SHORTAGES FOR THE METAL WORKERS45,000VICJobs East ACCTrade Secrets128,800VICJobs East ACCGrowing the Micro and Small Business Sector in Melbourne's East235,700VICJobs East ACCProfiting from Maturity—Data Analysis16,000VICJobs East ACCProfiting from Maturity—Human Resource Management Resources63,000VICJobs East ACCMotivating the older unemployed40,400VICJobs East ACCThe Australian Employer's Convention—Achieving Age balance in the workforce.128,000VICJOBS EAST ACCCONDUCT A YOUTH Employment EXPO25,000VICJOBS EAST ACCAUSTRALIAN EMPLOYERS FORUM ON MATURE AGED WORKERS66,800VICJOBS EAST ACCSEASONAL Employment STRATEGY10,000VICJOBS EAST ACCBUSINESS RETENTION & EXPANSION PROGRAM94,800 VICNorth East Victoria ACCYOUTH FORUM36,000VICNorth East Victoria ACC29,200VICNorth East Victoria ACCRURAL WOMEN NOW13,200VICNorth East Victoria ACCDeveloping Regional Labour Markets, Stage 2247,500VICNorth East Victoria ACCStrategic Plan—Benalla & Mansfield3,980VICNorth East Victoria ACCRutherglen Cottage Food Industry20,000VICNorth East Victoria ACCAlpine Valleys Community Leadership60,000VICNorth East Victoria ACCFairley Leadership Program15,000VICNorth East Victoria ACCBusiness Advisory Services Centre71,000VICNorth East Victoria ACCRestructure of the Goulburn Murray Fruit Industry—Stage 282,970VICNORTH EAST VICTORIA ACCDAIRY INDUSTRY FOCUS DAY5,500VICNORTH EAST VICTORIA ACCVIDEO-`WHY CAN'T I FIND SKILLED EMPLOYEES TO WORK?'25,000VICNORTH EAST VICTORIA ACCDEVELOPING REGIONAL & RURAL LABOUR MARKETS98,200VICNORTH EAST VICTORIA ACCRESTRUCTURE OF THE GOULBURN-MURRAY VALLEY FRUIT INDUSTRY75,220VICNORTH WEST ACCNORTH WEST BUSINESS INCUBATOR FEASIBILITY STUDY30,000VICNORTH WEST ACCSKILL NEEDS SURVEY IN THE NORTH WEST MELBOURNE30,000VICNORTH WEST ACCYOUTH ACTION60,000VICNorth Western ACCJobs ACCtion Regional Employment Expos68,500VICNorth Western ACCJobs ACCtion Community News Supplement25,000VICNorth Western ACCAfrican Communities Business Support Initiative42,000VICNorth Western ACCSchool to Work Information Project159,564VICNorthern ACCYOUTH ALLOWANCE IMPACT PROJECT94,000VICNorthern ACCAlignment of Skills Training to Employment105,000VICNorthern ACCSmall Business Development Network100,000VICNorthern ACCImport Replacement & Local Buying 20,000VICNorthern ACCRegional Industry Network30,000VICNorthern ACCThe Northern Contact50,000VICNorthern ACCInternational Business Benchmarking and Achievement of Best Practice for SME's.120,000VICNorthern ACCRegional Export Readiness85,000VICNorthern ACCRegional School Industry Collaboration25,000VICNorthern ACCALIGNMENT OF SKILLS TRAINING WITH EMPLOYERS65,000VICNorthern ACCNORTHERN INDUSTRY, EDUCATION & TRAINING LINK (NIETL)30,000VICSouthern ACCBusiness Expo `99113,900VICSouthern ACCJobSouth Regional Manufacturing Skills Audit97,900VICSouthern ACCRegional Careers Information Project119,400VICSouthern Metro ACCA STATEWIDE VET EXPO50,000VICSouthern Metropolitan ACCREGIONAL INVESTMENT WEBSITE PROJECT25,000VICSouthern Metropolitan ACCBusiness Information Dissemination79,025VICState WideVET Systems and ACCs: Improving the Link287,870VICState WideAssessment & Audit of 2 business incubators40,350VICSunraysiaMildura & Wentworth Arts Festival Project Officer35,000VICSunraysiaTuklana Aboriginal Distribution Centre6,000VICSunraysiaHorticulture Skills Centre44,000VICSunraysiaSunraysia Information Technology Promotions Centre101,900VICSUNRAYSIA ACCSUNRAYSIA GOURMET YABBIES10,000VICWestern Port ACCCASEY CARDINIA TOURISM Development PROJECT30,000VICWestern Port ACCHOME BASED BUSINESS REGIONAL STRATEGY PROJECT40,000VICWestern Port ACCMornington Peninsular Feasibility Study—Business Incubator5,000VICWestern Port ACCBusiness Networking50,000VICWestern Port ACCWatching Western Port28,000VICWestern Port ACCRegional Events Coordinator33,000VICWestern Port ACCEvaluation of Students `At Risk' Programs15,000VICWestern Port ACCRegional Business Cluster Strategy for the Western Port Region100,000VICWestern Port ACCNew Business Development Groups (Part 1)4,300VICWestern Port ACCRegional Business Events Calendar29,200VICWestern Port ACCAssessment of Best Practice: Job Network Provider Groups & ACCs20,500VICWestern Port ACCInfrastructure Seminars (Phase 1)9,300VICWestern Port ACCCareer Teachers Industry Focus Days12,750 VICWestern Port ACCPrimary Industry Seminar (Phase 1)3,600VICWestern Port ACCBass Coast Labour Market Research12,000VICWestern Port ACCRegional Business Cluster Strategy for the Western Port Region100,000VICWestern Port ACCHORSE INDUSTRY NEEDS PROJECT6,000VICWESTERN PORT ACCSCHOOLS LIFE SKILLS PROJECT136,500VICWESTERN PORT ACCBUSINESS EVENTS/VOCATIONAL EVENTS CALENDAR12,000WACoastalSchoolhouse Cafe8,250WACoastal"Building Bridges" Careers Expo3,000WACoastalPeel Youth and Careers Expo1,000WACoastal ACCPeel Jobs Summit7,000WACoastal ACCAccommodation and Convention Centre Feasibility Study8,500WACoastal ACCSkills Audit/Training Needs Analysis24,000WACoastal ACCMicro Business Forums4,000WACoastal ACCSouth West Business Technology Incubator Feasibility Study18,000WACoastal ACCPeel Youth and Careers Expo3,000WAFar North West ACCKarijini Visitors Centre, Aboriginal Liaison Officer, Port Hedland54,300WAFar North West ACCFitzroy Valley Youth 6,000WAFar North West ACCFitzroy Valley Employment, Education and Training Project45,000WAGoldfields Esperance ACCEsperance Community College Training Needs Analysis15,000WAGoldfields Esperance ACCLaverton-Leonora Regional Development Association20,000WAGoldfields Esperance ACCLaverton-Leonora Cross Cultural Association—Employment, Training and Skill Development Research Project10,000WAGreat Southern Albany Business Incubator400,000WAGreat Southern Structural Change Workshop (Albany)2,500WAGreat Southern ACCGreat Southern Region Industries Opportunities Audit115,000WAGreat Southern ACCGreat Southern Three Year Strategic Regional Plan10,400WAGreat Southern ACCLotteries Duyfken Boat Building Centre Strategic Plan53,600WAGreat Southern ACCJob Network Marketing and Communication-Plan14,180WAGreat Southern ACCOut of School Competencies Recognition16,600WAGreat Southern ACCInfrastructure Inquiry Submission5,000WAGreat Southern ACCTambellup Business Incubator300,000WAMid West GaascoyneDenham Skills Audit1,450WAMid West GascoyneCarnarvon Maritime Heritage Precinct Concept Plan30,000WAMid West Gascoyne ACCMid West Industry Development Unit180,000WAMid West Gascoyne ACCCarnarvon Aboriginal Business Incubator Feasibility Study5,000WAMid West Gascoyne ACCBusiness Retention and Expansion Program4,500WAMid West Gascoyne ACCEmployer Survey10,000WAMid West Gascoyne ACCGascoyne Murchison Tourism Pathway30,000WAMid West Gascoyne ACCCarnarvan Information Workshop8,496WAMid West Gascoyne ACCGascoyne Development Officer32,900WAMid West Gascoyne ACCGascoyne Region Youth Coordinating Network11,880WAMid West Gascoyne ACCGeraldton Slipway Feasibility Study10,000WAMid West Gascoyne ACCPre-feasibility Study for Geraldton Horticulture Precinct20,000WAMid West Gascoyne ACCBuy Local Campaign Strategy30,000WANorth Metropolitan Perth ACCSelf Managed Employment and Enterprise Initiative Feasibility Study35,000WANorth Metropolitan Perth ACCNorth Metro Perth ACC Strategic Regional Plan9,354WANorth Metropolitan Perth ACCAboriginal Cultural Precinct Concept Development Study25,000WANorth Metropolitan Perth ACCCity of Wanneroo Business Incubator Feasibility Study25,000WANorth Metropolitan Perth ACCCBD Business Incubator Feasibility Study25,000WANorth Metropolitan Perth ACCTeams for Tasks88,600 WASouth East Metro ACCFeasibility Study into the future use of the Jarrahdale Alcoa Minesite40,000WASouth East Metro ACCSouth East Tourism Strategy57,500WASouth Esat MetropolitanWelshpool Business Enterprise Centre100,000WASouth West ACCStrategic Regional Plan and Business Plan10,034WASouth West ACCExpo South West5,000WASouth West ACCSouth West Vet Project11,105WAWheatbelt ACCWheatbelt Incubator Without Walls186,000WAWheatbelt ACCGreater Dryandra Tourism Development and Marketing Strategy17,000WAWheatbelt ACCVET Wheatbelt Cluster—Publicity Brochure4,475WAWheatbelt ACCEmployer Intentions Survey10,000WAWheatbelt ACCCreating Regional Employment in the Arts Through Enterprise (CREATE)8,700WASouth West10th Annual South West Careers Expo5,000WARockingham Business Development Centre2,000WAGosnells Business Development Centre135,900Adelaide MetropolitanWinner (The Barton) Business Incubator322,0008199(Question No. 616)6168199Andren, Peter, MPMr AndrenKL6CalareIND00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 12 May 1999:(1) Is it proposed to exclude the jewellery industry from the transitional arrangements to phase down the wholesale sales tax rate of 32 per cent before the possible implementation of a goods and services tax in July 2000; if so, why.(2) Is a need to protect some industries from a sudden drop in the tax rate the reason for the transitional arrangements; if so, does the jewellery industry require similar protection; if not, why not.(3) Has his attention been drawn to the submission to his Department by the Jewellery Association of Australia (JAA) that the introduction of a 10 per cent goods and services tax would result in a drop in jewellery prices of between 6 and 10 per cent but only between 2 and 5 per cent under a transitional wholesale sales tax of 22 per cent; if so, what is his position on the JAA's submission.(4) What evidence exists that a significant decrease in sales will not affect the jewellery industry before the proposed introduction of a goods and services tax in July 2000.(5) Will the Commonwealth provide support for small businesses in rural areas affected by exclusion from the transitional arrangements; if so, what support.8199Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes. Given retail mark-ups in the jewellery industry, price reductions at the time of introduction of the GST are expected to be small.(2) The rationale for the reduction in the WST rate was set out in the A New Tax System (ANTS). (3) I am aware of the JAA submission. The Government's position is respect of jewellery has not changed.(4) A significant fall in sales is not expected.(5) There are no special arrangements for businesses whose goods are excluded from the phase down of the WST luxury rate.8199(Question No. 624)6248199Edwards, Graham, MPMr Edwards83RCowanALP00 asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 31 May 1999:Is his Department reviewing the status of a number of Totally and Permanently Incapacitated pension recipients; if so, (a) why, (b) who is conducting the review and (c) is the review ongoing.8199Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:No.8199(Question No. 626)6268199Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister for Employment Services, upon notice, on 31 May 1999:(1) Does Job Futures/Job quest continue to offer services at 1 Monitor Road, Merrylands, NSW 2160; if not, (a) why is the service advertised on the Job Network website and (b) does a Job Network placement agency operate in the local government area of Holroyd to assist in alleviating the serious unemployment rate in the area.(2) Will the government increase Job Network services in the area. 8200Abbott, Tony MPMr AbbottEZ5WarringahLPEmployment Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) No.(a) The request to close the Merrylands site was agreed to on 14 May 1999 and the Australian Job Search system, accessible via the Job Network website, was updated on 19 May 1999 to reflect the closure of the site.