1999-08-103914REPS823701999-08-10Mr SPEAKER(Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 2.00 p.m., and read prayers.Questions Without Notice823782378237Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, why did you insist on the deletion from the referendum question of the word `Australian' from the expression `Australian President'? Is it not a fact that the Queen of Australia is not an Australian and that the Governor-General of Australia need not be Australian? Is it not also a fact that, under the terms of the referendum on the republic, the President of Australia must be an Australian? Why are you refusing to allow this absolutely central distinction to be properly reflected in the question to be put to the Australian people?8237Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The question that won the overwhelming support, by a vote of something like 140 to eight last night, of both sides of the parliament—and I think you even voted for it in the end—is the question which will go to the Australian people in November. It is a balanced question. It is a fair question. The proposition that you should use the adjective `Australian' in relation to the President without acknowledging the reality that it is inconceivable that any Governor-General of this country would now be other than an Australian is inconceivable.Every Governor-General of Australia since Casey was appointed in 1965 has been an Australian. It is inconceivable that the Governor-General of this country would be other than an Australian. And by a law enacted by the Whitlam Labor government, the Queen was designated as Queen of Australia. In those circumstances, in the view of the government it was inappropriate, as I described it yesterday, to be selectively patriotic or nationalistic to use the word `Australian' in relation to the President but to omit the reality that the Governor-General will always be an Australian. That is the reason why the adjective was taken out.The government stands by the question. It has no intention of altering its position. And this parliament passed that by a vote of 140 to eight—an unprecedented measure of support, I might say, in the 3½ years that the government has been in power—and we have no intention of altering the question. That is the question which I want to see go to the Australian people on 6 November.82378237Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr RONALDSONXT4BallaratLP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. How is the government hard at work creating more jobs for all Australians, particularly our young people? How is the government combating opponents of its policies who put special interests ahead of jobs?8237Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—We on the government side of the House are interested in more than one job. We are interested in generating—as we have over the last 3½ years—tens of thousands of jobs for the Australian community. I am very proud of the fact, as is every man and woman on the government side of this chamber, that in the time that the government has been in office we have generated more than 400,000 jobs in the Australian community. We have done this in the face of fierce opposition from the Australian Labor Party in relation to virtually every measure we have taken in order to reduce unemployment in Australia.The Labor Party set about stopping us getting the economy right. The Labor Party tried to stop us reducing the deficit and creating a surplus. That has been one of the foundation stones of lower interest rates. The Labor Party opposed the family tax initiative. The Labor Party opposed taxation reform. The Labor Party opposed labour market reform. The Labor Party has sniped away at competition policy. The Labor Party has tried, in short, to sabotage every attempt that this government has made in order to reduce unemployment. Yet despite all that opposition we have succeeded in getting the lowest unemployment rate in Australia for 10 years. We also have the lowest level of youth unemployment, I believe, for the last 20 years in terms of those seeking full-time work.The Labor Party has opposed our further attempts to protect the jobs of the young. The Labor Party refuses to support our measures in order to protect the jobs of young Australians. The Labor Party has opposed our attempts to reform further the unfair dismissal laws. The Labor Party, in summary, is an anti jobs party; the Labor Party is a pro high unemployment party. It not only demonstrated that in government but demonstrated it in opposition. I want to say to those who sit opposite and to the Australian people that, unless and until the Labor Party reverses its hostile attitude to the policies of the government designed to generate jobs in the Australian community, it will continue to be seen as irrelevant to the employment debate in Australia.It is no accident that this country has lower unemployment now than for a period of 10 years. It is no accident that we are seen by the rest of the world as the economic strongman of Asia. It is no accident that our economy is the strongest it has been for more than three decades. All of that has been achieved in the face of a policy of obstruction and a policy of trying to defeat, delay and frustrate all the policies of the government which are designed to help the wellbeing of the Australian people. Despite the worst attempts of the Labor Party, we have succeeded. We have the economy on an even keel. The economy is growing strongly, jobs are being generated and there is a measure of economic optimism in Australia that nobody has seen for more than 30 years.82388238Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—My question is to the Minister for Finance and Administration. During your promotion of the second Telstra sale, why did you conceal the fact that you had instigated a secret probity inquiry into Credit Suisse First Boston, one of the coordinators of the sale? Haven't you undermined the integrity of the Telstra sale process, jeopardised Australia's reputation for financial transparency and misled the Australian people?8238Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—I note that the honourable member for Melbourne last evening put out a press release relating to an issue concerning Credit Suisse First Boston and the trading of one of their arms in Japan. That particular issue has been reported in Japan and locally over the past several months. There is nothing new about that investigation; it has been the subject of some reporting in the media for some considerable time. Credit Suisse First Boston informed the government of investigations by the Japanese Financial Supervisory Agency into certain members of their firm in Tokyo at the time that the FSA commenced inspections, and they have continued to be cooperative and diligent in keeping the government informed throughout. As I said, it has been reported frequently in Japanese and international media during that investigation.In anticipation of the release of the findings, several weeks ago the government, as is appropriate, appointed former Chief Judge of the Commercial Division of the New South Wales Supreme Court Andrew Rogers QC as a probity adviser to review the findings of the FSA and other relevant material for any implications for the Telstra 2 share offer. I note that the member for Melbourne in the course of making some comments last evening continued to make some disparaging remarks about Andrew Rogers. You know there isn't an issue when they attack the messenger.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Yes, that's right.Opposition members interjecting—ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—I suppose you didn't do it.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—You're attacking women again, are you?Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition is not being aided by the Prime Minister or by members on his front bench.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Can I go to the question of relevance, Mr Speaker: the minister was asked precisely why he had instigated a secret probity inquiry. He was not asked about the character of anyone conducting it. It would be interesting to know from him when he insti gated that inquiry and when he got to know about Credit Suisse First Boston's problem.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. On the question of relevance, the minister is being entirely relevant and I invite him to continue his answer.HQ5Mr FAHEY—I will continue in respect of the person that the honourable member for Melbourne asked me about, who was investigating as a probity adviser to the government. Whilst attacking this person, the honourable member for Melbourne failed to disclose that the New South Wales government only last year reappointed Andrew Rogers QC to the New South Wales Treasury Corporation. The New South Wales Labor government considers that person to be a fit and proper person, and he is entirely appropriate in this particular issue.The government expects a report from Mr Rogers in the near future, and it will not determine its views until it has that report. The government and I are committed to conducting the Telstra 2 share offer to the highest standard of probity and integrity, and we will not act without careful and mature consideration of the facts. I am not going to go to the knee-jerk reactions of the honourable member for Melbourne coming to simplistic conclusions on this particular issue about an incident in Japan. No advisers have been appointed for the Asia tranche at this time, and this particular issue, as I said, seems to be based by the honourable member for Melbourne on one week-old report in a Japanese newspaper.YU5TANNERMr Tanner—I ask that the minister table the document he is reading from.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Was the minister reading—HQ5Mr FAHEY—It is confidential.8239Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I would like to add to the minister's answer. In the course of the honourable member for Melbourne's remarks about this—although he did not include it in the question—he has drawn critical comment on the fact that Andrew Rogers is married to a Liberal senator. That is quite despicable. I thought we were in the business of people having independence.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. The Prime Minister in his remarks pointed out explicitly the fact that the honourable member for Melbourne did not mention the situation of the inquirer in the question he raised. So how can he be relevant? What we want to know and have not got an answer to is why he did all this in secrecy.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Prime Minister was seeking to add to an answer. I require him to be relevant to the question that was asked, and I invite him to add to the answer if he wishes.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Critical comment has been made by the member for Melbourne about the fact that Andrew Rogers is the husband of Senator Helen Coonan, a Liberal senator for New South Wales. That is an irrelevance to his professional capacity, and you should apologise to the senator for having done it.YU5TANNERMr Tanner—I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My point of order is that the Prime Minister is not relevant to the question. It was about secrecy, about transparency and the government refusing to disclose—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Melbourne will resume his seat. I rule on the point of order that the Prime Minister is being entirely relevant.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I remind the parliament that for all the time that Mr Justice McHugh has sat with honour and distinction on the High Court of Australia no reference was ever made when he was appointed to the fact that he was married to a Labor member of the ministry. I think the member for Melbourne owes Senator Coonan and Mr Rogers an abject apology.82398239Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, Australia's unemployment rate is at its lowest level since August 1990. What measures would be required to ensure that unemployment continues its downward trend, and what effect would any alternative policies which have been proposed have on unemployment?8240Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for Makin for her question. Unemployment is one of the most critical issues facing the nation. I should pay tribute to the member because she has a well-deserved reputation in her electorate for the fact that she is a fighter for people who are unemployed, whether they are young people, mature aged or otherwise.There is no doubt that we have been pleased to see the success that we have seen in the last three years, with something like 470,000 jobs created since March 1996, compared to the 400,000 jobs that Labor destroyed when they were in office. How have we done this? We have done it by consistently advocating and implementing policies that genuinely make a difference, whether it is getting the budget back in order, further workplace relations reforms, getting interest rates down or helping small business. These are the practical things that have to be done if we are to create more jobs.There is no doubt that, whilst 470,000 jobs is a good number in the time that we have been in government, this government is absolutely committed to its absolute priority to do more, to do better, to see more jobs created in the Australian community. There is no question also that in pursuit of that the government has a set of clear policies and reforms which we are working on seeking the endorsement of the parliament for. So obviously I was pretty interested when I heard that the Leader of the Opposition was finally going to make a statement about what Labor's policy might be on employment. We were delighted that he cancelled his overseas trip so that he could get around the country and formulate some real policies after the three years of vacuum that we have had so far from him.But I have to say that my hopes were a bit dashed by his entry into the debate. He said in his speech, `Work incentives are approved'—this is what he wanted to ensure—`without cutting social security'. That is a bit of an interesting statement, because the day before he had actually put out a discussion paper that proposed cutting the dole for people who are unemployed, which was a consequence of his own policy, which for some reason he had barely seemed to understand. In fact, he was cutting social security benefits. When this policy was analysed during his own seminar, the shadow minister for employment by the Sunday was basically dumping it. That is an interesting development in itself.What was more surprising was that the Labor Party held a seminar on unemployment, and the reason the Leader of the Opposition did not know that his policy proposal had been dumped by the rest of his frontbench was that he would not bother to turn up to his own seminar on unemployment. I do not know what he was doing, but he should have at least been taking an interest in the development of policy on his own side. More incredibly, after the whole idea had been dumped by the member for Batman, three days after this embarrassing episode, three days after it had been dumped by the shadow minister, the Leader of the Opposition was telling Carolyn Tucker of 4QR, `One of the ideas we are looking at is that part of your dole payment might be used as a job subsidy.' This is a proposition which has been advanced by the Labor Party leader and dumped by his own side, and he is still advocating that proposal.UU5HORNEMr Horne—I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It goes to relevance. The minister was asked a question about the government's policy and whether he can guarantee the downward spiral of unemployment. Obviously he cannot, and he has not been relevant to the question at all.