(b) There is one Job Network member delivering NEIS services in the local government area of Holroyd. This local government area is bordered by Parramatta, Fairfield and Blacktown where there are 14 Job Network members providing the full range of Job Network services. Therefore, clients within the Holroyd local government area have access to a choice of Job Network members within a reasonable distance and accessible via public transport.(2) Current Job Network members were selected through the Employment Services Request for Tender 1997. There is no intention in the current contract period for the Commonwealth to extend services in any area, however, proposals from existing Job Network members are considered on a case by case basis. On 11 June 1999, the Employment Services Request for Tender 1999 was released, seeking tenders from interested organisations to provide employment services from 28 February 2000. DEWRSB is seeking to achieve as wide a market coverage as possible through the tender and has introduced Employment Services Areas nationally to encourage tenders for parts of the metropolitan and regional areas.8200(Question No. 628)6288200Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin ThomsonUK6WillsALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 31st May 1999:(1) Has his attention been drawn to the (a) Victorian National Parks Association's offer of a number of grazing licences in Victoria's Alpine National Park at an annual fee equivalent to $16 per head of stock and (b) Victorian Government's decision to reject the offer in favour of fees equivalent to $5 per head per season.(2) Will he refer the matter to the National Competition Council for investigation as a possible breach of National Competition Policy.8200Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) No.(2) No. However, if the issue raised by the honourable member does involve a breach of Victoria's National Competition Policy (NCP) obligations, this will be a matter for Victoria and the National Competition Council (NCC) as part of its formal assessment process.8200(Question No. 629)6298200Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin ThomsonUK6WillsALP00 asked the Minister Representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice on, 31 May 1999:(1) What are the catchment areas for the proposed Centrelink call centres for (a) Maryborough, QLD, and (b) Port Augusta, SA, referred to in the Minister's Department's 1999-2000 portfolio budget statements.(2) What are the populations of the catchment areas for the proposed (a) Maryborough and (b) Port Augusta call centres.(3) How many Centrelink customers reside in the catchment areas for the proposed (a) Maryborough and (b) Port Augusta call centres.(4) Will each of the proposed call centres be part of the national network of call centres or will it take calls only from a defined rural area.8200Truss, Warren, MPMr TrussGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—The Minister for Family and Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) The catchment areas for the two proposed Centrelink call centres are still being finalised. To ensure an excellent quality of service is provided to rural and regional customers in these catchment areas during the initial startup, access to the service will be phased in starting on a smaller scale and, as call demand is understood and staff expertise grows, expanding to the full catchment areas.(a) The final catchment area for the Maryborough Rural call centre should cover a large part of central Queensland and it is expected to extend south to Goodooga, west to the Northern Territory border and North to Charters Towers.(b) The final catchment area for the Port Augusta Centrelink call centre should cover a large part of South Australia and it is expected to extend west to the West Australia border, north to the Northern Territory border and east to the NSW border.(2) (a) The population for the proposed Maryborough call centre catchment is approximately 245,000. (Source: 1996 Census data)(b) The population for the proposed Port Augusta call centre catchment is approximately 164,000. (Source: 1996 Census data)(3) (a) There are approximately 144,000 Centrelink customers residing in the proposed Maryborough call centre catchment. (b) There are approximately 80,000 Centrelink customers residing in the Port Augusta call centre catchment.(4) The Port Augusta and Maryborough call centres will only give access to Centrelink customers calling from the defined rural catchment areas.8201(Question No. 631)6318201Hollis, Colin, MPMr HollisDH4ThrosbyALP00 asked the Minister for Employment Services, upon notice, on 31 May 1999:(1) How many work-for-the-dole projects are operating in the electoral divisions of (a) Throsby, (b) Cunningham, (c) Gilmore and (d) Hughes.(2) With respect to each project in each electoral division referred to in part (1), (a) what organisa- tions are involved in running the project, (b) where is the project located; (c) how many (i) voluntary and (ii) compulsory participants are engaged in the project, and (d) what is the expected duration of the project.(3) Have participants in the projects been injured requiring hospital and/or medical attention.(4) What arrangements exist to cover (a) hospital or medical attention costs and (b) provision of compensation when participants are injured.8201Abbott, Tony MPMr AbbottEZ5WarringahLPEmployment Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The table below lists all Work for the Dole projects operating in the electoral divisions of (a) Throsby, (b) Cunningham, (c) Gilmore and (d) Hughes.ElectorateLocationSponsorContracted ParticipantsDuration in monthsThrosbyLake IllawarraH & H Accredited Training12012Port KemblaIllawarra ITEC606CringillaIllawarra ITEC306CunninghamBrooks CreekIllawarra ITEC306WollongongEmployment Resources306WollongongIllawarra ITEC306WollongongWork Training & Employment706WollongongWollongong City Employment806GilmoreShoalhavenShoalhaven Employment & Training37515Killalea ParkKillalea Park State Rec. Trust608ShoalhavenIllawarra Area Health Service206HughesRoyal National ParkAnglican Youth & Education889(2) The table also lists, with respect to each project referred to in Question 1:(a) sponsor organisations involved in running the project; (b) location of each project; (c) number of participants; and (d) duration of each project.Note: From 1 July 1998, enhanced Mutual Obligation arrangements were introduced. Under these arrangements unemployed people may be required to undertake an activity additional to job search in return for their unemployment payments. In many cases they are able to select an activity of their choice from a menu of Mutual Obligation activities. As Work for the Dole is one of the activities that can be selected it is no longer relevant to distinguish between voluntary and compulsory participation. (3) Three participants in the above projects, while undertaking project activities, suffered minor injuries which required medical attention.(4) The Commonwealth purchases accident and liability insurance that covers all Work for the Dole participants as follows:(a) hospital or medical attention costs, to a maximum of $10,000 per participant per claim (this increased to $15,000 from 1 July 1999), which covers:Medical expenses not covered by Medicare;- Non-medicare treatment/medical expenses necessarily incurred and paid to private hospital, dentist, ambulance service, chiropractor, physiotherapist, osteopath, naturopath, masseur and orthodontics and the like;- 25% of the "gap" between Medicare benefits and the schedule fees for medical services rendered to participants as a private patient in hospital.(b) provision of compensation when participants are injured:Participants are covered for accidental bodily injury or accidental death sustained whilst participating in Work for the Dole activities, including travelling to and from such activities. Participants are covered for up to a maximum amount of $100,000 (this increased to $250,000 from 1 July 1999).8202(Question No. 636)6368202Horne, Bob, MPMr HorneUU5PatersonALP00 asked the Minister for Aged Care, upon notice, on 31 May 1999:(1) Further to her answer to a question without notice concerning an agreement with the NSW Government for home and community care funding (Hansard , 17 February 1999, page 3004), has she signed the agreement; if not, are frail aged and persons with disabilities in New South Wales being disadvantaged as a result.(2) When did she receive the application for home and community care funding from the Hon. Faye Lo Po' or her Department.(3) When did she respond to the Hon. Faye Lo Po' requesting further information.(4) Will she release the funding; if so, when.8202Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs Bronwyn BishopSE4MackellarLPAged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) I approved the 1998-99 State Annual Home and Community Care (HACC) Plan and allocation of regional funding for New South Wales on 13 May 1999.(2) Mrs Faye Lo Po' submitted the New South Wales Annual HACC Plan for my approval in November 1998. On consideration of the Plan, officers from the Department of Health and Aged Care advised me that the Plan did not contain adequate detail on measurable program outputs for each region in New South Wales, as required under the Agreement. This was made clear to officers in Mrs Lo Po's Department in November 1998. A $2.7 million funding shortfall in the allocation of regional funding was identified.(3) I subsequently wrote to Mrs Lo Po' on 11 February 1999, advising her that the Plan did not meet the requirements of the Amending HACC Agreement, and that I required further information before I would be able to approve the Plan. Mrs Lo Po' responded to my request in a facsimile dated 12 February 1999, advising me that she did not believe the New South Wales Government was required to provide further information under the Agreement, but that she was prepared to do so in this instance. I wrote again to Mrs Lo Po' on 5 March 1999, reaffirming that the New South Wales Government was required to provide details on outputs and output funding under the Agreement, and requesting that she address the matter of the $2.7 million shortfall.Mrs Lo Po' provided additional information to me in a letter dated 5 March 1999. On examination of all the information provided by the New South Wales Government, it was clear that the data contained in the Plan was inconsistent and did not adequately reflect the true cost of HACC service provision by service type in each region. Of particular concern, was the considerable variation in the cost of personal care and home help services reported in the Plan. In Northern Sydney, for example, the cost of personal care was reported to be $123.80 per hour and home help $5.20. I was, therefore, not in a position to approve the Plan proposed by Mrs Lo Po'.Accordingly, I wrote again to Mrs Lo Po' on 24 March 1999, requesting her to review this data and provide me with a more accurate and complete Plan. On 28 April 1999, Mrs Lo Po' forwarded a revised State Annual HACC Plan for New South Wales for my approval. The revised Plan provided more detailed and accountable information on program outputs. I was, therefore, able to approve the New South Wales HACC Plan and regional funding allocations for 1998-99.(4) Commonwealth HACC funding of $155.9 million has been made available for New South Wales for 1998-99. This includes $150.2 million made available to New South Wales for ongoing commitments in the Program, which was not affected by the delay in agreeing the State Annual Plan, and $5.7 million in growth funding now available for the provision of additional HACC services in New South Wales.It should be noted that HACC funding in NSW is over $12 million less each and every year than it might be due to the New South Wales Government's failure to match Commonwealth funding offers in previous years.8202(Question No. 638)6388202McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 31 May 1999:Has the Sydney Airport Corporation or a predecessor organisation undertaken a study or investigation into the drainage system of Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport and the surrounding environment; if so, did the study identify pollutants being transferred from the airport site into the Cook's River; if so, will the Government take urgent action to prevent the pollution.8203Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:I am advised by Sydney Airport Corporation Limited (SACL) that sampling of the water in the Sydney Airport stormwater system was undertaken from 1993 to 1996. An additional sampling program is being undertaken at present, but has not yet been finalised.SACL advises that the stormwater system at Sydney Airport is below the water level of Cooks River and Alexandra Canal and as a consequence the water that is found in the airport stormwater system is largely comprised of tidal water from Cooks River and Alexandra Canal. It is mostly during wet weather that airport runoff water is present, in proportions dependent upon tide and rainfall factors. SACL advises that the quality of the water in the stormwater system is, for the majority of the time, therefore dependent upon the water quality in the surrounding waterways.SACL advises that water sampling in the Cooks River and Alexandra Canal (which discharges into Cooks River immediately upstream of Sydney Airport) indicates that the water quality in these two waterways is very poor, with particularly high levels of suspended solids, ammonia, phosphorus, nitrogen, pesticides, oil and grease recorded.SACL is currently undertaking a stormwater characterisation study to assess among other things the proportion of water in the stormwater system that is runoff from the airport. However, SACL considers that during wet weather when it is likely that surface material from Sydney Airport hardstand areas will enter external waterways, the amount and concentration of pollutant transfer is likely to be insignificant when compared to the amount and concentration of pollutant known to be present in Cooks River.The Airports Act 1996 requires Sydney Airport submit a draft Environment Strategy to me within the first year of the airport lease. The Strategy focuses on the airport site and is to comprehensively set out how the airport will be operated by SACL so that its environmental health is maintained or improved. The Strategy is required to include specific measures that SACL proposes to adopt to prevent, control or reduce environmental impacts associated with airport operations.SACL advises that it has committed to undertake a number of measures to prevent, contain, measure and report stormwater pollution from Sydney Airport. These are detailed in the Preliminary Draft Environment Strategy for Sydney Airport and include spill prevention and response measures, site isolation and secondary containment systems, routine stormwater monitoring and reporting of results to the Airport Environment Officer and strict site controls for all construction activities.8203(Question No. 642)6428203Horne, Bob, MPMr HorneUU5PatersonALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 1 June 1999:(1) Is the Minister able to say whether organochlorides are used in common hydrocarbon fuels such as unleaded petrol, diesel and avgas.(2) Is the Minister also able to say whether (a) studies have been conducted in Australia or elsewhere to show the effect of organochlorides on living organisms and (b) links have been identified between organochlorides and specific orders such as chronic fatigue syndrome.8203Vaile, Mark, MPMr VaileSU5LyneNPTrade10—The Minister for the Environment and Heritage has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) My Department has advised me that to the best of their knowledge organochlorides are not used in the formulation of any of the common hydrocarbon fuels such as unleaded petrol, diesel and avgas.I can confirm that, since 1992, with the introduction of the National Inventory of Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme (NICNAS) requiring the assessment of all new industrial chemicals, no organochlorides have been submitted or approved for use in fuels.(2) (a) A number of published studies have been conducted in Australia and overseas on the effects of chlorinated organic compounds on living organisms; (b) My Department is unaware of any published literature that has shown specific causal links between organochlorides and chronic fatigue syndrome, but you may wish to refer this question to my colleague, the Minister for Health and Aged Care.8203(Question No. 653)6538203Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, 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).8204Truss, Warren, MPMr TrussGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—The Minister for Family and Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) No.(2) (a) None.(b) None.(c) Ms Julie Austin, Policy Adviser with the National Farmers Federation was a member of the Special Rural Task Force between September 1996 and December 1996.(3) (a) to (d) Nil.8204(Question No. 659)6598204Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, 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).8204Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPDefence10—The Minister for Industry, Science and Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) No grant has been provided to the National Farmers' Federation (NFF) or bodies related to the NFF since 2 March 1996.(2) (a) None.(b) Dr Wendy Craik was appointed to the CSIRO Land and Water Sector Advisory Committee from 1 July 1996 for three years. She has been a member of the Australian Institute of Marine Science Council (AIMS) since 1 July 1997.(c) None.(3) (a) Dr Craik (AIMS); $3,684.40.(b) None.(c) Dr Craik (AIMS); $1,035.00.(4) No.Dr Craik has not received any payments for her work on the Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Research Organisation's Land and Water Sector Advisory Committee.8204(Question No. 666)6668204Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, 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).8204Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—The Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission has not provided any funding to the National Farmers Federation. 8205(Question No. 668)6688205Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, 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).8205Fahey, John, MPMr FaheyHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) No.(2) (a) to (c) None.(3) N/A.8205(Question No. 669)6698205Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Community Services, 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).8205Truss, Warren, MPMr TrussGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) No.(2) (a) None.(b) None.(c) Ms Julie Austin, Policy Adviser with the National Farmers Federation was a member of the Special Rural Task Force between September 1996 and December 1996.(3) (a) to (d) Nil.8205(Question No. 678)6788205Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 2 June 1999:(1) Did Mr Ian Knop and a team from Profile Ray and Berndtson conduct a survey in connection with the Indigenous Employment program; if so, what were the (a) nature, (b) cost and (c) findings of the survey.(2) Has his Department signed a memorandum of understanding with employers offering to employ indigenous persons; if so, what is its nature.(3) Is his Department involved in a strategy with the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI) to place project officers in each State to assist the Indigenous Employment Program; if so, (a) what is the nature of the strategy, (b) how was the ACCI selected, (c) were other employer organisations approached or considered and (d) has the ACCI received a grant from the Commonwealth for its involvement; if so, what sum.(4) Are project officers engaged in the ACCI project also recruiting members to the ACCI in competition with other employer organisations; if so, will he allow this to continue.8205Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Profile Ray and Berndtson was contracted by my department to survey 20 companies to gauge their interest in participating in a project to increase employment opportunities for indigenous Australians. Mr Ian Knop is the Chairman and Managing Director of Profile Ray & Berndtson.(a) The nature of the survey involved structured interviews with 20 Chief Executive Officers or other senior executives from different industry sectors selected by the department. The survey involved a series of questions to establish the experience of the companies in indigenous employment, gather their ideas of how the Government might assist them to recruit more indigenous people and to gauge their interest in participating in a project to boost employment for indigenous Australians. The consultant prepared a detailed report for the department on the responses and outcomes of the survey.(b) The cost of the consultancy was $22 000 plus $3789 for the reimbursement of airfares, accommodation and meals at Australian Public Service non-SES rates.(c) The companies' responses to the survey were provided in confidence. However, the outcome was positive with all companies indicating an interest in employing more indigenous people and agreeing to participate in a project to generate employment opportunities for indigenous people. That outcome was reflected in a statement issued on 27 May 1999 entitled "Corporate leaders for indigenous employment", which was placed in the weekend editions of The Australian and the Australian Financial Review on 29-30 May 1999.(2) My department has signed Memoranda of Understanding with a number of companies. The MOUs provide a broad statement of the companies' intention to employ indigenous people and undertaking by the Commonwealth to assist. A copy of a sample document used as a basis for developing MOUs is attached.(3) An indigenous employment strategy with the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI) was established by the former Labour Government in 1989. The current agreement commenced in 1995. Following the introduction of the Job Network in May 1998, the original contract was revised for the remaining contract period to ensure that the ACCI project did not compete with Job Network members. The current contract is due to terminate in December 1999.