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I noted the question as it was asked. The minister was asked about the government's policy and he was also asked about any alternatives. In that context he has been quite relevant.WI4Mr REITH—The simple point is that here we have the opposition claiming to develop policy and the Leader of the Opposition does not even turn up to his own seminar. He has now had the policy dumped by his spokesman and three days later he is back advocating it. I think the Australian public are entitled to know what exactly is the Labor Party's policy. The only concrete proposal that we actually had from the Leader of the Opposition was—wait for it—that he is going to have another discussion paper, another policy release in September. This is simply not good enough. The Leader of the Opposition is blaming the unemployed. The shadow minister is blaming employers. In both respects here we have Labor's hereditary peers with no idea of the circumstances facing unemployed people and no idea of what to actually do to create employment, using their numbers. And we have got another hereditary peer—No. 11 now; 11 hereditary peers—in the Senate. And what has been their approach so far to creating jobs? The one thing you have done is block every sensible proposal to actually create jobs. It is time you developed a policy.82418241Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Is the minister aware of comments by the Victorian Liberal Minister for Education, Phil Gude, who told last night's Four Corners program about literacy:What [Dr Kemp] was clearly trying to do was to gain a profile on an issue, and I thought it was not cricket . . . to use the kids . . . in that way . . . I have found in my life that honesty has never got me into any trouble.Does the minister also recall his press release of 23 April promising to publish `State and Territory Reading Data for Year 3' by 30 June this year? Minister, isn't the real reason that you have failed to meet your own 30 June deadline that the state education ministers have bypassed you and developed their own comparable tests rather than allow you to dishonestly manipulate their data?8241Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—Australia today is engaged in a quite remarkable national effort to finally address the literacy problem that was left by the Labor Party after 13 years. When this government came to office, 30 per cent of young Australians could not read, write and spell at a satisfactory level. The Labor Party had nothing to say about that in office and it has nothing to say about it now. It is very interesting that, in the program that the shadow minister refers to, a program that went for some 45 minutes to an hour, there was not a single comment on that program on literacy from the Labor Party. The reason that there was not a comment is that there is nothing that the Labor Party has to say about literacy. It has no literacy policy whatever.MG4LEEMr Lee—I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. The minister was asked a specific question. Why has he not met his own deadline of publishing the data by 30 June and why have the states bypassed him? That is the question.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The point of order was a matter of relevance?MG4LEEMr Lee—Yes.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I call the minister. The minister will respond to the question.BT4Dr KEMP—The Commonwealth is engaged with the states at the moment in the implementation of the National Literacy Plan. All the states and territories have agreed to the national literacy benchmark. All the states and territories have agreed that they will assess, at the earliest possible moment, every child coming into school to see what their literacy needs are and, as a result of the Commonwealth leadership of the National Literacy Plan, this is now happening in every state and territory of Australia. Every state and territory of Australia has now committed itself to a process whereby every child in years 3 and 5 will be assessed to see what their literacy standard is against the national literacy benchmark. There was nothing at all like this attempted throughout the entire period of the Labor government.All the states and territories are now engaged in a process of assessing the preliminary results of the literacy tests given last year. The reading results were identified by an independent committee as being comparable between the states and territories, and that process is now proceeding. Every state and territory has committed itself to a process whereby every child is being assessed, including the Labor government in Queensland and the Labor government in New South Wales. All this is within the National Literacy Plan that the Commonwealth has established.This government is determined that every child in Australia will have the opportunity to read, write and spell at an adequate level. We could not put up with the situation that we found when the Labor Party left office. If the member for Dobell were less interested in irrelevant rhetoric and more aware of what is actually happening on the ground and more aware of the concerns of parents, he would not ask such foolish and frivolous questions.82428242Somlyay, Alex, MPMr SOMLYAYZT4FairfaxLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer advise the House of the success of the recent reduction in wholesale sales tax? What steps is the government taking to ensure that price reductions are passed on to consumers?8242Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Fairfax for his question. The good news is that on 8 July this year the new tax system was proclaimed as legislation and 21 days later, on 29 July, Labor's wholesale sales taxes started to fall. The government is able to bring down Labor's wholesale sales tax rate of 32 per cent to 22 per cent and, as a consequence, we have already had, as a down payment on the new tax system, price reductions in relation to items like television sets, video players, stereos and cameras. Can I say, from this side of the House, how good it is to see Labor's wholesale sales taxes coming down and being abolished. We know that the Labor Party fought so hard for wholesale sales taxes but were unable to keep them.Members of the House know that I am an avid reader of regional and provincial newspapers. When I was reading the Queensland Times at Ipswich recently, I came across a story which quoted the Ipswich RT Edwards Store Manager, Brian McNamara, saying this:I think it's a tremendous thing. It's great for the general public in terms of prices being more reasonable. It will boost businesses.From the Northern Territory News , members of the House will be interested to know this:Oasis Betta Electrical store, at Palmerston, owner Joe Fernandes said yesterday: "We have experienced an extremely busy day. "Our most popular items have been rear projection television—we sold three in the morning—and hi-fi systems."The West Australian , under the heading `Stores celebrate as tax cuts spur buyers', says:Retravision WA chairman Geoff Kemp said the stores' biggest problem now was keeping up stocks.Opposition members interjecting—CT4Mr COSTELLO—This is Mr Geoff Kemp.Honourable members interjecting—CT4Mr COSTELLO—He is no relation. He is very literate, is Mr Geoff Kemp. He said:The floodgates have well and truly opened and we aren't complaining. We've already done 50 per cent more than what we would normally do on a good Thursday.The Sunday Mail in South Australia said:GST sparks sales boom.The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, charged with ensuring that price reductions are passed on to consumers, was active in ensuring that the first price cut from Labor's wholesale sales taxes was passed on. It found that 98 per cent of retail outlets had passed on tax gains to consumers. Five retailers who were found not to have done so are being followed up by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. There is a national inquiry telephone line to the ACCC which all Australians can ring if they believe there is evidence that wholesale sales tax cuts are not being passed on to consumers. I encourage Australians to do that. In the lead-up to the new tax system, those businesses that do not pass on proper tax cuts to consumers in price falls will be liable to penalties with fines up to $10 million.This of course is the tax cut which Labor opposed. Presumably, it is now still their policy to reintroduce 32 per cent wholesale sales taxes.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—That's right; it has to be.CT4Mr COSTELLO—It has to be, because they are committed to wholesale sales tax—`a modern tax', according to ALP parlance; the tax that Labor fought so hard to defend. That is their policy. If they had any honesty, presumably they would announce when they would reintroduce the 32 per cent wholesale sales tax and on what items. We have had this whole false argument from the Australian Labor Party over the last year or so that they were only against taxes; they never actually had the honesty to tell you what they were really for. What they were always for was wholesale sales tax—the modern tax which is practised in Swaziland, Botswana and Ghana, and represents ALP thinking.The ALP, led by such progressive thought leaders as the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Opposition, stands for probably the most outdated, outmoded tax system in the world. It would be hard to think of a less progressive political force in relation to tax reform. Consumers know that to build a future for Australia we have to build a new tax system. They are beginning to see the benefit. This is the kind of reform which this government stands for, and we will continue to deliver it.82438243Gillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD83LLalorALP00—My question is to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Do you recall telling this House on 12 May this year in answer to my question about the Princes Freeway between Melbourne and Geelong that:The government has no plans to make any announcements in relation to matters that are not included in the budget for this year.Are you aware of media reports this morning that the Commonwealth government has agreed to partially fund the upgrade of this road to enable an announcement to be made during the impending Victorian state election? In light of these reports, do you stand by your answer of 12 May, or will the Commonwealth government contribute to funding the upgrade of the Princes Freeway?8243Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The first part of the question went to the heart of the answer that I gave last time. There is nothing misleading or in any way suspicious nor are there any points to be made from that answer. It was an honest one at the time. I am aware of a report floating around that seems to have emanated from an interview on 3AW. I have to say that no announcement has been made, no public announcement has been issued and there is nothing further to add. I do not know where that report came from.82438243Hull, Kay, MPMrs HULL83ORiverinaNP10—My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. What measures is the government taking to ensure that rural and regional communities have access to basic services, and will these initiatives support jobs in the Riverina and generally in rural and regional areas?8243Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for her question. This government is particularly concerned about the challenges facing rural and regional Australia and about job opportunities for people who live outside our major urban areas at a time of enormous change. I believe that the efforts we are putting into improving the range of services available for people in country areas will bring real benefits to country people.Included in those initiatives are the transaction centres, that we promised during the last election with a funding envelope of some $70 million, and the objective of setting up such centres in several hundred small communities across Australia. We believe that the centres will make it easier for people to do business in country areas. It will mean they will have access to the services they need to keep doing business where they are rather than facing pressure to relocate to bigger centres or, worst of all, out of the bush altogether.A few days ago we announced that in fact the first 22 communities to see rural transaction centres would now proceed. Seven communities are funded to go ahead straightaway to open up rural transaction centres. They are Eugowra in New South Wales, which is in the seat of the member for Calare; Urana in New South Wales in the seat of the member for Farrer—the middle bencher; Aramac in Queensland, in Capricornia; Dirranbandi in Queensland, and that is in Maranoa; St Marys in Tasmania in the seat of Lyons; Welshpool in Victoria in the electorate of Gippsland, and Gresford, which is in Paterson. There are a number of others—15 or so—that are preparing business plans, and they will shortly see rural transaction centres as well.I must say the reaction has been absolutely terrific. The Border Mail commented on 23 July:Urana, one of many small rural and Riverina communities battling a loss of basic facilities, now has a much brighter future.The Eugowra Promotion and Progress Association has written to me, saying:The community are delighted with the wonderful news that the federal government is to fund a rural transaction centre in Eugowra. Following the closure of Westpac Bank and National Australia Bank and the loss of other services in Eugowra, residents can now eagerly look forward to financial services again being provided through the rural transaction centre to be operating in our small rural town.The other proposed services to be provided, for example Centrelink and Medicare, will also be most welcome. Our community and the Progress Association are most grateful to the federal government for making the funding available to set up the facilities of much needed rural transaction centres in places like Eugowra.I think it ought to be recognised that quality of life issues such as access to decent health and education, and services of the sort that we are putting back with these initiatives, make a real difference in people's lives and in particular can influence them to remain living in, producing in and benefiting the nation in many far-flung rural, regional and remote communities.I believe that these very worthwhile initiatives make doing business in country areas much easier and much more advantageous. I think that over time our approach will increasingly mean that the benefits of a rural life will be seen for the attractive options that they do present.Distinguished Visitors824410000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon members of a parliamentary delegation from the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, led by the Speaker of that parliament, the Hon. Woizero Almaz Meko Gemechu MP. On behalf of the House, I extend to you all a very warm welcome.UNKNOWNHonourable membersHonourable members—Hear, hear!Questions Without Notice824482448244Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Does the minister still maintain that the government's petrol price deregulation should reduce the gap between city and country? Is the minister aware that, since this measure was put in place, the price gap has increased in almost three-quarters of New South Wales regional centres surveyed by the Australian Automobile Association? Minister, what are you doing to ensure that the country motorists do get a fair go?8244Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for his question. I make the initial remark that I would be very reluctant indeed to take his data for granted. To assume that it was accurate I think in the first instance would be a very real mistake. The first point that has to be made is that world crude oil prices have been increasing rapidly in recent times after a period when they reached, in real terms and in historic terms, extremely low levels—the lowest levels for more than two decades. The price of the international benchmark crude, West Texas Intermediate, has risen from a low of a little over $11 in mid-February to well over $US20 at the beginning of August. That is an increase of more than 75 per cent.It is regrettable because we would all like to see fuel prices continue at those very low and attractive levels—probably in real terms the lowest they have ever been in recent months. No-one would like to see that more than I would, but we have to live in the real world. The fact of the matter is that, rightly, we price our oil at world levels in this country. It would be very unwise of us to pursue any other policy. As usual, Labor have attempted to blame us for that. I have seen one or two other people attempting to blame us for that as well. That is irrelevant; I think it is political opportunism and ought to be exposed for the dishonesty that it is.I cannot help but close on this observation. We are the team in government that are doing something about the extraordinary levels of taxation on transport fuel in this country. They are the people who want to oppose it.82458245Prosser, Geoff, MPMr PROSSERRI4ForrestLP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. People in my electorate of Forrest have welcomed the government's commitment to science and research for Australia's future. Is the minister aware of any response to the government's green paper on research and research training? Is the minister also aware of any alternative proposals which have been put forward on this issue?8245Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the member for Forrest for his question. The quality of Australia's science and research is one of our great comparative advantages in the global economy that is growing up at the present time. We cannot take that leadership and that outstanding quality for granted. One of the major purposes of the green paper on university research which the government issued was to put in place a funding framework for university research which will secure