(a) The agreement with the ACCI provides funding for the operation of a network of nine Indigenous Employment Managers located in Townsville, Brisbane, Gosford, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth, Darwin, Canberra and Launceston, plus a Canberra based National Manager and assistant. The project aims to generate employment opportunities in the private sector by working with private sector employers, including members of local chambers; provide assistance and advice to Job Network members; and encourage indigenous job seekers to apply for jobs in the private sector.(b) The ACCI was selected during the term of the former Federal Labour Government. I am informed that, at the time, the ACCI was approached directly by the Government.(c) I am informed that no other employer organisations were approached.(d) Since the commencement of the current agreement in 1995, the ACCI has received $3 629 169.25.(4) The ACCI was not contracted to recruit members through this project. However, the ACCI's involvement in indigenous issues generally has the effect of encouraging private sector employers to recruit indigenous employees. For these reasons, the ACCI agreed to join with the Government and CEOs in support of the "Corporate leaders for indigenous employment" initiative.MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDINGbetween[Company]andTHE DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT, WORKPLACE RELATIONS AND SMALL BUSINESS.This document sets out a framework for cooperation between the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business and [Company] at both the National and regional level. It aims to increase employment opportunities for indigenous Australians with [Company].CompanyDetails on company.Company is an employer of Indigenous people and now wishes to significantly increase the number of Indigenous people represented in its workforce.DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT, WORKPLACE RELATIONS AND SMALL BUSINESS (DEWRSB)Indigenous Australians face far higher levels of unemployment than other Australians. The Department administers, on behalf of Federal Government, a number of flexible programs that can assist private sector companies that wish to contribute to reducing the level of indigenous unemployment.The Department agrees to support [Company] through flexible outcome based agreements negotiated from time to time to achieve the objectives of this MOU.Company undertakes to:. increase the number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people employed by Company at an agreed level and retain them in permanent positions;. develop a strategy to achieve that objective.DEWSRB will:. support [Company] by providing access to flexible funding assistance from the Federal Government;. provide assistance, advice and support to [Company] in the development of its Indigenous employment strategies.Both Parties will:. negotiate agreements based on an agreed number of recruits and flexible funding from the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business;. promote the implementation of these and other initiatives as best practice for the employment of Indigenous people in the private sector through joint publicity and other means.Signed on behalf ofName of Company. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..1999by. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..TitleSigned on behalf ofDepartment of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1999by. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Title8207(Question No. 688)6888207Andren, Peter, MPMr AndrenKL6CalareIND00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 7 June 1999:(1) How many training exercises has the Australian Defence Force participated in with Indonesian Armed Forces since 2 March 1996.(2) What did each of the exercises referred to in part (1) involve.(3) What sum did each exercise cost.8207Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPDefence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) 42.(2) and (3)ADF Training Exercises with Indonesian Armed Forces (since 2 March 1996)NoNAMEDATESDESCRIPTIONCOST1CASSOWARY 96-1Jun 96Maritime patrol boat exercise designed to develop interoperability between TNI-AL and RAN in combined maritime surveillance.$25,0002NEW HORIZON VIII/96Jul 96Major maritime exercise between RAN and TNI-AL, covering AAW, EW, AsuW and ASW.$20,0003CASSOWARY 97-1Apr 97Maritime patrol boat exercise designed to develop interoperability between TNI-AL and RAN in combined maritime surveillance.$25,0004FCP KAKADU III/97 Jul/Aug 97Regional fleet concentration period—harbour and sea training to help achieve interoperability with regional navies.$100,0005CASSOWARY 98-1Apr/ May 98Maritime patrol boat exercise designed to develop interoperability between TNI-AL and RAN in combined maritime surveillance.$25,0006NEW HORIZON IX/98May 98Major maritime exercise between RAN and TNI-AL, covering AAW, EW, AsuW and ASW.$48,0007CASSOWARY 98-2Sep 98Maritime patrol boat exercise designed to develop interoperability between TNI-AL and RAN in combined maritime surveillance.$25,0008CASSOWARY 99-1Apr 99Maritime patrol boat exercise designed to develop interoperability between TNI-AL and RAN in combined maritime surveillance.$25,0009ANZAC / SYDNEY26/27 Nov 98Harbour training in Surabaya and `at sea' time10CANBERRA/ SYDNEY3-5 May 99Harbour training in Surabaya and `at sea' time11TRISETIA 9621—31 Oct 96A biennial non-reciprocal sub-unit exercise mounted between Land Command and the Indonesian Army KOSTRAD, involving a platoon from 3 RAR deploying to train with 17 Abn Inf Bde$100,00012TRISETIA 972-10 Nov 97A biennial non-reciprocal sub-unit exercise mounted between Land Command and the Indonesian Army KOSTRAD, involving a platoon from 3 RAR deploying to train with 328 Abn Inf Bde$26,00013TRISETIA 98/9918—29 Mar 99A biennial non-reciprocal sub-unit exercise mounted between Land Command and the Indonesian Army KOSTRAD, involving a company from 3 RAR deploying to train with 330 Abn Inf Bn.$90,00014INDONESIAN EXCHANGE 963 Jun—30 Aug 96A reciprocal short term, individual exchange of 10 Land Command personnel between the Australian and Indonesian Armies. $10,000 15KARTIKA EXCHANGE 9716 Jun—12 Sep 97A reciprocal short term, individual exchange of 10 Land Command personnel between the Australian and Indonesian Armies.$135,00016KARTIKA EXCHANGE 9816 Jun—12 Sep 98A reciprocal short term, individual exchange between the Australian and Indonesian Armies involving 10 junior officers from each country. $300,000 17KARTIKA EXCHANGE 9928 Apr—30 Jul 99A reciprocal short term, individual exchange between the Australian and Indonesian Armies involving 14 junior officers from each country.$300,00018INFANTRY TRAINING MANAGEMENT COURSE27 May—2 Jul 96The aim of the course was to train selected TNI-AD junior infantry officers in training management techniques, through a medium of specialist infantry skills.$800,00019MARKSMANSHIP COACHING COURSE—MTT10—27 Feb 97The aim of the course was to develop markmanship instruction in TNI-AD$150,00020INSTRUCTOR EXCHANGE—ARMY COMMAND AND STAFF COLLEGE 97/98AS to ID 1—30 Sep 97; ID to AS 1—30 Mar 98The aim of the exchange was to have instructors join their counterpart staff colleges in AS/ID and participate in the instructional programme$20,00021INSTRUCTOR EXCHANGE—ARMY COMMAND AND STAFF COLLEGE 981—30 Sep 98 (1 x pers AS to ID, 2 x pers ID to AS)The aim of the exchange was to have instructors join their counterpart staff colleges in AS/ID and participate in the instructional programme$30,00022INDONESIAN JUNIOR OFFICER CLOSE COUNTRY INSTRUCTOR TRAINING (JOCCIT) 964 Nov—6 Dec 96The aim of the course was to teach junior officers from TNI-AD the skills and techniques necessary to become instructors in close country$500,00023JOCCIT 972—21 Nov 97The aim of the course was to teach junior officers from TNI-AD the skills and techniques necessary to become instructors in close country.$294,00024JOCCIT 986 Oct—10 Nov 98The aim of the course was to teach junior officers from TNI-AD the skills and techniques necessary to become instructors in close country.$400,00025ALBATROS AUSINDO 97-1Jun 97Combined maritime air surveillance exercise between TNI-AU and RAAF, designed to develop interoperability.$25,00026ALBATROS AUSINDO 97-2Dec 97Combined maritime air surveillance exercise between TNI-AU and RAAF, designed to develop interoperability.$25,00027ALBATROS AUSINDO 98-3May/Jun 98Combined maritime air surveillance exercise between TNI-AU and RAAF, designed to develop interoperability.$25,00028ALBATROS AUSINDO 98-4Sep 98Combined maritime air surveillance exercise between TNI-AU and RAAF, designed to develop interoperability.$20,00029ALBATROS AUSINDO 99-5Mar/Apr 99TGZOC combined maritime air surveillance exercise between TNI-AU and RAAF, designed to develop interoperability.$25,00030RAJAWALI AUSINDO 96Oct 96Tactical air transport and airdrop training$43,933 31RAJAWALI AUSINDO 97Nov 97Tactical air transport and airdrop training$28,00032RAJAWALI AUSINDO 98Oct 98Tactical air transport and airdrop training$30000 33KITE 97Jul/Aug 97Airman-to-airman discussions on operations. Conducted in conjunction with KAKADU 34ELANG AUSINDO 96Dec 9675SQN deployment to Ujung Pandang. RAAF/TNI-AU tactical air-defence exercise.$40,000 35ELANG AUSINDO 97Oct 9775SQN deployment to Ujung Pandang. RAAF/TNI-AU tactical air-defence exercise$46,000 36ELANG AUSINDO 98Nov 98CPX at ADFWC. RAAF/TNI-AU tactical air-defence exercise$15,00037KOOKABURRA 96Jun 96Reciprocal SF exercise: counter-hijack training for KOPASSUS$50,00038NIGHT KOMODO 96Jun 96Conventional infantry war roles.$50,000 39KOOKABURRA 97Jun 97Reciprocal SF exercise: counter-hijack training for KOPASSUS$50,00040NIGHT KOMODO 97Jun 97Conventional infantry war roles.$50,00041SATRIA BHAKTI 97Nov 97To train ADF/TNI planning staff in the use of combined planning procedures at the strategic and operational levels and validate procedures at the strategic and operational levels and validate procedures at the strategic and operational levels and validate procedures for a Humanitarian Assistance Drought Relief scenario.$100,00042SATRIA BHAKTI 98Nov/Dec 98To train ADF/TNI planning staff in the use of combined planning procedures at the strategic and operational levels and validate procedures at the strategic and operational levels and validate procedures at the strategic and operational levels and validate procedures for a Humanitarian Assistance Drought Relief scenario.$112,000Notes:1. No combined Special Forces exercising has occurred since Night Komodo 97.2. Increased cost of a number of exercises in FY 98/99 and 99/00 due to waiving of cost-sharing arrangements.3. Costs provided are approximate only.4. Costs for Numbers 9,10 & 33 are unable to be deduced from larger cost fields, and are therefore been left blank.8209(Question No. 714)7148209Bevis, Arch, MPMr BevisET4BrisbaneALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 7 June 1999:On a state by state basis:(1) How many employers have been surveyed by Wallace Consulting on behalf of the Office of the Employment Advocate (OEA).(2) How many surveys have been returned.(3) What have respondents indicated in answer to (a) question 24—Does your organisation attempt to discourage employees from joining unions in any way and (b) question 25—Please consider whether any of the following occur at your workplace. Please indicate for each whether it does occur, may occur, or definitely does not occur: Managers regard union members unfavourably; Managers discriminate against union members; Organisation refuses to negotiate with unions; Organisation does not hire union members; Organisation retrenches union members first if possible; Organisation refuses unions access to workforce for purposes of recruitment; Organisation refuses to deduct union fees from wages. (4) Has the OEA investigated any breaches of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 arising from responses to this survey.(5) Will he table results of the survey; if so, when; if not, why not.8209Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The employer survey was designed in such a way as to be completely anonymous. Employers were not asked to indicate the state in which they conduct their business and therefore the honourable member's question can only be answered on the basis of national responses.(1) A total of 1,878 surveys were mailed out to employers.(2) 1,000 surveys were returned. 3 questionnaires were rejected as being out-of-scope (ie from an organisation outside of the agreed spread of industries) and 17 were rejected as containing data which was too incomplete to be useable. Hence 980 useable questionnaires form the basis of the employer survey.(3) (a) 3% of employers answered yes to this question.(b) The following responses were given:Does OccurMay OccurDefinitely Does Not OccurDon't Know/NA Managers regard union members unfavourably3%12%78%6%Managers discriminate against union members1%1%91%7%Organisation refuses to negotiate with unions2%5%86%7%Organisation does not hire union members2%5%85%8%Organisation retrenches union members first if possible0%3%89%8%Organisation refuses union access to workforce for purposes of recruitment2%8%82%8%Organisation refuses to deduct union fees from wages6%6%81%7%(4) No.(5) A copy of the full report is available on the OEA's web page, www.oea.gov.au.8210(Question No. 715)7158210Bevis, Arch, MPMr BevisET4BrisbaneALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 7 June 1999:(1) Has the Office of the Employment Advocate (OEA) received complaints for alleged employer breaches of provisions of the Workplace Relations Act 1996; if so, (a) how many and (b) what was the nature of the alleged breaches.(2) Has the OEA launched any prosecutions as a result of alleged breaches of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 by employers; if so, what are the nature and location of the prosecutions.(3) Has the OEA received complaints for alleged breaches by employees of provisions of the Workplace Relations Act 1996; if so, (a) how many and (b) what was the nature of the alleged breaches.(4) Has the OEA launched any prosecutions as a result of alleged breaches of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 by employees; if so, what are the nature and location of the prosecutions.8210Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (a) Up to 1 June 1999, there have been 202 such complaints.(b) 82 regarding Part XA; 109 regarding Australian Workplace Agreements; 9 regarding coercion in the making of certified agreements; 1 regarding union right of entry; and 1 regarding strike pay.(2) Yes. Up to 1 June 1999, proceedings have been commenced in the Federal Court of Australia against 3 employers. The actions relate to alleged breaches (in Melbourne and Perth respectively) of Part XA. Two actions have been instituted in Victoria (VG389 of 1998 and V82 of 1999) and one in Western Australia (W17 of 1999).To date, a total of 1,053 Australian Workplace Agreements have been refused. A number of these refusals has resulted from the investigation of complaints received.(3) (a) Up to 1 June 1999, there have been 31 such complaints.(b) 26 regarding freedom of association (Part XA); 4 regarding Australian Workplace Agreements; and 1 regarding coercion in the making of a certified agreement.(4) Yes. Up to 1 June 1999, proceedings have been commenced in the Federal Court of Australia against 3 employees for alleged breaches. All 3 employees were union delegates. There were proceedings in Brisbane regarding a breach of freedom of association by two of the employees (QG 182 of 1997). The other proceedings are in Melbourne regarding an alleged breach of freedom of association (V82 of 1999).8210(Question No. 723)7238210Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio7T4ProspectALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 9 June 1999:(1) Has a permanently sited information centre been established to dispense news and information on the proposed second Sydney airport at Badgerys Creek to concerned local residents; if so, where; if not, (a) why not and (b) will an information centre be established.(2) If an information centre is not to be established, why not.(3) If an information centre will be established, (a) when will it be established and (b) will it also dispense information in languages other than English.(4) Was an information centre opened to dispense news and information for concerned local citizens when the Howard Government resurrected the Holsworthy area as a possible site for Sydney's second airport development; if so, (a) where was it located and (b) when was it closed.8211Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) At this time, there is no dedicated information centre in the Sydney area, which dispenses news and information on the second Sydney airport proposal at Badgerys Creek. However, copies of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) have been provided to a range of government agencies, councils, libraries, community groups and other organisations as a means of helping to inform the community on the proposal. A summary of the Final EIS has also been sent to the approximately 11,000 authors who made written submissions on the Draft EIS.(a) The existing arrangements for informing the community on the proposed airport development are considered appropriate until such time as the Government considers the outcome of the EIS process and makes a decision on the proposal.(b) The possible establishment of a permanent information centre will be considered in the light of any Government decision to proceed with the development of the second Sydney airport.(2) See answers to 1(a) and 1(b).(3) (a) See answer to 1(b).(b) Consideration will be given to the information needs of people from non-English speaking backgrounds in any decision to establish a new information centre.(4) The Second Sydney Airport Community Access Centre was established to dispense information on the second Sydney airport options being considered for both the Holsworthy and Badgerys Creek sites.(a) The Access Centre was located at 43 Moore Street, Liverpool.(b) The Access Centre was closed at the end of September 1997.Following the release of the Draft EIS in December 1997, a mobile access centre was introduced which was considered to be a more flexible means of reaching the widely distributed sections of the community in western Sydney. The mobile access centre operated until the end of the public exhibition period for the Draft EIS. 8211(Question No. 724)7248211Price, Roger, MPMr PriceQI4ChifleyALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 9 June 1999:Has he or his predecessor received formal or informal advice from his Department or Airservices Australia about the interoperability of Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport and the proposed airport at Badgerys Creek; if so, did the advice (a) include a suggestion that the use of the east-west runway at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport for departures would need to be minimised and use concentrated on the north-south runway pushing more planes into the Bennelong funnel and (b) conclude that one of the two airports would require aircraft to depart at lower altitudes.8211Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The interoperability of Sydney Airport and the proposed airport at Badgerys Creek is discussed in Chapter 20 of the Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the proposed second Sydney airport at Badgerys Creek released on 30 June 1999. I understand that Mr Price has a copy of the Supplement.8211(Question No. 725)7258211Ellis, Annette, MPMs Ellis5K6NamadgiALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 9 June 1999:Was a publication entitled Investing Money—Your choices; information to help you plan your retirement produced at Commonwealth expense; if so, (a) what was the cost of producing it, (b) how many copies were produced, (c) how is the publication being distributed, (d) to whom is it being distributed, and (e) is the publication a Government initiative for the International Year of Older Persons; if so, what other publications (i) have been or (ii) will be published and distributed for the International Year of Older Persons.8211Truss, Warren, MPMr TrussGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—The Minister for Family and Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable Member's question:The publication entitled Investing Money—Your Choices; information to help you plan your retirement was produced at Commonwealth expense. The text was jointly produced by the Department of Family and Community Services and the National Information Centre on Retirement Investments (NICRI).(a) $321,708.20 excluding the labour costs of the Department of Family and Community Services and of NICRI.(b) 330,000, some of which were paid for by the Consumer Affairs Division of the Treasury and the Office for Older Australians.(c) and (d) The publication is being distributed by:- Centrelink Financial Information Service (FIS) officers at FIS public seminars and at FIS personal interviews with social security recipients, self-funded retirees and other members of the public;- the Consumer Affairs Division of the Treasury;- the Office for Older Australians;- the Department of Veterans' Affairs;- NICRI;- by a mail-out to range of community groups and financial planning organisations; and- to members of Federal Parliament.The publication is also available on the internet site of the Department of Family and Community Services.(e) The publication is not, expressly, a Government initiative for the International Year of Older Persons. The first edition of this publication was produced by the then Department of Social Security in 1997. This is a second edition of the publication. The Department of Family and Community Services took the opportunity to promote the International Year of Older Persons in the current edition of the publication.8212(Question No. 729)7298212Burke, Anna, MPMs Burke83SChisholmALP00 asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 9 June 1999:How many veterans (a) reside in the electoral division of Chisholm and (b) residing in the electoral division of Chisholm have applied for legal aid since 1996.8212Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(a) As at 18 June 1999 there were 2,102 veterans residing in the electoral division of Chisholm receiving benefits from my Department.(b) Applications for legal aid assistance are made to State and Territory legal aid commissions. My Department does not hold this information.8212(Question No. 730)7308212Danby, Michael, MPMr DanbyWF6Melbourne PortsALP00 asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 10 June 1999:(1) What claims have been paid by the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation (EFIC) arising from activities in the (a) Algerian, (b) Iraqi, (c) Iranian, (d) Libyan, (e) Sudanese, (f) Syrian and (g) Yemeni markets in each financial year since 1978-79.