to Australian research environments the best and brightest of Australia's young researchers here in Australia and will make sure that the bright ideas that come out of Australian research will be commercialised effectively here in Australia.I am pleased to say that the paper has been recognised as a very important initiative by many of the leading people in Australian research. Professor Vicki Sara, the Chair of the Australian Research Council, said:Taken together, the proposals in the discussion paper allow us to build a world's best practice research funding system.The Chief Scientist, Dr Robin Batterham, said:It is vital that we have a science and technology base that emphasises excellence, well-rounded training and the linkages across institutions and to end users. Dr Kemp's paper addresses all these issues and in my opinion makes some most appropriate changes to the existing system.Tim Besley, the President of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering, said:That the discussion paper's urging of universities to concentrate their resources in areas seen to be of future importance is very timely.Professor Brian Anderson, President of the Australian Academy of Science, said:The paper is a determined effort to put Australia's higher education research on a sounder footing.I was very pleased to see the comment from Professor Barry Cunningham, the Vice-Chancellor of Southern Cross University, who wrote to me saying:My preliminary reading indicated that it contains many appropriate and welcome options for consideration. Indeed, your statement that the paper offers a particular opportunity for regional universities seems to be very true.The government's paper has been exceedingly well received within the science community. The government is listening to the discussion and comment on this green paper, which of course contrasts with the complete policy vacuum that exists on the other side of the House. There is no Labor Party policy for university research. The Labor Party's only proposal during the last election campaign was to cut research funding. By contrast, the government has put forward a positive set of proposals for Australian research to make sure that the best and brightest young Australians can find research environments here in Australia which will attract them back to this country, and that Australian science is conducted in an entrepreneurial climate which will make sure that the best ideas are effectively commercialised. This government has a policy; the Labor Party does not.82458245Brereton, Laurie, MPMr BRERETON5T4Kingsford-SmithALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and concerns his denials yesterday of any knowledge of the request from the US military command in the Pacific for agreement to the attachment of Australian military officers to a possible peace enforcement operation in East Timor. Is it not a fact that these discussions took place in June and that the request was put directly at a very senior level, specifically to the Commander Australian Theatre, Air Vice Marshal Treloar? Didn't the Air Vice Marshal undertake to refer the request to top levels in the Australian government, and weren't you a specific recipient of the detailed report of these discussions six weeks ago? Minister, how do you explain your denials in question time and your subsequent statement claiming that you were completely unaware of these exchanges until you were told of them by your department last night? Don't you read important reports? Haven't you once again been caught out telling whoppers?8246Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—First of all, this matter was not raised as you put it with the Australian government; it certainly was not raised with me. Secondly, it is true, as the Labor Party claim, that the cable, which you have apparently got hold of and which reports this conversation, was one of a number of cables that were directed to me. Honourable members might like to know that my department receives something like 186,000 cables every year, which is quite a lot, and 100,000 of them are directed to me. It will come as no surprise that no minister could read 100,000 cables—although I note that you can always tell when the member for Kingsford-Smith is reading, because his mouth is moving.Mr Beazley interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The chair always exercises a good deal of tolerance to interjections from leaders of the opposition, and always has in my time in this House, but I would remind the Leader of the Opposition of his obligation to allow the minister to be heard without interruption.MG4LEEMr Lee—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. When you were first elected Speaker, you said that you would try to minimise the scorn and derision expressed in this House at question time. Having given an instruction to the Leader of the Opposition, will you issue an instruction to the Minister for Foreign Affairs as well?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I am very happy to comment on the member for Dobell's observation, which has some relevance. But I would point out to him that, particularly in the instance of this question, the sins have been vested on both sides of the House. The latter part of the question was asked and framed in a way that it could well have been ruled out of order on the grounds of irony, as the member for Kingsford-Smith would be aware. I turned a deaf ear to that. I can see that the standard could be raised on both sides. With that admonition, I call the Minister for Foreign Affairs and ask the member for Kingsford-Smith to bear in mind what I have said about the question.4G4Mr DOWNER—On the question of whether I misled the House, I draw the attention of the House to a press release which was issued today by the Embassy of the United States of America. The first sentence of this press release, which I will table, reads:Media reports that the United States has plans to send U.S. troops to East Timor to maintain order in that territory are incorrect. The United States has no plans to send U.S. forces to East Timor, independently of the U.N., to act as peacekeepers or peace enforcers.What is more, as it happened and by coincidence, the Australian Ambassador to the United States, the redoubtable Andrew Peacock, met yesterday with Stanley Roth, the Assistant Secretary of State, who is responsible for Asia-Pacific affairs. This is what Stanley Roth said of the allegations—and all this blather we get from the opposition—that Australia and the United States have fallen out on the issue of East Timor:These allegations are utterly irritating, because there are no policy differences between us. The United States and Australia could not be working closer on the issue.The point is this: the Labor Party has a guilty conscience on East Timor. You know you did East Timor wrong for 13 years. What really gets in your craw is the fact that this government is working hard to resolve this issue in concert with the United Nations and in concert with our friends such as the United States. The member for Kingsford-Smith, with his puerile behaviour, has of course completely alienated Jakarta. They will not have too much to do with the member for Kingsford-Smith anymore, and apparently he is beginning to irritate Washington as well. And that is not a bad effort for an opposition spokesman for foreign affairs. I think it is about time the Leader of the Opposition found somebody intelligent to do the job.82478247Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON3K6ParramattaLP10—My question is to the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Everybody in the House knows that that sort of behaviour is quite unacceptable. The member for Parramatta has the call and is entitled to be heard without interruption under the standing orders. I call him.3K6Mr ROSS CAMERON—Can the minister explain to the House the significance of the government's changes to interest withholding tax on corporate bonds? In particular, what impact will the changes have on home mortgage borrowers and small businesses in the regional financial capital of Parramatta?8247Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—I thank the regional member for Parramatta, who is such a strong advocate of the interests of regional and rural Australia. On 29 June this year, the Senate at last passed TLAB2, a bill that included in it a provision to abolish interest withholding tax on corporate bonds. This has been an enormous success in Australian financial markets. I would like to quote from a report by Salomon Smith Barney, one of the largest investment banks in the world. It has a headline `Interest withholding tax gone—a new global era dawns!' It says:Removal of Australia's interest withholding tax is a major fillip for Australia's corporate bond market, and moves it closer to becoming more integrated into global capital markets. Removal is a major step toward a larger, deeper, more liquid domestic capital market. Up to a 50-fold increase in investor audience is possible . . . It goes on to say:Average spread reduction resulting from the . . . removal may range between 5-10 basis points, based on higher liquidity and lower transaction costs.What does this mean for borrowers in Australian markets and particularly small and medium sized businesses? It means up to a 0.1 per cent reduction in the cost of loans. And that goes further, because if we create greater liquidity in the corporate bond market it means more money coming into Australia that can be lent at a cheaper rate to busines ses, to people borrowing for home mortgages and, particularly, to small business. The bigger the corporate bond market in Australia, the cheaper it is for Australians to build businesses, and that is good news for Australia.That is a direct result of our tax changes—the tax changes which the Labor Party delayed for so long. Only at the last minute did they agree to pass the bill through the Senate. The impact is immediate, with up to $11 billion in issuance coming under the new regime and billions of more dollars coming on to the market immediately. In fact, Morgan Stanley has only recently—for the first time—entered the Australian corporate bond market with a $1 billion issuance. That is good news for Australian investors. And, best of all, it is good news for the battlers of Australia.82478247Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Defence. I refer to the minister's answer to my question yesterday concerning the plight of ADF personnel caught by the government's new fringe benefits reporting regime. Minister, in that answer you claimed that most of the additional costs to ADF personnel `are well and truly covered' by the tax cuts. Minister, is it not a fact that, in the specific example I quoted yesterday, even after receiving the tax cuts, the soldier will still be at least $117 per week worse off? Is it that you are ignorant of the situation now faced by thousands of ADF personnel or were you misleading the House yesterday? Is this not a clear breach of your government's promise that no group would be worse off under the tax system changes?8247Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—Mr Speaker, I am actually the minister responsible for this area.8I4MARTINMr Martin—He is the senior portfolio minister.YT4Mr BRUCE SCOTT—Obviously the opposition were not listening. In answer to the question, we do not necessarily take for granted the figures that are issued as evidence from the other side of the House. We learnt that a long time ago. As the Minister for Defence said yesterday, we are reviewing the FBT reporting legislation to take into account the unique circumstances of our Australian Defence Force personnel and the circumstances under which they serve. For the benefit of those on the other side of the House, who are very slow to learn, for government benefits or payments like child support, there should be no inequitable treatment for Defence families due to their geographic location.The review will include considering how the reporting requirements apply to housing assistance provided to Defence personnel and certainly taking into account that, as military personnel, they must serve wherever the government demands. They are subject to frequent and compulsory moves by the Defence operational needs, which is very much part of our combat capability and our readiness to defend Australia and our interests. The other fact that will be taken into consideration is that there is substantial variation in the rents across this country. I hope that the opposition have listened to what we have had to say and what the Minister for Defence said yesterday.82488248Bailey, Fran, MPMs BAILEYJT4McEwanLP10—I direct my question to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Could the minister advise the House how the new SES funding model enables small schools, like the Warburton Christian School in my electorate, to serve the needs of local communities?8248Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the member for McEwen for her question. I know how committed she is to giving all families in her electorate the right to choose their school. As announced in the budget, from 2001 non-government schools will be funded according to a measure of the socioeconomic status or level of their school communities. This is a much fairer system for funding non-government schools, which takes fully into account the capacity of school communities to pay. It is based on a process which links the addresses of students to collectors districts as identified by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. It is schools like the Warburton Christian School in the electorate of the member for McEwen which stand to gain from this model. It is perhaps worth making the point again that no school will lose as a result of this funding system.The member for McEwen has drawn my attention to a letter that she has received from the Warburton Christian School. I am delighted that the school acknowledges that the SES funding model will `enhance the choice of working class families'. The principal of the school, Mr Mike Dye, went on to say:We wish to acknowledge your commitment towards the delivery of greater fairness and equity in funding in the non-government sector and for working families in particular.Mr Dye went on to say that this new funding system will enable schools like his to better serve their community. This funding system that the government is establishing is in direct contrast to the Labor Party's attitude to school choice for working class families. The Labor Party's new schools policy was biased very strongly against the capacity of low income families to choose their school. It is only this government which has opened up the opportunities for every member of the Australian community to exercise a realistic choice of school.The crux of the matter is that this government is committed to the strongest equity agenda that any government has pursued in education for a very long time. We are not only committed to getting every young Australian who can learn to read and write up to a satisfactory literacy level but also determined to give Australian families the right to choose their school so they can get the best possible education for their children.82488248Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Defence. If, Minister, as we have just heard from your junior, the government is now aware of the special circumstances faced by ADF personnel, why did you, as the responsible cabinet minister, fail to raise these issues before the government made a decision which is costing ADF personnel hundreds of dollars per week to enforce the fringe benefits tax regime?8249Moore, John, MPMr MOOREEI4RyanLPDefence10—It is well known that we do not discuss in the House matters that are discussed in cabinet.82498249Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRNOK6Eden-MonaroLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Trade. Can the minister inform the House of recent examples of the Australian government facilitating our trade efforts?8249Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTrade10—I thank the honourable member for Eden-Monaro for his question. Although the Labor Party jests about our efforts concerning trade, it is a very important matter, particularly for rural and regional people—our primary producers—in this country. As well as continuing to pursue and exercise our rights concerning the lamb issue in the WTO and the issue of exporting our beef to Korea, we are also exercising our rights on a bilateral basis. Recently the Thai government proposed an increase of approximately 80c a kilo on carcass import licence charges on beef into Thailand. We raised the issue with the Thai government and convinced it that that was not a good idea in terms of its obligations under the international trading regime of which we are all a part. That is just one example of our continuing efforts, in both a multilateral and a bilateral way, to represent Australia's interests in exports across the world.I was pleased to report that, with the help of Austrade, the Western Australian based Chiefton Management company has signed a $77 million contract to develop an industrial park on the outskirts of Mozambique's capital Maputo. This Western Australian company is investing overseas and bringing dollars back into Australia. The first stage of this park, as I say, is worth $77 million. It includes the site for an aluminium smelter that will be taking alumina from Western Australia, which again is important for Australia's exporters.It was a pleasure, in the early stages of my appointment as trade minister, to help facilitate exports for a citrus grower in my electorate—not yours, Mr Speaker! At the beginning of this week he was exporting 11 tonnes of cumquats to Hong Kong. I congratulate David and Annie Morton on their efforts in getting into that international marketplace. As a government representing Australia's exporters, we will continue our efforts in those multilateral forums as well as on a bilateral basis. We will stand up for Australia's export industries across the world.82498249Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Trade. Minister, do you recall saying on the Sunday program on 11 July that the Prime Minister should put security issues on the table during his trade discussions with President Clinton? Didn't the Prime Minister say on the Today program two days later that people who argue as you did are really ignoring the national benefit to our country of the security relationship? Who did you consult before you made your statement—Minister Moore, then Acting Prime Minister Fischer, Secretary Barratt or perhaps higher authority Max Moore-Wilton? Do you still stand by your proposition?8249Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTrade10—As is normal practice for the government, we do not rely on what is being reported from the front benches of the Australian Labor Party, and I did not say it.