(2) What other funds has EFIC spent in pursuing export opportunities in each market referred to in part (1) in each financial year since 1978-79.8212Fischer, Tim, MPMr Tim FischerDG4FarrerNP10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) As per the attached table.(2) EFIC does not expend funds in pursuing export opportunities, but rather provides a specialised range of insurance, guarantee and finance services in support of export contracts, already won by Australian companies. Therefore, other than claims, it is not possible for EFIC to provide a country by country breakdown of its costs incurred in providing these services.Summary Table of EFIC and National Interest Claims Paid in Australian Dollars 1978- 1999 (Net Figures)Yearly TotalFinancial YearCountryBeginningEndAlgeriaIraqIranLibyaSudanSyriaYemen7/1/786/30/79241,844.68335,417.95577,262.637/1/796/30/8073,557.51819,190.19892,747.707/1/806/30/8112197.461,197,927.07827,186.192,037,310.727/1/816/30/8259,040.00173,462.266,911.93239,414.197/1/826/30/8326,528.534,571.321,767.4732,867.327/1/836/30/8412,786.86274,885.58135,267.1722,444.21445,383.827/1/846/30/85160,181.40160,181.407/1/856/30/8639,207.5339,207.537/1/866/30/8729,783.102,427,539.012,457,322.117/1/876/30/881,735.0114,692,331.277,572.0014,701,638.287/1/886/30/8917,096.776,431,576.96134,683.136,583,356.867/1/896/30/901,386,990.111,386,990.117/1/906/30/91184,175,642.91184,175,642.917/1/916/30/92270,033,371.26270,033,371.267/1/926/30/9342,645,320.9242,645,320.927/1/936/30/948,354.878,354.877/1/946/30/95771,750.21771,750.217/1/956/30/96_7/1/966/30/97_7/1/976/30/98_7/1/986/30/99_Total By Country87,930.27522,084,426.802,610,164.1760,807.472,155,256.59167,093.3322,444.21527,188,122.84Note:(1) The table shows net claims paid. That is, claims paid less recoveries subsequently made.(2) In prior years EFIC did not offer claim payments in the currency of the export contract. In some cases EFIC has paid claims in AUD, fully recovered the foreign currency invoice amount, but not made a full recovery due to exchange rate movements.8213(Question No. 739)7398213Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry upon notice, on 21 June 1999:Further to the answer to question No. 33 (Hansard , 10 December 1998, page 1998) in which he referred to positive discrimination measures within the internal management practices of his Department, for those measures which are available to and impact on the general public (a) what measures has the Department implemented which could be categorised as positive discrimination, that is, providing preference to certain citizens on the basis of their gender, sexuality, age, race, place of birth or some other personal characteristic, and (b) what are the details and funding commitments in each case.8213Vaile, Mark, MPMr VaileSU5LyneNPTrade10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:In providing the answer given to Question No. 33 of 11 November 1998, we advised the following: . AFFA provides funding for a scholarship for a rural woman to participate in the Australian Rural Leadership Program. In 1997 the scholarship was awarded to a pork producer from Queensland, and in 1998 to a wool grower from Victoria.We now add that the funding for these scholarships is $38 500 per year.All other information provided in the answer to Question No. 33 of 11 November 1998 remains unchanged.8213(Question No. 745)7458213Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio7T4ProspectALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 21 June 1999:Does the Minister's Department operate a library or libraries; if so, (a) what sum was spent on purchasing new books for departmental libraries in (i) 1996-97, (ii) 1997-98 and (iii) 1998-99 and (b) will the Minister provide a list of the title and author of each book purchased by departmental libraries in 1998-99.8214Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows;Yes, (a) (i) $51,769.91, (ii) $46,036.20 and (iii) $45,259.87 and (b) a list of titles and authors of books purchased in 1998-99 is available from the Table Office.8214(Question No. 748)7488214Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio7T4ProspectALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 21 June 1999:Does the Minister's Department operate a library or libraries; if so, (a) what sum was spent on purchasing new books for departmental libraries in (i) 1996-97, (ii) 1997-98 and (iii) 1998-99 and (b) will the Minister provide a list of the title and author of each book purchased by departmental libraries in 1998-99.8214Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Yes. The Department maintains 2 small libraries, a departmental library and a specialised legal library:(a) The cost of purchasing monographs for the departmental library for each of the 3 years specified was:(i) $1,219.68(ii) $4,094.76(iii) $6,053.85The cost of purchasing monographs for the legal library for each of the 3 years specified was:(i) $1,152.11(ii) $1,859.14(iii) $963.59[Note: this does not cover the cost of other publications].(b) The monographs (by title and author) purchased by the departmental library of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business in 1998-99 are:- A summary of the retail industry in Australia/NSW Retail & Wholesale Industry Training Council- Administrative Law under the Coalition government/Aust. Institute of Admin Law- An agenda for federal regulatory reform/ Crandell, R. W. - Australia at work: just managing?/ACIRRT- Below average wages above average employees/Top Drawer Consultants and the EEO Trust- Can labour supply explain the rise in unemployment and interchange wage inequality in the OECD/Wasmer, E.- Created unequal: the crisis in American pay/Galbraith, J. K.- Delegated legislation in Australia/Pearce, D. C.- Directory of Australian associations/Information Australia- Doing leadership differently: gender, power and sexuality in a changing business culture/Sinclair, A.- Effective library and information centre management/Bryson, V. J.- Employee relations law/Wallace-Bruce, Dr N. L.- Five years after: the New Zealand labour market/Maloney, T.- Getting to yes/Fisher, R.- Hard labour: women and work in the post-welfare era/Handler, J. F.- Harvard business review on knowledge management/HBS Press- Harvard business review on leadership/HBS Press- How to find the best quality child care/Matthews, M. J.- Human resource management/Stone, R. J.- Improving regulatory accountability/Hahn, R. W.- Innovation at the top: where do directors get their ideas from/Roffey Park Management Institute- Intellectual capital/Stewart, T. A.- International and comparative industrial relations: a study of industrialised market economies. 3rd.ed./Bamber, G. J. & Lansbury, R. D.—3 x copies- It doesn't take a hero/Schwarzkopf, H. N.- Just can't get enough: more on skill-biased change and labour market performance/ Manacorda, M.- Keeping score: using the right metrics to drive world class performance/Brown, M. G.- Knowledge management and organizational design/Ed. Myers, P. S.- Labour law and the constitution/Williams, G.- Labour market institutions and economic performance/Nickell, S.- Learned optimism/Seligman, M. - Making your future work: how to find satisfaction security and stability in the job market of the future/Letcher, M.- Managing like a man: women and men in corporate management/Wajcman, J.- Networth/Hagel, J.- OECD economic surveys: Sweden 1997/98/ OECD- OECD economic surveys: Australia 1998/99/ OECD- OECD economic surveys: Austria 1997/98/ OECD- OECD economic surveys: Canada 1997/1998/ OECD- OECD economic surveys: Denmark 1998/99/ OECD- OECD economic surveys: Germany 1997/1998/ OECD- OECD economic surveys: Japan 1997/98/OECD- OECD economic surveys: Korea 1997/98/OECD- OECD economic surveys: Mexico 1997/98/ OECD- OECD economic surveys: New Zealand 1997/98/ OECD- OECD economic surveys: New Zealand 1997/98/ OECD- OECD economic surveys: Norway 1997/1998/ OECD- OECD economic surveys: Portugal 1997/1997/ OECD- OECD economic surveys: Spain 1998/OECD- OECD economic surveys: United Kingdom 1997/1998/OECD- OECD economic surveys: United States 1997/ OECD- Open-book management: the coming business revolution/Case, J.- Out of the rut: making labor a genuine alternative/Carman, M. & Rogers, I.- Performance drivers: a practical guide to using the balanced scorecard/Goran, N.- Practical unix and internet security/Garfinlel, S. & Spafford, G.- Reforming the public sector problems and solutions/Clark & Corbett—2 x copies- Restructuring the employment relationship/Gallie, D.- Reworking success/Theobald, R.- Small business and the law/Aust. Dept of Industry & Commerce- Smart choices: a practical guide to making better decisions/Hammond, J. S. - Superior teams: what they are and how to develop them/Kinlaw, D. C.- Teams and technology/Mankin, D. A.- Teams and technology: fulfilling the promise of the new organisation/Cohen, S.- The British national minimum wage/Metcalf, D.- The causes and consequences of long-term unemployment in Europe/Machin, S.- The character of individualised employment arrangements in Australia/Deery, S. & Walsh, J.- The corrosion of character: the personal consequences at work in the new capitalism/Sennett, R.- The dynamic of welfare: welfare state & the life cycle/Falkingham, J.- The effects of part-time work on school students/Robinson, L.- The end of bureaucracy and the rise of the intelligent organization/Pinchot, G. & E.- The future of governing: four emerging models/Peters, G. B.- The knowledge evolution: expanding organizational intelligence/Allee, V.- The life balance program/Farwagi, L. P.- The OECD observer/OECD- The Workplace Relations Act handbook: a guide to the Workplace Relations Act 1996/Colvin, J. & Watson, G.- Transitions/Bridges, W.- Unemployment policy: government options for the labour market/Snower, D. J.- Unions in a contrary world—the future of the Australian trade union movement/Peetz, D.- Web commerce: building a digital business/Maddox, K.- Will to lead/Bower, M.- Work and motivation/Vroom, V. H.- Work and rewards in the virtual workplace/Crandall, N. F.- Working for the future: technology and employment in the global knowledge economy/Sheehan, P. J.- Working with emotional intelligence/Goleman, D.- Work-place: the social regulation of labor markets/Peck, J.The monographs (by title and author) purchased by the legal library in 1998-99 are:- Australian Civil Procedure/Cairns, B. C.- Butterworths Employment and Law Dictionary/McCallum, R. C. - Cheshire and Fifoots Law of Contracts/Seddon, N. C, Ellinghaus, M. P.- Ford's Principles of Corporations Law/Ford, H.A.J, Austin, R.P, Ramsay, I.M.- General Principles of Administrative Law/Sykes, E.I, Lanham, D.J, Tracey, R.R.S, Esser, K.W.- Constitutional Law in Australia/Hanks, P.- High Court and the Constitution/Zines, L.- Litigation: Evidence and Procedure/Aronson, M., Hunter, J.- Miller's Annotated Trade Practices Act 20th Ed./Miller, Russell V.- Outline of Employment Law/Nii Lante Wallace—Bruce- Pearce Statutory Interpretation in Australia/Pearce, D.C., Geddes, R.S.- The Law of Torts/Fleming, John G.