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—It is difficult to imagine how anyone watching the performance of the House of Representatives this afternoon could be in any way impressed by the interjections that have just come across the chamber.Mr Griffin interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Bruce.82498249Lawler, Tony, MPMr LAWLER834ParkesNP10—My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Minister, what is the government doing to help lamb producers in my electorate of Parkes and in other areas of Australia in the wake of the United States' dreadful decision to restrict the importation of Australian lamb?Mr Adams interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Lyons.8249Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—I thank the honourable member for Parkes for his question. Australia was of course dismayed by the decision of the United States to place tariffs and quotas on the importation of lamb into the US. We believe that decision was not soundly based. Australian lamb producers, in cooperation with their New Zealand colleagues, had developed a significant new market and had developed for themselves, without any kind of government subsidies or assistance, a niche in the US market which was providing good returns to Australian lamb producers but also offering a superior product on the US market.The Australian government has been forthright in objecting to this action at the very highest level—Prime Minister to President. We are following through with this process through the World Trade Organisation consultative process. We are seeking a ruling from the World Trade Organisation against the US action, but we cannot stand by and wait for the World Trade Organisation to respond. It is important that the Australian place in the US market be protected and it is important that we put in place the sorts of mechanisms that are necessary to support Australian exporters to the US so that they can remain commercially viable and intact when the tariff regime ends in 2002.In negotiation with the industry, we have agreed upon the distribution of the quota. Some 16,300 tonnes of quota was distributed on 23 July, leaving around 800 tonnes of this year's allocation to be provided to new entrants or in special circumstances. In addition, the government has announced that it will be paying half the transaction levy applying to lamb sales in Australia. We are introducing a grant based program along the lines of the national pork industry scheme to help with market development and other upgrading in the Australian lamb industry. A lamb industry development advisory committee will also be overseeing this expenditure and supervising the quota arrangements.These sorts of measures will help the Australian producer through this period, but that will not stop the Australian government from vigorously pursuing the illegitimate trade barriers that the US are placing in this regard. New South Wales farmers are currently protesting outside the US Embassy in Canberra. A large number of members on the government side, including the member for Parkes, joined them today in demonstrating our strongest opposition to the US decision. I call on the US government, even at this late stage, to review their decision and to make a decision that is responsible for any country that wants to be a leader in developing fairer trade around the world.82508250Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—My question is again to the Minister for Defence. Minister, in your answer to my question yesterday with regard to the shortage of specialist medical officers in the Australian Defence Force you stated that there is no shortage. Minister, can you confirm that earlier this year commanders of ADF health organisations were ordered to provide only the minimum safe standards of medical assistance to ADF personnel as a result of severe shortages? Are you still saying that the Australian Army's Land Commander, Major General Hartley, has it wrong, or is he the next one you are going to sack simply for telling the truth?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Before I call the Minister for Defence, he will ignore the latter part of that question. Twice now, questions from the member for Cunningham have been couched in ironic terms.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—On a point of order, Mr Speaker: what is it about the question? Are the words `the Army's Land Commander . . . the next you are going to sack simply for telling the truth' out of order, given the current circumstances with regard to this minister and his department?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The latter part of the question has about it a touch of irony and, as I said, the former question was even more ironic. For that reason, I ruled it out of order. I stand by my ruling and call the minister.8250Moore, John, MPMr MOOREEI4RyanLPDefence10—As I said yesterday, I was very disappointed that the general's comments got into the newspapers because it should not be the practice of senior officers to have statements in the newspapers. However, looking at the question of the adequacy of doctors in the forces, as I said yesterday, at a time in which we are not involved in active hostilities but are deploying troops to Bougainville, there are sufficient medical officers to attend to all needs.82518251Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—My question is to the Minister for Sport and Tourism and the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Sydney 2000 Games. The achievements of Australian women on the sporting field throughout the world are quite outstanding and will be further enhanced by next year's Olympic Games. What is the government doing to further the performance profile and the participation opportunities for women in sport?8251Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss JACKIE KELLYGK6LindsayLPSport and Tourism; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Sydney 2000 Games10—I would like to thank the member for Wannon for his interest in women's sport. I know he has some outstanding female sportswomen in his electorate. This week, we have seen Cathy Freeman win the 400 metres in Britain, we have seen three Australian golfers—Mardi Lunn, Jan Stephenson and Rachel Hetherington—clean up in the US golf event in Massachusetts, we have seen the trifecta occur in the triathlon world cup with Loretta Harrop, Tracey Hargraves and Rina Hill, and we have seen our junior water polo women's team win the world championships for the first time. And that is not to mention some junior female rowers in my electorate who are doing exceptionally well at the world cup. Many of these athletes have benefited directly from the government's sports programs such as the Australian Institute of Sport and the development of high performance females in sports such as hockey, rowing and netball.But our programs are not just about high performance. We are really about looking at increasing the involvement of women in sport, their achievements and the recognition of women in sport. We have taken a leadership role in enhancing the opportunities of females of all ages to participate in physical activity through the Active Australia program. We see two key areas where females drop their participation in sport: post school and post childbirth. So we are encouraging females to stay active throughout life, especially after childbirth—and I will be participating in the City to Surf next weekend. We have also implemented a harassment-free sport strategy to make sport more welcoming, more safe and more encouraging for females. We have introduced a mentor program to give females some encouragement, support, advice and inspiration to achieve their sporting goals. Finally, we are developing a strategy to celebrate sport in the year 2000, which is the centenary of the participation of females in the Olympic Games.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Questions to the Speaker825182518251Gillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD83LLalorALP00—Mr Speaker, I have a question for you. It relates to the change of uniform for parliamentary security officers since the last session. As you and members generally can see, these officers are now wearing darkly coloured, military style uniforms. This matter was remarked upon by members on both sides of the House yesterday evening. Why was the decision taken to change the uniforms and who was consulted about this decision? Was any consideration given to the appropriateness or otherwise of this style of intimidating dress, given, I would have thought, that it is a shared objective of all members of the House to make this parliament as friendly and welcoming as possible?Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The Minister for Trade and the Minister for Foreign Affairs are both ignoring the chair. The House will come to order and the member for Lalor has the call.83LMs GILLARD—Just to finish that question, Mr Speaker, in case you were unable to hear the end of it because of some irrelevant objections about the 1950s, which I would not have thought the government would choose to make, my final question to you was: was there any consideration given to the appropriateness of this intimidating style of dress, given, I would have thought, that it is an objective shared by all members of this House to make this parliament as welcoming and friendly to members of the public as we possibly can?Honourable members interjecting—8252Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—Order! I presume that the House is in fact anticipating a response from the chair, but I could have been forgiven for not understanding that, given the general level of conversation which seems to have characterised question time today. The appropriateness of the dress of the security attendants of Parliament House was the entire reason for the change. It was felt, principally by the security attendants, that there was too little to distinguish them from the attendants in the chamber and it was also felt by the public—from interviews with them—that they found it difficult to know who to refer to for security matters and that the authority that should appropriately be vested in security people was in some way masked by the previous uniform they had. After extensive consultation with the security personnel and their union, this decision was made. I have obviously noticed a number of people in the uniform this week. I have almost without exception consulted them, and can say that without exception they have said that they have liked the change.Miscellaneous82528252Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—For the information of honourable members, I present information on Commonwealth Parliamentary Association travel by senators paid by the Department of the House of Representatives during the period of 1 July to 31 December 1998. The Department of the House of Representatives transferred responsibility for processing all other travel related expenditure to the Department of Finance and Administration with effect from 1 February 1998.Auditor-General's Reports825282528252Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I present the Auditor-General's audit reports Nos 1 to 6 of 1999-2000 entitled:No. 1—Performance audit—Implementing purchaser/provider arrangements between the Department of Health and Aged Care and Centrelink ;No. 2—Financial control and Administration audit—Use of financial information in management reports ;No. 3—Performance audit—Electronic Travel Authority—Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs ;No. 4—Performance audit—Fraud control arrangements in Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs ;No. 5—Performance audit—IP Australia—Productivity and client service andNo. 6—Audit activity report—January to June 1999—Summary of outcomes .WI4REITHMr Reith—I approach the dispatch box with some trepidation that my appearance might breach the fashion policy that the Labor Party has found over the break. If you could find a few more policies that would really be something.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the House will come to the point or resume his seat.Motion (by Mr Reith) agreed to:That the reports be printed.Documents82528252Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—Papers are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the papers will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings .The schedule read as follows—1. Department of the Treasury—Tax Expenditures Statement 1997-98.2. Department of Finance and Administration—Parliamentarians' Travel paid by the Department of Finance and Administration July to December 1998.3. Crimes Amendment (Fine Enforcement) Bill 1999—Replacement Explanatory Memorandum.4. Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry—Western Australian Fisheries Joint Authority Report—1 July 1997 to 30 June 1998—Section 70 of the Fisheries Management Act 1991.(29 June 1999/29 June 1999)5. Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts—2nd Commonwealth Agency-Based Year 2000 Readiness Report and Government Business Entity Report by Portfolio Part 6 Chapter 20 of the Year 2000 Information Disclosure Act 1999.(25 June 1999/25 June 1999) Matters of Public Importance8253825310000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER— I have received a letter from the honourable member for Cunningham proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The administration of the Defence portfolio by the Minister for Defence.I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—15:23:008253Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—At the outset one cannot help but remark that the Minister for Defence has gone AWOL without facing the charge. Let us hope that somebody is out there getting the security attendants in their new uniforms to rustle him up and bring him back in here to answer for the absolute shambles of a policy which he is trying to oversee within the Department of Defence. Once again in question time—as occurred yesterday—we witnessed Amateur Hour when the Minister for Defence, laughingly a cabinet minister, stood in this place and scoffed at tradition and at questions being put to him that went to the heart of the administration of an $11 billion a year Public Service department charged with the defence of Australia. The minister glibly said, in response to questions put to him on everything ranging from personnel matters through to security arrangements for Australia, `Well, everyone knows what the government's policy is,' and sat down to raucous laughter from his colleagues. Well, they must really think that Australia is just so well connected out there in the rest of the world that he can get away with that nonsense.Yesterday, the minister went on to say that he expected the highest standards of management from his department. Well, we expect the highest standards of management of his department from this minister. Yesterday we also saw reports that this man who oversights this department referred to senior personnel—and I understand the protocols of this place—as f-wits. We all know what that means. It is reported in the newspaper that this minister referred to senior people in his department in those terms. I find it incredible, but I can also understand why so many leaks are coming out of the Department of Defence. He really knows how to endear himself—the Minister for Defence—going around talking about people like that. But he has a bit of form, this bloke. When he came into government after 1996, he sacked his head of department. Now, of course, he is about trying to sack another bureaucrat, another head of his department.The Barratt case raises some very interesting circumstances. I understand that, because of sub judice conventions and so on, we cannot go to the merits of the case or otherwise, but what we can do is point out some of the media commentary on this. It really is Days of Our Lives stuff. Mr Barratt was headhunted by the Prime Minister of this country and put into Defence after serving some time in Primary Industries. Because he survived a lemon hunt by Max `the Axe' Moore-Wilton trying to suss out those departmental heads that were no good and they reckoned he was pretty flash, he was given a performance based pay increase. Mr Moore, unfortunately, is a bit unhappy with him, but we do not know why, we do not know how long he has been unhappy with him. He has been distracted from all the duties he is supposed to perform as the Minister for Defence. We have the CDF, Admiral Barrie, saying that senior uniformed personnel have absolutely lost confidence in this minister. We have seen the CDF walking along arm in arm with Mr Barratt for photo opportunities—they are as one, and who is missing out of that little photograph? The minister. The minister is not there with his two senior people that run the defence department.The minister is renowned for his sackings—it does not stop with departmental heads. He has gone through the Chief of Navy and his Assistant Secretary Acquisitions. I think Major General Hartley is in for the chop after today. Major General Hartley has blown the whistle on the lack of availability of medicos to serve people in the ADF—in times of war certainly but also in times of peace. We are talking about when they go on exercises, like Crocodile that is on at present, when they go to Shoalwater Bay and they are performing duties and training as soldiers, sailors and airmen. The only trouble is we do not have anybody to fix them up if they get crook or if there is an accident. But the minister said, `Don't worry. Everything's all right. I am assured that volunteers will be there at some stage down the track.' Maybe.This botched attempt to remove Mr Barratt really does take on the parameters of The Bold and the Beautiful. The Canberra Times reported recently some of the details about how he went about sacking this person, quoting from an affidavit given by Max `the Axe' Moore-Wilton. It was fascinating stuff. Max said:"I said to him, `Jesus Christ, the trouble with you blokes is you have no corporate memory. Barratt put up with years of this from the Labor Party. He has already been an ambassador and he hates Foreign'.So you are trying to sack the bloke who is head of Defence, and you are going to put him in Foreign Affairs but he hates Foreign Affairs because he came from there once before.The article continues:"McIntosh thinks you might be interested—this is Barratt—in going to university in the US to learn about defence.So Sir Malcolm McIntosh, who the minister wants to put in on a six months contract to look after Defence to sort out its problems—and only six months when it probably needs a five-year focus—has decided that the bloke who runs Defence at the moment needs to go to the US to a university to learn about defence. Do not ask me why, if he has got the sack, because he ain't comin' back. He is not coming back to Australia to run Defence. The article gets better. It goes on to say:Mr Barratt's affidavit also quoted Mr Moore-Wilton telling him that [Foreign Minister Alexander] Downer—and this is one of the other big three over there that we saw today, and they are pretty good—"is collaborating in this because Ric Smith— our ambassador in China—is due out of China and there isn't a job for him in Foreign at the present time. The PM's office is also playing a hand in it."Mr Barratt said he had replied that he had not the faintest interest in New Zealand, but "I might be tempted by Paris", to which Mr Moore-Wilton replied that "the trouble is that his mate likes it there".Who is his mate? It is John Spender. John Spender is already in Paris and he is not going to come out. The article continues:Mr Barratt said he had replied "well Max, people have to make choices. If I am to be put out to grass then the grass will have to be lush.This is the farce we have in Defence at the moment. The minister is so caught up with worrying about his departmental head and giving him the flick that he cannot concentrate on the most important issues.What are the important issues? Firstly, there was the birthday bash at the barracks for the Prime Minister. That was a big event. He had to worry about that because the minister trotted along with a few invited guests. We all remember this photo.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—Look at the fur!8I4Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN—Never mind the fur—he is illegal. Why? He is not wearing a seatbelt. He is in a Comcar and he is not wearing a seatbelt. That is against the law. Bob Hawke got into trouble over that. Will this minister? Maybe. But the other issues of concern in Defence at the present time run seriously and they run deep.With the Defence Reform Program, this minister is oversighting, supposedly, savings of $1 billion to be directed to the pointy end of Defence. What has he got so far? He has a force structure that nobody quite knows what it will end up at. People are bailing out left, right and centre. Why? They are unhappy, morale is low and then this government sticks a fringe benefits tax requirement on them.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—He didn't know that.8I4Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN—We have asked questions about it. I have to say that the shadow minister for industrial relations is dead right. I do not think that until yesterday the minister knew anything about the fringe benefits tax and the effect it had on the 43½ thousand—or nearly 50,000 now, but they want to get it down to 43½ thousand—serving defence men and women. He had no idea about the effect that might have.This minister has elevated a second brigade to 28-day readiness so that we have two such brigades. The money required for that—at least $200 million a year to keep it ready—is fine if we need it, but with the savings that are supposed to come from the Defence Reform Program that are not happening they are not redirecting that money anywhere. As we pointed out twice in the last two days, surgical teams are trying to provide capability—and Major General Hartley has commented on what that means.The Prime Minister has made a commitment on FBT that no group would be worse off under any of the changed tax regime introducing the GST. This minister should know something about the present strategic environment that is out there. We know he has been to Bali with the Prime Minister to talk with the Indonesians, but I seriously wonder if he has turned his attention to things that are required in the strategic review that is under way that will lead to a white paper. The strategic review will be secret; the white paper will be published next year. When the last strategic review came out, two weeks later the Asian economy crashed and yet that strategic review did not even pick it. That had an effect on Australia's capability and the acquisition we need in terms of replacement of the platform for the Australian Defence Force to do what it is supposed to do—defend Australia—and decisions were being made on false premises coming out of that document.There are also the questions of East Timor and ongoing peacekeeping arrangements in Bougainville. There is the question of continuing defence support for Papua New Guinea. Comments are being made about the minister not knowing that his department is generating intelligence reports and passing them on to Alexander Downer's foreign affairs department—and I bet he does not read them, and if he did he would not know what was in them—and telling them all about Indonesia and East Timor. That is military intelligence coming in that this minister does not know anything about. He then jumps up and down and says, `Oh, don't do that again! Don't do that without telling me! And you're not going to give any of those military secrets away without telling me!'Who is running that department? When we start to talk about things like block obsolescence—that is, when we need to replace destroyers, F18s, F111s, patrol boats and all those things—who is going to make decisions on this? Not the Minister for Defence—the absent Minister for Defence who is not even here to answer the charge. He cannot concentrate because he is too worried about sacking Mr Barratt and trying to work out which option he should take.We actually know. The way things are going there is another problem coming for him. We have already seen this. A couple of weeks ago, the minister proudly announced to all and sundry that a $2 billion contract for the new airborne early warning system has just been let to Boeing. What do we find out today? Boeing is being investigated by the United States Congress because it might be giving away secrets. We are in a partnership with the US and yet that arrangement is being investigated by the Congress to see how many of their secrets are being given away. This minister is presiding over $2 billion worth of public expenditure on some platform that we need. However, now questions are being raised over how successful that is likely to be and whether we are going to get all the information we need.We could also talk about Olympic security or the reserves. If this minister actually got out of the Bushmasters or the photo opportunities being provided on the FFGs or something else and talked to his personnel, he would know that they are concerned about the future of the reserves in this country. People are not prepared to sign up anymore. The need for the reserves to be part of the general defence of this nation is increasing. As we keep raising our preparedness, as we keep increasing the availability of highly trained personnel to participate in all sorts of activities in our region, there is a strategic vacuum. There is a lack of regional leadership coming from this minister and, as a consequence, our international reputation is going through the floor.This minister needs to do more than simply stand there taking salutes at base visits. He needs to be accountable. He needs to be responsible. He is required by the normal standards of this parliament to come into this place and provide answers to genuine questions being put to him by members of the opposition or to respond to newspaper commentary that even his own department's newspapers are putting out. Army and Navy publications are both raising issues about FBT and other concerns that they have at the moment.And these are government controlled authorities—a bit like the old Soviet bloc, but they are even allowing letters to be published saying that the FBT impact is just horrendous. We have the office of the revolution in military affairs, which I have said also sounds a bit Stalinist, but that has been created in the department. That is fine, because it has a job that it is going to do. But I have to say that this minister is not doing his job. Yesterday in question time when a question was put to the Prime Minister about the confidence of the ADF in this minister, the Prime Minister after a glib response turned to the Minister for Defence and said, `You owe me a case of Grange for that.' The Minister for Foreign Affairs said, `It would be cheaper if you just resigned.' Dead right! As Barratt said:The problem with John Moore is that he does not do his homework and he will not listen.That was reported in the Courier-Mail on the seventh of this month. It is time not for Mr Barratt to go but for the Minister for Defence, who is on his last tour of duty, to probably think about taking the Wellington or the Paris option himself. This afternoon, though, it is time for this minister to come into this House to explain himself and to defend his handling of his department.15:38:008256Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—I have heard some pretty woeful presentations here, but that one really takes the cake. This afternoon I have been sitting here waiting to hear something of substance, but where is it? It seems that the member for Cunningham could not even remember what the topic of the MPI was; he never once mentioned the topic. He got up and spoke for 15 minutes and could not even remember what he had decided was going to be the topic for the MPI.But it gets worse than that. Let us go back to question time. We sat there waiting, thinking he was going to get on to defence, but it took 15 questions before the member for Cunningham could ask a question on defence. It is amazing. It is such an important issue that he cannot remember what his matter of public importance is about and he cannot even get a question up until the 15th question in question time today. When we look at the quality of the questions he put up it is no wonder he was so low down on the list. In the first question he tried to misrepresent the minister's answer from yesterday. If he does not believe me he can check the Hansard; he ought to have read properly what the minister's answer was yesterday before he tried to misrepresent it. When he got the next call his silly question asked the minister to tell him what happened in cabinet. Really and truly, he has been around a bit longer than that. If he was going to ask a serious question he would not be asking that sort of question.The member for Cunningham then went on to ask some silly questions of the Minister for Trade. His last question rehashed a subject he had brought up yesterday—nothing of substance about defence or the importance of defence for this nation. Yet it is rather curious that, in the course of his address, he did admit at one stage—I do not think he meant to—that this minister has increased the state of the Defence Force's preparedness. In other words, serious things are happening, very important things are happening, and this government is really making them happen. Yet the member was so busy talking about the gloss and all the little newspaper reports he wanted to read that he never got into any substance about the importance of the defence of Australia and the fact that this government not only has a very good policy but also is implementing that policy.It was just amazing that the member for Cunningham got up and read a newspaper article. It was suburban theatre antics. If that is all he can do—read a newspaper article and try to put all these wonderful theatrics in it—it is not a very effective presentation. You would have to say that it was a very superficial effort and one that his colleagues would be very disappointed with. If this is the best that the opposition in the parliament of Australia can do it is not only a great disappointment to the people of Australia but also an insult to Defence personnel, this parliament and the people of Australia.We ought to get real. More than just talking and having these ideas rolling off the tongue—all the right words about the various things that are happening in Defence but never getting into substance—we really have to look at some of the important things. To get the record going properly, I will read from the newsletter that the Minister for Defence—the person that I think we are trying to talk about—issued in June 1999. In an `Overview of Australia's defence priorities' he says:The defence of Australia has been a major priority of the Howard Government and continues to be so during our second term.I say, `Hear, hear,' and anyone who has any interest in defence would fully agree with that. He goes on to say:We are strongly committed to building a stronger and more secure Australia.Again, that is what Australians want and expect and what Australians are getting. The article continues:An Australia that is able to defend itself and able to take its place confidently in an uncertain world.It is important to note those words. He goes on to say:The government takes the challenge of rebuilding the nation's Defence capability just as seriously as it took the challenge of rebuilding the economy.Note the word `rebuilding'—not `building'—because of some of the difficulties and problems we inherited from the previous Labor government. He goes on to say:In fact, the Defence budget has been maintained in real terms for four years now— There have been no cuts like