- Workplace Relations A Guide to the 1996 Changes/Riley, J. McCarry, G. Smith, M.8216(Question No. 757)7578216Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio7T4ProspectALP00 asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, upon notice, on 21 June 1999:Does the Minister's Department operate a library or libraries; if so, (a) what sum was spent on purchasing new books for departmental libraries in (i) 1996-97, (ii) 1997-98 and (iii) 1998-99 and (b) will the Minister provide a list of the title and author of each book purchased by departmental libraries in 1998-99.8216Vaile, Mark, MPMr VaileSU5LyneNPTrade10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:In late 1998 the DPIE Library was renamed AFFA Library, to reflect the change in the department.(a) (i) In 1996-97 DPIE Library spent $26,424.66 on new books.(ii) In 1997-98 DPIE Library spent $15,990.07(iii) In 1998-99 AFFA Library spent $27,471.11(b) The list of title and author of each book purchased by the AFFA Library in 1998- 99 follows:TitleAuthorPostharvest Diseases of Horticultural Produce Vol 1—Temperate FruitBeattie, B.B.Mathematical Bioeconomics: The Optimal Management of Renewable ResourcesClark, C.W.Thysanoptera: An Identification Guide (2nd Edition)Palmer, J.M.The Human EquationPfeffer, J.Fruit Flies of Economic Significance: Their identification & BionomicsWhite, IanSome Tree Fruits of Tropical AustraliaAlexander, D.M.CSIRO Handbook of Australian Insect NamesNaumann, I.D.Ken Hom's Asian IngredientsKen HomThe Plant BookMabberley, D.J.Book of IngredientsGrigson, J.Times Atlas of the WorldTimes BooksName that FlowerClarke, I.What Herb is ThatHemphill, J.Australasian IngredientsWerle, L.Garden Plant Series—VegetablesPhillips, R.Garden Plant Series—HerbsPhillips, R.Garden Plant Series—Perennials Vols. 1 & 2Phillips, R.Penguin Australian Road AtlasPenguin PublishingOxford Concise Dictionaryed. Thompson, D. Macquarie Thesaurus (2 copies)ed. Bernard, J.R.L.Australian Horticultural Statistics Handbook 1997/98Aust. Horticultural Corp.Projects Queensland 1998-99QLD Dept of Tourism, Small Business & IndustryForest Pest Insects in SabahChey, Vun KhenBanking on CoalCampbell, D.Australian Agricultureed. Douglas, F.Australian Fooded. Prattley, C.Horticulture Australiaed. Coombs, B.Tropical FruitsNakasone, H.World Catalogue of the Spider Mite Family (Acari: Tetranychydae)Bolland, H.R.Soft Scale insects Vol 7A—Their Biology, Natural Enemies & ControlYair, Ben-DovNomenclator Zoologicus Vols 4—9ed. Edwards, M.A.Trends in the World Wine Market, 1961 to 1996Berger, N.Trends and Cycles in the Australian Wine Industry, 1850—2000Osmond, R.Tax Reform and the Australian Wine IndustryWittwer, G.Don't do, Delegate: Secret Power of Successful ManagementJenks, J.Furunculosis: Multidisciplinary Fish Disease Researched. Bernoth, E.M.Understanding Farmers' Communications networks: combining PRA with agricultural knowledge systems analysisRamirez, R.Climate Protection Policies: Can we afford to delayAustin, D.The Costs of Climate protection: A guide for the perplexedRepetto, R.Carbon Counts: Estimating Climate Change Mitigation in Forestry ProjectsBrown, P.World Vitivinicultural Statistics in 1996Office International de la vigne et du vin Uncertainty: a guide to dealing with uncertainty in quantitive risk and policy analysisMorgan, M.G.International Energy Markets, Competition and Policy (conference proceedings)International Assoc. for Energy EconomicsSoft Scale insects Vol 7B—Their Biology, Natural Enemies & ControlYair, Ben-DovHealth Management in Shrimp Ponds (3rd edition)Chanratchakool, P.The Asian Mind Game (10 copies)Chu, Chin-NingMites of Australia—Checklist and Bibliography Vol 5Halliday, R.BTermites in the Canberra RegionWatson, J.A.L.Australian BeetlesLawrence, J.F.Locusts & Grasshoppers of AustraliaBaker, G.L.Climate Change and the Energy Sector Vol 3: The Economies in TransitionHouseham, I. Et alAmerican Metal Market's Guide to Metal TradingSigmon, H.The Steel Markets in 1997 and Prospects for 1998Economic Commission For EuropeClimate Change and the Global Harvest: Potential Impacts of the Greenhouse EffectRosenzweig, CCritical Landcareed. Lockie, S.ICSG Copper Directory 1998International Copper Study Group Tax Reform: not a new tax, a new tax systemDept. of TreasuryPort Phillip Bay Environmental Study—Final ReportHarris, G. et alEnvironmental Incentives: Australian Experience with Economic James, D.Instruments for Environmental ManagementWood—Decay, Pests & ProtectionEaton, R.ADiseases of Trees and ShrubsSinclair, W.A.Macquarie Dictionaryed. Delbridge, A. et alCompendium of Conifer Diseasesed. Everett, M.Worldwide Mineral Exploration: Preparing for the next boomHeffernan, V.Infectious Diseases of the Dog & CatGreene, C.E.SAS/STAT Technical Report: Spatial Predictions using the SAS SystemCary, N.C.Scenario PlanningRingland, G.World Gold Conference Proceedings 1997AIMMResources to Reserves Inputs Seminar ProceedingsAIMMMINDEV 97 International Conference on Mine Project Developmented. Barnes, E.8 Practices of Exceptional Companies: how great organisations make the most of their human assetsFitz-enz, J.Sampling TechniquesCochram,W.G.Aspects of Statistical InferenceWelsh, A.H.Applied Logistic RegressionHosmer, D.W.Analysis of Incomplete multivariate DataSchafer, J.L.International Rules for Seed Testing: Handbook of Tolerances on Measures of Precision for Seed TestingInternational Seed Testing AuthoritySeed-borne Fungi 2nd edition: Training in Seed TestingAustralian Mines HandbookLouthean PublishingOribatid Mites: catalogue of Australian Genera and SpeciesColloff, M.Oribatid Mites: AN INTERACTIVE GLOSSARY TO ORIBATID MITESHunt, G.S.Fungi on Plants & Plant Products in the united States (3 copies)Farr, D.F. et alGlobal Warming: Forest-based Options for AustraliaFreeman, B.Cut-off grades—some further reflectionsTaylor, H.K.General Background theory of cut-off gradesTaylor, H.K.Handbook on Seed Sampling 1986 (2 copies)ed. Bould, A.Potential of high-yield plantation forestry for meeting timber needs: recent performance and future potentialsSedjo, R.A.Bent BacksBrown, J.W.IATA Dangerous Goods RegulationsInternational Air Transport AssociationPesticide manual (11th edition)ed. Tomlin, C.D.S.Fish, Drying & Smokinged. Doe, P.E.Intellectual Property rights in Agricultural Biotechnologyed. Erbisch, F.H.Agricultural Values of Plant Genetic Resourcesed. Everson, R.E.Dictionary of Plant Genetic ResourcesCompiled by International Board for Plant Genetic ResourcesSustainable use of genetic resources under the convention on biological diversity exploring access and benefit sharingLesser, W.Technology and Global ChangeGrubler, A Japanese market for softwood sawnwood & changing Pacific rim wood supply conditionsRobertson, G.C.Forest Sector, trade and environmental impact modelsAdams, D.Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioned. Schulze, E.D.Plant Functional Types: their relevance to ecosystem properties and global changeed. Smith, T.M.Long Term Trends and prospects in world supply and demand for wood and implications for sustainable forest managemented. Solberg, D. et alOrganizational Theory: selected readingsPugh, D.S.Integrated Pest Control in Citrus-grovesed. Cavalloro, R.Whiteflies: their bionomics, pest status and managemented. Gerling, D.Colour Atlas of Fruit Pests: their recognition, biology and controlAlford, D.V.Common Insect Pests of Stored Food Products 7th editioned. Mound, LGeneric names of moths of the world Vols 1—6ed. Nye, I.W.B. et alSystematic catalog of the ZygaeninaeHofmann, A.World catalog of shore fliesMathis, W.N.Eriophyoid Mites of ChinaHong, X.Catalogue of the Sarcophagidae of the worldPape, TCatalogue of the Diptera of the Afrotropical Regioned. Crosskey, R.W.Annotated keys to the genera of Nearctic Chalcidoideaed. Gibson, G.A.P.Catalogue of the Linyphiid Spiders of Northern AsiaEskov, K.Insect viruses and Pest ManagementHunter, F. et alIndex-catalogue of the genus-group of Oriental and Australasian TachinidaeCrosskey, R.W.Statistics on Energy in the Steel Industry 1996 UpdateIISIChina's Economic Performance in an International PerspectiveRuoen, R.Is China a Large Country: China's Influence on World MarketsPomfret, R.W.TChina in the 21 Century: long-term global implicationsMichalski, W. et alPrice Controls and the Economics of Institutions in ChinaLaffont, J.J.Globalisation and Linkages to 2020OECDTowards a New Global Age: challenges & opportunities: policy reportOECDMonitoring the World Economy 1820-1992Maddison, A.China: Power Sector Regulation in a Socialist market Economyed. Shiwei, S. et alPolicy Options for Reform of Chinese State-Owned Enterprisesed. Broadman, H.G.Asia Pacific Profiles 1998Asia Pacific Economics GroupLaunching New Global Trade Talks: An Action Agendaed. Schott, J.J.UNIX in a Nutshell: System V Edition (2 copies)Gilly, d.Technology's critical role in Energy & Environmental MarketsIAEECitrus Information KitVock, N.T.Wine Grape Information KitBanks, A.Mycosphaerella spp. and their AnamorphsCrous, P.W.Medicinal Mushrooms: an Explanation of Traditional Healing & culturesHobbs, C.Shiitake: The Healing MushroomJones, K.Cordyceps: Tonic Food of Ancient ChinaJones, K.The Chanterelle BookPersson, O. Shiitake Growers Handbook: The Art and Science of Mushroom CultivationPrzybylowicz, P.Sustainability and Social Researched. Vanclay, F.Authors of Plant Namesed. Burmmitt R.K. et alMultilingual Compendium of Plant Diseases Vol 11Miller, P.R.Compendium of Barley Diseasesed. Mathre, D.E.Soilborne Plant Pathogensed. Englehard, A.W.Tropical Plant DiseasesThurston, H.D.Plant Virus Disease Controled. Hadidi, A.Numerical Methods in EconomicsJudd, K.L.National Parks & Protected Areas: Selection, Delimitation and Managemented. Pigram, J.J.Virus Infections of Porcinesed. Pensaert, M.B.Virus Infections of Ruminantsed. Dinter, ZInsect Pests of Australian ForestsElliott, H.J.Containment Facilities and Safeguards for Exotic Plant Pathogens and Pestsed. Kahn, R.P.Producing Quality Kiln-Dried Timber in New ZealandMinistry of Forestry N.Z.Yam Bean: PachyrhizusSorensen, M.The Ocean, Our Future—Report of the Independent World Commission on the Oceaned. Soares, M.Penguin Australian Road Atlas 1998 editionPenguin BooksInsects: The Ute GuideHopkins, D.C.Weeds: The Ute Guide (2 copies)Cummins, J.A.Australian Grains Industry 1998: report on Australian Agricultural & Grazing IndustriesMartin, P.Storage, Handling and Drying GrainAndrews, A.Weed Management KitPrimary Industries, SAZoological Catalogue of Australia Vol 23: Archaeognatha, Thysanura, Blattodea, Isoptera, Mantodea,Dermaptera, Phasmatodea, Embioptera, Zorapteraed Walton, DWZoological Catalogue of Australia Vol 29.6: Coleoptera: Elateraideaed. Walton, D.W.Distribution Maps of Quarantine Pests for Europe (2 copies)CABI/EEPOIllustrations of Quarantine pests for EuropeCABI/EEPOCitrus Pests & Diseases: Quality management Guide for Field OperationsBarkley, P.The Citrus Industry Vols 5: Crop Protection: Biology of Citrus Insects, Mites, & Mollusks.ed. Reuther, WMollusca: The Southern Synthesised. Beesley, P.L.Mites of Australia (Monographs on Invertebrate Taxonomy Vol 5)Halliday, R.B.Australian Ants (Monographs on Invertebrate Taxonomy Vol 3)Shattuck, S.O.Biology of Australian ButterfliesKitching, R.L.Fauna of New Zealand series:TerebrantiaMound, L.A.Fauna of New Zealand series:EriophyinaeManson, DCMFauna of New Zealand series:CryptostigmataLuxton, M.Fauna of New Zealand series:CalliphoridaeDear, J.P.Fauna