under the previous government; we have actually maintained the budget in real terms—and we propose to continue this level of commitment through the life of the forward estimates in this year's Budget.Also, as the minister goes on to say in his newsletter:We also are committed to obtaining the greatest value possible for each Defence dollar spent.This is when we start to get serious about what this government is on about. We should make no apologies for the fact that this government not only expects high standards but it insists on high standards and insists that they be met in the defence department and in any other area of administration, but we are particularly talking about Defence today.These very high standards are expected to be met by staff in the department as well as those who are out in the combat areas. Frankly, the men and women in the field not only expect this but deserve it. They deserve nothing less than the highest of standards. I would have thought that any reasonable and, indeed, any responsible opposition would have supported these standards.83REDWARDSMr Edwards—We support the diggers, I can tell you.8H4Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER—You ought to support a bit more. What about the high standards of the defence department? I think that the government has a very good record in the area of defence. It is one that we are very proud of and one that we are building on. Can I say that all of this in this term of parliament is due to the very good work being done by the Minister for Defence. The excellent work he is doing will mean that we have an even better defence effort than we already have.When we talk about the ability of the Minister for Defence, we ought to actually recognise what he has done as a minister and, most importantly, what he is doing as the Minister for Defence. The first thing is that he has demonstrated since we have been in government that he is a man who gets results. That is very important. Given the importance of the defence of this country, we have to have a minister of this sort of calibre. Follow ing some very good work done as the industry minister, he has now built on that as defence minister. One of the areas where the minister has really demonstrated his ability is in picking the best people to work with him. It is a very significant factor. It is something which many ministers on the other side who may have had ability often failed to do—to get people working with them and working for them who were the very best available. That is exactly what this minister can do. When I listen to some of the petty, nitpicking things that come from the opposition, I think they have completely overlooked this very significant fact.The other point I would like to reinforce on the ability of the Minister for Defence is that he gets his portfolio issues through the cabinet. Again, that is a very significant thing. He then gets them through the government ranks and he gets them through the parliament. All of these are very important. When we look at things like the budget and when we look at the fact that the defence forces are now in a situation where the member for Cunningham admitted they are in a better state of preparedness, I think we have got to recognise that the minister has been doing that.It is also important just to reflect a little bit on the legacy we inherited from Labor. The great concern that many people who really understand defence had about Labor is the drift that was going on in the defence forces through the lack of clear priorities. There is no doubt that the combat capability was declining. There is no doubt that the administration, the bureaucracy, was growing. Time and again we saw that equipment budgets were blowing out not only in cost but also on their time frame. When you look at all that and look at the number of times Labor let the defence forces down, and more significantly let the defence of Australia down, it is no wonder that people in Australia changed government. I think that in many ways it is a cheek of the opposition to come in here and try to raise this issue when they really have not got a lot to crow about in their own achievements.When we look at the record on defence spending, what we see is that the spending promises were always kept for defence expenditure whereas, on their promise to increase, only 23 per cent was ever delivered. When we look at the question of combat capability, we saw ships being fitted out for but not with equipment—so leaving gaps. In other words, the ships were there but there were a few things missing, and if it came to actual engagement they were a little light on. But Labor thought, `We can defer that because we can make budget cuts and it does not look too bad.' We look at the some of the mismanagement. There were a couple of rusty second-hand ships that cost us the earth because of all the money that had to be spent to bring them up to a serviceable standard. We saw what happened with the over-the-horizon radar. What a shambles, what an embarrassment. We hear people talking about cost blow-outs and we look at what that cost us. We look at the run-down in the Army capability. We look at the units that were lacking equipment. We look at the inefficiency that was growing. It just went on and on.What was even more disturbing, certainly to those who had a keen interest in defence, was looking at Labor's 1998 election policy. You would think Labor might have learned something. Having been chucked out in 1996, they might have had a look and thought, `Defence is pretty important. We had better have a good look at it.' As someone put it unkindly, the policy for 1998 probably took 30 minutes to write, five minutes to read and about 30 seconds to dismiss. What were they going to do? First of all, they were going to have an Anzac battalion. It sounded all right, but they had forgotten something. The New Zealand defence minister, Mr Max Bradford, said, `Hey, whoa,' so that one disappeared. The next thing was that they wanted to cancel the upgrade of the Hornets. That might have saved them a bit of money, but it meant this great gap because we probably could not get a replacement in under 10 years. And if we did not upgrade them then what were we going to do—keep running aircraft that were more and more out of date? As I think the member for Cunningham would know, Australia's defence is very much based on the fact that we have to maintain a technological advantage in the region. That was the second part of the election policy which disappeared without trace.The third one was—this was a beauty—buy two more submarines. We all know the embarrassment with the submarines at the moment. They were going to buy a couple more. What about fixing up the ones we have already got? We have to admit that the state of preparedness of our submarines is a source of considerable embarrassment, particularly as the only operational submarine we have got is the old Oberon one. To keep that running, we have had to actually cannibalise parts out of one that is sitting in a park in Holbrook. It really is an embarrassment. I do not think the Labor Party would want to go into too much of the history of the Collins class submarines, because we know when those decisions were taken.QI4PRICEMr Price—You've been dealing with them for three years.8H4Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER—It is important to note who is fixing them up. This government and this minister are taking the tough decisions to fix up the problem, and the problem will be fixed. As the honourable member for Cunningham would know, this report is very significant and it will be acted upon. So it is important to note that this government is going to make these things happen.Labor were going to reinstate the Ready Reserve, but they did not quite say where they were going to get the money to run that. The last time they brought in the Ready Reserve, two battalions went west. Then they were going to build an offshore weapons range, but that was going to cost a heap of money, and we do not know where that money was coming from either. What that really said was that there was a lack of strategic vision and, listening to today's debate and the views put forward by the spokesman from the Labor Party, that strategic vision is still sadly lacking. It is sad because we are talking about something that is very important for Australia. It is very sad that defence, which is such an important issue for all Australians, should be reduced to this level by the opposition.Clearly, we want to see defence forces that really have high standards. We are making those standards. It is disappointing that the opposition will not support those efforts, but I am proud to be able to stand up here and say that this government and the Minister for Defence are really doing a first-class job in improving the standards of our Australian defence forces, improving their readiness and, most importantly, ensuring that the defence of Australia is being improved so that we can continue to live the lives that all of us so dearly want. (Time expired)15:54:008259Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—Firstly, let me say to the member for Wannon that I am sorry you have been asked to carry the can for someone whom you need to apologise for. I say that because the men and women of the Australian defence forces should rightly expect that their minister should be in this chamber to respond to questions about his ministry and his administration of that ministry, yet he is not here. He has not even put in the junior minister. So on behalf of the opposition I say to the serving men and women of the Australian defence forces that I am sorry that the Minister for Defence has not got the gumption to come in here and defend himself and advocate his position as a defence minister.I am also sorry for the member for Wannon because, pal, you were sold a dump. Your advocacy of the minister's position was what I thought it would be: half-hearted, not sincere and unable to be backed up with any legitimate arguments. After all, you had the gumption to actually say in your response that the minister had demonstrated that he got results. You then said he got portfolio issues through cabinet. I am very sorry, but I am not quite sure I understand what you were saying.QI4PRICEMr Price—It's irony.IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDON—You are right. For the last couple of days we have been hearing a defence by this minister of an outrageous attack on the serving circumstances of defence personnel through the changes proposed in the fringe benefits tax. Yet until yesterday this minister was not even aware of the impact of those fringe benefits tax changes on his own personnel.UU5HORNEMr Horne—Shame!IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDON—That is shameful. When he responded to the question yesterday, what did he say? It is worth quoting his response:. . . 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.I ask you: what person in Australia could possibly accept that this minister knows anything about what is going on in his portfolio, let alone about what passed through cabinet as part of the taxation proposals that recently passed through this parliament? He did not even understand the implications of the tax package on the standards of his own personnel—50,000 serving men and women in this country.8I4MARTINMr Martin—Where is he now?IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDON—Why won't he come into this place? Why won't he come and defend himself? I say to the member for Longman, who I understand is speaking next, that you were a serving officer; you understand the importance of these things to Defence Force personnel.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The member for the Northern Territory will address his remarks through the chair.IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDON—He will understand, Mr Deputy Speaker, that his former colleagues in the defence forces are standing back and saying, `We have lost respect for this minister. He is a shame on this government. We have lost respect because his lack of leadership. We have lost respect because of his lack of understanding. We have lost respect because of his lack of authority. We have lost respect because of his lack of sincerity. We have lost respect because of his lack of intelligence, because the bloke's a dill.'8I4MARTINMr Martin—And where is the dill?IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDON—Where is he? I say to the member for Longman: when you get out of here this afternoon, go and ring some of your former colleagues and ask them what they think of the performance of this minister. Ask them what they think of the performance of this government. Ask them what they think of the proposals on the fringe benefits tax. Ask them what they think of the threats to their lives and lifestyles as a result of these proposals. I have to say to the member for Longman and to the member for Wannon—and I am not quite sure what the simile is but there must be one—that you have been given the greatest dump on earth. Not even you have any respect for this minister.UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—Cannon fodder.IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDON—Is that the description I am looking for? You are absolutely cannon fodder. I do not know if there is any promotion in it for you, but I have to tell you there is a vacancy coming up soon. He has gone AWOL, he is not in here to defend himself and he is not here to advocate his position.2K6BROUGHMr Brough—Give us substance.IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDON—You want to hear about substance. I will tell you a bit about substance: this minister is incompetent. I have been a member of this parliament off and on for 10 years and I can say to you that the concerns being expressed by the defence forces about the malaise in the Department of Defence and the lack of leadership by this minister are unprecedented.I have had representations from personnel from all three forces, from every rank, expressing their concern about the lack of leadership of this minister—his lack of authority, his lack of knowledge, his lack of commitment and his lack of understanding of the strategic imperatives of the Defence Force. He does not know, does not care and does not understand. Defence staff are rightly upset at the wiping out of benefits that compensate them for the unique hardships and transient nature of service life. We are not talking about lurks and perks here—and you know we are not talking about lurks and perks. We are simply talking about the benefits that help families survive while they are doing their jobs. The Top End is a focal point for Australia's defence strategy, and already it is extremely difficult to recruit qualified personnel and to attract ADF families there.We have heard about the specialist surgeons. We have a 28-day ready for 1 Brigade in Darwin. Possibly they are going to be deployed somewhere or other in the near future—or possibly in the longer term. But, if they are deployed tomorrow, they cannot take a medical team because there is no—2K6BROUGHMr Brough—Rubbish.IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDON—`Rubbish,' he says. I can tell you it is not rubbish. They would not be able to take a medical team because there is not one currently available. The minister acknowledged as much here in this House yesterday.I have had serving personnel come to see me about this, and I have to say to you that they are concerned by the perfidy of this minister who has a responsibility to represent and reflect the needs of these 50,000 Australians. He has failed to represent their interests in cabinet, contrary to what the member for Wannon has said. He has failed, either as a direct result of indolence, ignorance or malevolence, to comprehend the tragic and negative impact of his own government's policy on ADF personnel.The morale of the ADF is being continually and severely undermined by his incompetence and by the implications of the ineptitude of the minister and the Howard government in coming to terms with the inevitable operational impacts of their absurd policies. Do they comprehend that separation rates from the defence forces will magnify by 10 or a hundredfold? Thousands of defence personnel have indicated they will leave the defence forces if this FBT thing is not fixed. What will that do to the operational readiness of the Australian Defence Force? It will wreck it. What capacity will we then have to recruit new people to come and fill their roles? What possibilities will we have to recruit those people in time to train them up to the operational standards that you, as a former serving officer, would require of them? You know, I know, that we are right. The minister has been totally irresponsible.4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—Where is he?IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDON—He is not here. We ask that question again: where is he? Why isn't he here? Why is he AWOL? Why doesn't he come here? Because he is worried about his preselection for the seat of Ryan. He knows there are 150 new people on the branch books in Ryan ready to roll him. So, instead of being occupied by his job as Minister for Defence, he is preoccupied by the branch stacking in his own electorate which is designed to knock him off. Do you know what I say to those branch stackers? I say, `Good on you. Get rid of the bloke because he is an incompetent.' He is an absolute incompetent, and it is about time the Prime Minister took his role seriously as the leader of this government, as the erstwhile leader of this nation—erstwhile responsible for oversighting the work of the Minister for Defence. Why doesn't he pull him into order? Why doesn't he pull him into line? Why doesn't he send him into this chamber to make sure that he defends himself? Because of that, I move:That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as will prevent the sitting being suspended until the Minister for Defence is in attendance so that he may respond to the serious matters concerning his administration which have been raised during this discussion.Motion (by Mr Williams) proposed:That the member be not further heard.The bells being rung—MG4LEEMr Lee—Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: is it in order for a silly minister to move that the member be no longer heard when his time has run out?10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member had moved the motion.Question put.The House divided. [4.07 p.m.](Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr H.A. Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 ——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?16:12:008262Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—I second the motion. John Moore, come on down!Motion (by Mr Williams) put:That the member be not further heard.The House divided. [4.14 p.m.](Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr H.A. Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 ——Voting lists are recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Question so resolved in the affirmative.Original question put:That the motion (Mr Snowdon's ) be agreed to.The House divided. [4.17 p.m.](Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr H.A. Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 ——Voting lists are recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Question so resolved in the negative.16:22:008262Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH2K6LongmanLP10—Don't go running out of the chamber; you might learn something.Mr Martin interjecting—2K6Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH—You are just trying to delay the process because you are afraid of hearing some substance—the only bit of substance we would have heard after 25 minutes of rabblerousing by you lot.Let us just answer some of the questions that have been put here this afternoon. The first one is about medical officers and their availability. The charge has been that, if the 1 Brigade, which is based in Darwin, had to go overseas tomorrow, they would not be able to take a medical team with them. I am advised that the Chief of the Defence Force says that the ADF has an appropriate medical capacity to support the ADF deployment in regional contingencies. So if the Chief of the Defence Force says that, where do you lot get your information from? From the back of newspapers as always. You do not actually deal with any facts. You deal with rhetoric and rubbish, and it is about time you dealt with facts. There are enough medical facilities and medical staff for the defence forces.For the benefit of the member for the Northern Territory, I was a serving officer. I served with 2/4 RAR in Townsville. Do you know what we had as a medical officer under a Labor government? We had a gynaecologist. Do you know how many women there are in 2/4 Royal Australian Regiment? Zero—not one. But the Labor government administration saw fit to provide us with a gynaecologist. A really top effort. Well done. Congratulations to Beazley and his mates who were of course running the show then. That is how much the Labor Party know about the medical profession and what is needed. I will let you in on a little secret: there are not too many infantry soldiers in our Army that actually get pregnant.Now let us move on to Boeing and the announcement that the minister made recently about the AEWACs. On 10 August, an article appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald—it is good to see that you are up on your literacy and can actually read—which suggested that Boeing had a problem with the American Defence Department. I can assure you that, as far as this government is concerned and the contract that we have entered into, there will be no problem whatsoever in delivering those services to Australia. That is what should be important to the opposition, to the wider community and the defence forces. Those aircraft will provide a very much needed capacity for Australia's defence. The matter of public importance today is about substance, and all we have had is rhetoric from those opposite. We have had nothing about our capacity to be able to defend our nation, which is what the defence forces are supposed to be about.Yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition asked a question. He said, `. . . at a time when the government has just doubled the size of ADF units on 28-days combat alert.' This minister announced that, by 1 July this year, the Australian Defence Force would be able to double its capacity for ready, alert soldiers. In other words, 1 Brigade in Darwin was going to be brought up to 28-day readiness. I thought at the time that that was a very ambitious task.I was in 1 Brigade back in 1979 when we decided to bring 3 Brigade up to such a standard, and it is exceptionally difficult to do. A good friend of mine is currently the commanding officer of the 5th/7th Battalion and, as the minister has already informed this House—and I am pleased to reiterate—that they have managed to do that and it means that Australia's Defence Force capacity has been greatly boosted. That did not happen by accident. That did not happen under 13 years of Labor. That happened under the member for Ryan, the Minister for Defence, in this Howard government. That is what managing defence and administration is all about: having combat forces that are able to meet the defence needs of this nation.I have just mentioned that we do have the medical forces that are necessary—the MOs—and we have the new Boeings coming on line for the AWACs. Now we can talk about the Defence Reform Program. The shadow minister stated in his address earlier on that he did not know where the savings were going to come from. In this financial year, 1999-2000, it was forecast that there would be a $455 million saving to defence which could go into the sharp end—that is, people who actually carry weapons and actually make a difference at the front. In fact, we will be $67 million ahead of that plan. They are the facts—unlike the rhetoric and rubbish that we cop from the other side.The shadow minister also said that there were no cuts to defence under the previous Labor government. I questioned him across the chamber. I said, `No cuts?' and he said, `No, not one; none at all.' The fact is that whilst they were in government, they promised growth in defence spending of 4.5 per cent in 1984-85 but they did not deliver it; in 1985-86, again 4.5 per cent but they did not deliver it; and 3.8 per cent in 1986-87, but they did not deliver it.WF6DANBYMr Danby—Just have a look at the real growth.2K6Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH—They did not deliver it. It is like me saying to you, `We're going to give you some extra money to buy capability next year, the year after and the year after that,' and then you make plans to train your soldiers so that they are at the highest levels of competency and then, when in government, you let them down. You pulled the rug out from under their feet. You did not just do it for one year; you did it right through from 1984 to 1991. In 1991, you promised two per cent and again you provided zero, zilch, nothing—not a cent. That is the sort of commitment that the Labor Party showed Defence in 13 years. You can shake your head all you like—the facts are there.I was actually a serving member of the defence forces from 1979 through 1988. I had to endure the disgusting depletion of our resources by the Labor Party. We had a situation where you have two men to train 10 soldiers to use two machine guns—two M60s, which quite often went off when they were not supposed to because they were that badly worn. And you talk about morale! That is what sends morale down the tubes—when soldiers are not game to point the rifle in the right direction because they are not sure whether it is going to go off at the right time.Let us get to the major programs. JORN is an over-the-horizon radar. It has allowed us to detect movement in the sea-air gap to our north. It was a brilliant piece of strategic thinking. Let us look at the administration, since this is what this matter of public importance is about. When over 80 per cent of the money was paid out in that contract, it would be logical to presume that you would have about 80 per cent of the product delivered. Not under the Labor Party. Under the Labor Party, around 25 per cent of the product was delivered for an 80 per cent cost. And did it work? No; it did not even work. What do those opposite have to say now? They have all gone awfully flaming quiet, haven't they? They go quiet when they get something of substance thrown back at them about what their incompetence did to the Australian defence forces and our capacity as a nation to defend ourselves.Let us turn to submarines. The submarine saga has been going on for many years. Let me just talk about the combat system, since we have only a couple of minutes left. I will quote from a report entitled Report to the Minister for Defence on the Collins class submarine and related matters. At page 10 it states:The combat system is at the heart of the issues associated with getting an overall favourable outcome for the Submarine Project.It goes on to say:Although known about earlier, the problem was first seriously highlighted in 1993—when the Labor Party was in government—but the opportunity was not then taken to make fundamental changes in the configuration of the system or in the choice of subcontractor.The report goes on to say that this litany of errors and poor administration basically led to the fact that today Australia has such a poor submarine capacity that, if it were needed to send off the submarines, the lives of our submariners would be put in danger. As a former defence member, I find that a deplorable state over which the Leader of the Opposition should hang his head in shame.I have already mentioned that 1 Brigade is now on 28 days notice to move. That has happened under this government. Over and above that, when we mentioned that we do have enough medical support to be able to support these troops should they go to Asia, those opposite said, `We did a strategic paper and two weeks later the Asian crisis occurred. Boy, why didn't they see it coming?' I did not hear anybody in the opposition saying they saw it coming. I did not hear anybody in the world—in the financial markets, the defence markets or anywhere else—saying they saw it coming. This government has ensured that our defence capabilities are able to meet the needs as they change more rapidly in the region. The defence white paper, which will go a long way to addressing our preparations beyond the year 2000, will also be supplemented with an increase in the frequency of internal strategic assessments. So per haps things such as the Asian crisis can be picked up.Finally, I turn to the F18s. We have talked about the submarines. Today we have virtually no capability because of the inefficiency and poor administration of Beazley and those opposite. His policy at the last election was to replace the F18 with a new aircraft, which would take some 10 years. That means that we would have no capability for those fighter jets either. Great! Let's not have anything in the water; let's not have anything in the sky; let's pillory those who have made sure that 1 Brigade is now operational; let's not have a defence force at all. If you did that you would do in the future what Gough Whitlam tried to do back in the 1970s. The defence minister is delivering for Australia and for Australia's defence. He has the full support of this government. He is delivering on our policies to the defence forces. Australia's Defence Force will remain a strong, viable force when you, the opposition, support us in government.(Time expired)16:33:008264Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—I support the honourable member for Cunningham in proposing this subject as a matter of public importance. The defence of Australia goes to the heart of the core policy interests of the nation. When we look at the resources which are dedicated to the ADF each year and at a budget which extends to $15 billion per year, we are required to answer this very basic question: how can we allow this parliament to produce such a minister who is responsible for such a critical area as the defence of the nation?The defence policy of this country has been treated to a number of serious policy reviews over the last 10 to 15 years. When Mr Beazley was defence minister in the Labor government, we had a period of intellectual ferment and policy review across the defence portfolio such as we had not seen in the history of Australian defence policy. When we look back at the Dibb review of Australian defence and the strategic bases document which emerged from the Dibb review, at the definition of the area of direct military interest which emerged from that review and at the definition of Australia's area of strategic interest beyond immediate South-East Asia and across into the South China Sea and beyond, we find that we had, for the first time, a clinical definition of where Australia's defence interests lay. Contrary to what the previous speaker, the member for Longman, said, what emerged was a sophisticated defence policy on which we could construct a force structure for the defence of Australia for the first time. The Dibb review outlined a way in which we could engage in a layered defence of the nation which began from—Motion (by Mr Ronaldson) agreed to:That the business of the day be called on.Miscellaneous826510000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—I advise the House that the Deputy Speaker has fixed Wednesday, 11 August 1999, at 9.40 a.m., as the time for the next meeting of the Main Committee, unless an alternative day or hour is fixed.Miscellaneous8265Motion (by Mr Ronaldson) agreed to:(1) The following Bills be referred to the Main Committee for further consideration:Copyright Amendment (Computer Programs) Bill 1999Criminal Code Amendment (Slavery and Sexual Servitude) Bill 1999 ,Superannuation (Unclaimed Money and Lost Members) Bill 1999Superannuation (Unclaimed Money and Lost Members) Consequential and Transitional Bill 1999Ministers of State Amendment Bill 1999Australian Tourist Commission Amendment Bill 1999and(2) The following order of the day, committee and delegation reports, be referred to the Main Committee for debate: Republic Referendum—Joint Select Committee—Advisory report on the Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) 1999 and Presidential Nominations Committee Bill 1999—Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. Committees8265826582658265Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHLAE4CowperNP10—I present the report of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation reports and private members business on Monday, 23 August 1999. The report will be printed in today's Hansard and the items accorded priority for debate will be published in the Notice Paper for the next sitting.The report read as follows—COMMITTEE AND DELEGATION REPORTSPresentation and statements1 ECONOMICS, FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION—STANDING COMMITTEE: Report on review of the Reserve Bank of Australia's annual report for 1997-98.The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to be made within a total time of 20 minutes.Speech time limits—Each Member—5 minutes.2 TREATIES—JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE: Report 23—Amendments proposed to the Schedule to the International Convention for the Regulation of WhalingThe Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to be made within a total time of 20 minutes.Speech time limits—Each Member—5 minutes.PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESSOrder of precedenceNotices1Mrs Crosio to move—That the House:(1) notes the high number of self-funded retirees in Australia who are struggling financially at the present time;(2) recognises that the Howard