of New Zealand series:TubuliferaMound, L.A.Fauna of New Zealand series:PseudococcidaeCox, J.M.Fauna of New Zealand series:Lepidoptera Dugdale, J.S. Fauna of New Zealand series:Larvae of CurculionoideaMay, B.M.Fauna of New Zealand series:Catalogue of Palaearctic CoccoideaKozar, F.Codes for the representation of names of countries ISO 3166 parts 1, 2 & 3ISOThe Effects of Fishing on Marine Ecosystems and CommunitiesHall, S.J.Alternative Management Systems for Fisheriesed. Symes, D.Driving Forces on the New Silk RoadAdams, M.Creating a Clearway on the New Silk RoadHyndes, M.Computer Software for AgricultureHiggins, V1998 APEC Economic Outlook: economic trends & prospects in the Asia Pacific Economic Co-operationAPEC SecretariatThe Impact of Investment Liberalization: policy reviews and case studiesAPEC SecretariatFauna Sinica Insecta series Vols. 3, 5—14Wu, Ch'un-ShengElectric Utilities Data Book for the Asian and pacific RegionAsian Development BankInternational Trade in Endangered Species: A Guide to CITESFavre, D.Distribution, Periodicity, and culture of Benthic/Epiphytic Dinoflagellates in a Ciguatera Endemic Region of the CaribbeanCarlson, R.D.Medicine and Surgery of South American Camelids: Llama, Alpaca, Vicuna, GuanacoFowler, M.E.Proceedings of the 1998 National Controlled Traffic ConferenceTullberg, J.N.Citrus Health Managemented. Timmer, L.W.Viruses in Plant Hosts: John Walker lecturesEsau, K.Cereal Pests and DiseasesGair, R.Diseases of Tropical and subtropical field, fiber and oil plantsUniversity of CaliforniaDiseases of Cut Flowers: ProteasVon Broembsen, S.L.Orchard pest & Disease Handbook 1998—2000 (2 copies)Agriculture VictoriaSong for the Blue OceanSafina, C.Australian Vegetable Growing Handbooked. Salvestrin, J.The 21st Century World AtlasTrident Press InternationalEnergy for Growth: the impact of gas and oil production in WAEconomics Consult ServiceDiseases of Marine Animals Vol 2—4 inclusiveed. Kinne, OMeasuring Progress—Is Life Getting bettered. Eckersley, R.Sustainable Regional Development (SRD) Project Final Report & Executive SummaryDore, J.G.Inside Mining: the economics of the supply & demand of minerals & metalsCrowson, P.Introduction to Virus Vector Nematodes & Their Associated Virusesed. De A. Santos, M.S.N.Diseases of Cultivated Crops of the Pacific Countries (3 copies)Kohler, F. et alTropical Root and Tuber CropsMandal, R.C.Use of drugs in food animals: benefits & risksCommittee on Drug Use in Food Animals (USDA)Bioclimatology of Frost: its occurrence, impact & protectionKalma, J.D. et alVirus & Virus-like Diseases and non-infectious disorders of small fruits in New ZealandWood, G.A. Forest Resource Policy in Latin Americaed. Keipi, K.Economic Definition of OreLane, K.F.Jobs of our own: Building a stakeholder societyMatthews, R.Annual Report of Diagnostic Centre for Plant Protection Service (Holland)Ministry of AgricultureThe Food Crisis ReportBurch, G.Encyclopedia of Reptiles & Amphibiansed. Cogger, H.G.American Insects: A handbook of the Insects of America north of MexicoArnett, R.H.Common Reptile Diseases and TreatmentMessonnier, S.P.Open Markets MatterOECDTruman's Scientific Guide to Pest Control OperationsBennett, GDevelopment, Histology and Health Management of Seed OystersElston, R.8222(Question No. 760)7608222Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio7T4ProspectALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 21 June 1999:(1) What sum was allocated to each federal electoral division in New South Wales under the Black Spots Program in (a) total since 1996 and (b) the most recent funding allocation round.(2) Further to his statement in an answer to a question without notice (Hansard , 11 May 1999, page 4118) about the allocation of more than $700,000 in funding under the Black Spots Program to 5 problem areas in the electoral division of Bennelong, will he (a) provide details of each problem area and (b) the sum allocated in each case.8222Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The value of projects approved under the Black Spot Program for each federal electoral division in New South Wales is as follows:Federal ElectorateValue of Projects Approved 1996/1997 to 1999/2000Value of Projects Approved 1999/2000Banks210,000120,000Barton980,000180,000Bennelong772,000712,000Berowra255,0000Blaxland15,0000Bradfield550,000550,000Calare4,624,200500,000Charlton853,000325,000Chifley560,000130,000Cook985,000320,000Cowper1,900,000610,000Cunningham1,857,000350,000Dobell1,910,000660,000Eden-Monaro1,232,000350,000Farrer1,972,000250,000Fowler177,50012,500Gilmore720,00050,000Grayndler535,00040,000Greenway285,00060,000 Gwydir673,000100,000Hughes00Hume2,080,000475,000Hunter651,0000Kingsford-Smith455,000190,000Lindsay1,968,000398,000Lowe235,0000Lyne2,275,800960,000Macarthur1,562,50027,500Mackellar310,0000Macquarie422,0000Mitchell580,000550,000New England1,709,000650,000Newcastle1,604,000270,000North Sydney340,0000Page1,000,0000Parkes1,910,600400,000Parramatta557,2500Paterson1,676,000535,000Prospect1,282,000612,000Reid520,250145,000Richmond1,690,000220,000Riverina585,0000Robertson1,375,000550,000Shortland1,390,000130,000Sydney265,00050,000Throsby1,755,000220,000Warringah 289,000100,000Watson760,0000Wentworth330,00020,000Werriwa525,00090,000(2) (a) and (b) The projects approved in the electoral division of Bennelong for the 1999/2000 financial year are as follows:. right turn bays at the intersection of Blaxland Road and May Street, Eastwood at an estimated cost of $300,000. double right turn bays at the intersection of Marsden and Victoria Roads, West Ryde at an estimated cost of $190,000. non-skid surfacing of Lane Cove Road between Quarry Road and Hancott Street, Ryde at an estimated cost of $52,000. traffic signals at the intersection of Blaxland Road and Florence Avenue, Denistone at an estimated cost of $80,000 . construction of a roundabout at the intersection of Oxford, Essex and Chester Streets, Epping at an estimated cost of $90,000.8223(Question No. 769)7698223Livermore, Kirsten, MPMs Livermore83ACapricorniaALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 22 June 1999:(1) How many parents caring for children with severe disabilities in Australia received the carer's payment.(2) Is it a fact that (a) many parent carers are required to leave the workforce and raise families in impoverished circumstances and (b) the eligibility criteria for the carer's payment are extremely rigid; if so will the Commonwealth relax the eligibility criteria.8224Truss, Warren, MPMr TrussGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—The Minister for Family and Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable Member's questions:(1) 812 carers have received carer payment in respect of a child or children under the age of 16 years since 1 July 1998.(2) (a) and (b) No. This measure was introduced to assist parents who have children with extraordinary care needs. The eligibility criteria are designed to target a small number of families in extraordinary circumstances. There are no plans to relax the criteria, however the Department of Family and Community Services is currently evaluating this measure. A report of that evaluation is expected in September 1999.8224(Question No. 772)7728224Livermore, Kirsten, MPMs Livermore83ACapricorniaALP00 asked the Minister for Aged Care, upon notice, on 22 June 1999:Is it a fact that many aged care facilities in the Rockhampton region still only deal with clients requiring minimal support; if so, how will the Commonwealth enforce its residential care Ageing in Place policy.8224Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs Bronwyn BishopSE4MackellarLPAged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:An object of the Aged Care Act 1997 [para. 2-1 (1) (j)] is to "promote ageing in place through the linking of care and support services to the places where older people prefer to live."It is not a fact that many aged care facilities in the Rockhampton area still only deal with clients requiring minimal support.In June 1999 there were 812 residents in 16 residential aged care facilities in the Rockhampton Area. This data is based in the following residential aged care facilities that are located in the Rockhampton area (postcode areas 4700, 4701,4702 and 4703): Bethany Home for the Aged, Bethesda Hostel, Capricorn Adventist Retirement Village Hostel, Eventide Rockhampton, Gertrude E. Moore Memorial Nursing Home, Gracemere Gardens Hostel, Gracemere Gardens Nursing Home, Leinster Place, Mcauley Place Hostel, Munro Home Aged Persons Complex, North Rockhampton Nursing Home, Sunset Lodge Hostel, Yumba Binda Aged Persons HostelOf these residents 512 were in the higher care categories (Residential Classification Scale 1-4), and 300 were in the lower care categories (Residential Classification Scale 5-8). In only three of the facilities were there more than 75 % of residents in the lower categories of care.8224(Question No. 780)7808224Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister for Forestry and Conservation upon notice, on 24 June 1999:(1) Further to the answer to question No. 330 (Hansard , 8 February 1999, page 2131) concerning the Forest Industry Structural Adjustment Program (FISAP), what sum did the Commonwealth provide under FISAP in (a) 1995-96, (b) 1996-97, (c) 1997-98 and (d) 1998-99 for (i) Business Exit Assistance, (ii) Worker Assistance, (iii) Industry Development Assistance and (iv) Rescheduling Assistance.(2) What proportion of total FISAP funding for Industry Development Assistance has been provided as (a) grants and (b) interest rate subsidies.(3) Under which elements of FISAP is funding provided for (a) industry positioning and (b) sustainable forest management.(4) How many States have signed a FISAP Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Commonwealth and on which date was each MOU signed.(5) What estimated sum will the Commonwealth provide under FISAP in 1999-2000 to (a) New South Wales, (b) Victoria, (c) Queensland, (d) Western Australia and (e) Tasmania.(6) What estimated sum will be provided under FISAP in 1999-2000 by the governments of (a) New South Wales, (b) Victoria, (c) Queensland, (d) Western Australia and (e) Tasmania.8224Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TuckeySJ4O'ConnorLPForestry and Conservation; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (a) (i) $4,393,026(ii) $51,918(iii) $0(iv) $0(b) (i) $4,749,926(ii) $652,882(iii) $30,930(iv) $207,993(c) (i) $5,722,544(ii) $448,285(iii) $232,459(iv) $109,594(d) (i) $780,293(ii) $51,918 (iii) $60,289(iv) $0(2) (a) 80.1%(b) 11.3%(3) (a) Industry Development Assistance(b) Industry Development Assistance(4) Four States have signed MOUs. The dates of signing are as follows: New South Wales: 8 December 1995; Victoria: 16 August 1998; Queensland: 1 June 1998; Western Australia: 4 May 1999.(5) (a) $8,000,000(b) $5,000,000(c) $5,000,000(d) $5,000,000(e) $0(6) (a)—(d)Under FISAP matching arrangements, State expenditure for 1999/2000 is expected to be similar to that budgeted by the Commonwealth for 1999/2000 and specified in the preceding answer. However, while each State will match the Commonwealth's expenditure under FISAP over the course of the program, State expenditure may not be equal to the Commonwealth's expenditure in every year due to the Commonwealth and States funding different program elements.(e) $0.