Government's GST will create greater financial hardship for thousands of self-funded retirees because it taxes the essentials of life, will make people receiving low fixed incomes from superannuation or other measures pay the same rate of tax as people on higher incomes and offers inadequate financial compensation; and(3) investigates other means of offering financial assistance and incentive to struggling self- funded retirees distinct from a Goods and Services Tax. (Notice given 8 March 1999. )Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 1.45 p.m.Speech time limits:Mover of motion—10 minutes.First Government Member speaking—10 minutes.Other Members—5 minutes each.The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.2Mrs Gash to move—That the House:(1) understands the need to work towards addressing the needs of people with disabilities and their carers throughout Australia;(2) recognises the particular difficulties for people with disabilities and their carers and the need for respite care services and facilities in regions such as Gilmore and Macquarie;(3) welcomes the federal Government's specific commitment of over $1.7 billion to the Commonwealth/State Disability Agreement to assist them in their primary areas of responsibility and to increase the support for carers of people with disabilities; and(4) calls on governments at all levels to cooperate with one another to identify, fund and maintain services and facilities for respite care for people with disabilities and their carers. (Notice given 30 June 1999. )Time allotted—30 minutes.Speech time limits—Each Member—5 minutes.The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.3Mr Hardgrave to move—That this House acknowledges the value to all Australians of their country's growing trade and friendship with the People's Republic of China. (Notice given 31 May 1999. )Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time.Speech time limits—Mover of motion—10 minutes.First Opposition Member speaking—10 minutes.Other Members—5 minutes each.The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.Garry NehlChair9 August 1999 Bills8266r7868266Debate resumed from 30 March, on motion by Dr Kemp:That the bill be now read a second time.16:37:008266Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—Before I commence my remarks on the Employment, Education and Training Amendment Bill 1999 , I acknowledge the presence in the upper gallery of students and teachers from Brooke Avenue Public School in my electorate, who I am sure, like all of us, are very interested in matters affecting education in Australia.This bill abolishes the National Board of Employment, Education and Training, commonly known as NBEET, along with the Australian Language and Literacy Council, the Employment and Skills Council, the Higher Education Council and the Schools Council. It retains the Australian Research Council, although we were advised in the long awaited research green paper that the government wants to establish the ARC under its own act. We can be grateful for some small mercies because in the earlier drafts of the research green paper that were leaked late last year there was some doubt about what role the ARC would be left with. There was also some suggestion that the entire peer review process for awarding research grants would be completely undermined. We welcome the fact that the initial proposals by the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs have been dumped by the government and we look forward to the ARC being placed on a firm footing under its own act.NBEET was established in 1988 to provide advice to the government on issues relating to education and training as a unified advisory mechanism outside the department. It was seen as an important component of the program of reform in employment, education and training. The then minister, John Dawkins, told the House of Representatives during the second reading of the legislation establishing NBEET:The central purpose of this Bill is to enhance and streamline advisory structures in employment, education and training in a manner consistent with the high economic and social priority placed on these activities by the government.Unlike the Hawke and Keating governments, the Howard government has given no priority whatsoever to education and training issues. In that sense, it is no surprise that the Howard government would regard a body like NBEET as being a target for termination. NBEET initially comprised a board to report directly to the minister, and four advisory councils: the Australian Research Council, the Employment and Skills Formation Council, the Higher Education Council and the Schools Council. In 1995, the Australian Language and Literacy Council was added to the structure, while the Australian International Education Foundation Council is in fact a committee of the board. Neither the board nor its councils have had any program delivery role, unlike previous advisory structures such as the Tertiary Education Commission and the Schools Commission. The Australian Research Council, however, makes recommendations about the allocation of research funds.A specific value of NBEET lay in its ability to examine issues on a cross-sectoral basis, at a time when the traditional barriers separating schools, vocational education, higher education and labour market programs were being pulled down. The direction of recent discussions on such issues all seek to reinforce the importance of developing cross-sectoral perspectives. Let me give four examples: firstly, the convergence of general and vocational education; secondly, the nature and importance of employment related key competencies, articulation, credit transfer and recognition of prior learning both within and between sectors; thirdly, how to enable people to follow `pathways' through different parts of education and training institutions to achieve the combination of skills and knowledge which they need; and, fourthly, the emergence of the often discussed concept of lifelong learning. All of these examples serve to reinforce the importance of developing and receiving cross-sectoral advice to the government.The revolution in methods and technologies for delivering education and training is also contributing to the blurring of traditional divisions. Final year high school students can now undertake university studies as part of their school program, while many vocational courses can now be or will be able to be delivered in workplaces and schools, rather than only in TAFE colleges. I recently had the privilege of visiting Casuarina Senior College in Darwin. It is great to see the number of course options which students at that college are now able to choose. It is a fascinating example of a school which is making sure that the resources it has built up over many years are available not only to the students but also to the parents at night, thus ensuring that adult education is advanced in their local community.The issue of the need for cross-sectoral perspectives was taken up in submissions to the Senate inquiry into this bill's predecessor—the government's first attempt to abolish NBEET—the Employment, Education and Training Amendment Bill 1996, which never completed its passage through the parliament. In a submission to that inquiry, Professor lan Chubb, Vice-Chancellor of Flinders University and a former Deputy Chair of NBEET, said:If some relationship between employment, education and training is assumed, then I believe a minister will need some body or other to integrate the often conflicting advice that will come from the various interest groups and to turn it into policy advice.Professor Chubb went on to say:I have seen no good reason put forward for the abolition of NBEET.Nor has the opposition seen any good reason put forward for the abolition of NBEET. Mr Peter Laver, a former chairman of NBEET, told the Senate inquiry:One of the benefits of the national board's structure has been the confederation style, where six councils basically report through a board to the Minister. This means that the implications of various pieces of advice are fully considered by putting it through the board so that the cross-sectoral aspects are accommodated prior to the advice being forwarded to the Minister and tabled in Parliament.Mr Laver also said:The other thing that I would have to say about the board is that in terms of providing advice—I have been associated with other government advisory bodies in the manufacturing industry and in science and technology and in rural areas—NBEET is quite a cost-effective way of doing it. The cost of running the national board compared to its output is a pretty good investment.Mr Laver's views about the effectiveness of NBEET were shared by Professor Ken Wiltshire, who conducted the review of the board, which reported in February 1994. The report concluded:It can reasonably be stated that NBEET has fulfilled the bulk of the high expectations which were held for it six years ago.The executive summary of the Wiltshire review talks in the following way about the changes facing Australia:We still do not have, in this country, a clear enough understanding of, and a better capacity to address, the crucial linkages between the nation's economic performance, its employment parameters, and the implications for the role of the education and training sectors.These challenges face all nations in the approach to the next century and millennium, but Australia is better positioned than most, with a portfolio grouping aligned to these dominant themes, and an independent body capable of marshalling the requisite knowledge and expertise . . . Again quoting from the executive summary of the Wiltshire review:The themes which should be the challenge for NBEET in its second era are intersectoral and international, for it will be policy advice of this kind on which Australia will depend and which any vision of this nation's future will encompass.In the face of this advice from the Wiltshire review, the coalition took to the 1996 election a policy to dismantle NBEET, with no reasons given and, more importantly, no structure to replace it. One of the first things the Howard government did on coming to office was to prepare legislation to cut itself off from independent advice from a body with almost a decade of corporate knowledge about the importance of linking together employment, education and training issues. The 1996 legislation, however, retained the Higher Education Council, whose role it has been to provide considered advice to the government through the board on directions, priorities and funding issues related to higher education.The Higher Education Council also had the important responsibility of monitoring the impact of HECS—the Higher Education Contribution Scheme—on participation in university education. It has done this through a series of reports tabled in parliament. In its sixth such report, published in March 1992, the NBEET board said:The Board noted the results of the Council's commissioned research on the impact of HECS on the participation of disadvantaged groups in higher education.The Council has concluded from the research that HECS [as it was in 1991], has little effect on the decision of the educationally disadvantaged groups identified in the research.So in 1991, the research which NBEET had carried out, the work carried out by the Higher Education Council, indicated that HECS, as previously introduced by the former Labor government, had little effect on the decision of the educationally disadvantaged to participate in higher education. The educationally disadvantaged groups examined in the council's research included students from low socioeconomic backgrounds, rural students, students from non-English speaking backgrounds indigenous students and single parents.It is interesting to compare the advice provided in March 1992 to the 12th and most recent such report from the Higher Education Council, which looked at outcomes for 1996 and 1997. The report lists the coalition's major cuts and changes to higher education, which were announced in 1996. It states:Clearly, issues such as these are beyond the scope of this report on 1997 activity, but will be covered in future years.This is the advice that was provided in 1996. Let me repeat that:Clearly, issues such as these—that is, the cuts that this government made in funding for universities and the increases in HECS—are beyond the scope of this report on 1997 activity, but will be covered in future years.If this bill is passed, these issues will not be examined—an outcome for which the coalition may well have cause to be grateful, because the information we have to date about the impact of increased HECS charges and a radically reduced repayment threshold is that these changes have significantly impacted on participation in higher education. Australia-wide, applications for enrolment have fallen by 3.3 per cent in 1997, and a further 2.7 per cent in 1998. This year, they have recovered slightly but are still 4.8 per cent below the level of 1996. And that is overall, with no information about specific groups such as those included in the Higher Education Council's surveys.So it is no wonder that the Howard government wants to kill off the Higher Education Council before it has a chance to deliver the bad news: the information that we need to know how much damage has been done by this government's cuts in funding to higher education, by this government's increases in the charges for university students, by this government's decision to lower the repayment thresholds for people who build up a HECS debt. That is why this government wants to stop the Higher Education Council delivering any bad news in the form of detailed information about the extent of the damage done to access and equity in higher education in Australia.The council's commissioned report, The effects of the introduction of fee-paying postgraduate courses on access for designated groups, published in 1997, concluded that fees do have a deterrent effect on postgraduate enrolment by some equity groups, pushing them towards HECS based enrolment. Under the Labor government, fee paying postgraduate places were balanced by broad availability of HECS places as well. This has changed completely under the coalition, with a fall of around 40 per cent in Commonwealth funded postgraduate course-work places, as a direct result of the coalition's $840 million cuts to university operating grants.The 1997 Higher Education Council report also raised the issue of cuts to university operating grants, noting that, to the extent that universities have fewer resources, they have less capacity to undertake measures to improve equity and access. Since that report, universities have felt the impact of the major funding cuts announced by the Howard government in 1996.Late last year, the Higher Education Council finalised a further report on postgraduate access in the new environment of vastly expanded fee paying. For some reason, that report has not even been published. It has, in fact, disappeared without trace—further evidence, if any were needed, that this government is determined to shut itself off from information about the impact of its short-sighted, damaging policies and to deny the community the benefit of independent evidence of the damage this government has done in higher education. More broadly, this is a government that is totally closed to new ideas. We now have a federal minister for education whose contribution to policy development has been zero, whose efforts have been concentrated on implementing a narrow ideological agenda, but who is unwilling to visit a university campus, and who steadfastly avoids contact with education interest groups and spokespeople who might challenge his views or provide a different perspective.Unfortunately, the most recent budget—despite being labelled an education budget by the Prime Minister—was yet another lost opportunity and another demonstration of the government's failure to comprehend the fundamental importance of education and training. The government's so-called education budget concentrates additional school funding disproportionately in the non-government school sector—talking about need while ignoring the clear needs of government schools—and yet it makes yet another attack on higher education, axing the Merit Based Equity Scholarships Scheme and cutting $16 million from the Innovation Program. For TAFE there is nothing.So in a budget that the Prime Minister claimed would be an education budget we have the abolition of the Merit Based Equity Scholarships Scheme, we have the latest cut in the operating grants for universities and we have no resumption of growth for TAFE. We have a government that does not provide a significant increase for funding for public schools while providing a substantial increase in federal funding for non-government schools. My real worry is that the Prime Minister might actually think an education budget is when you give a massive increase in funding to non-government schools—an increase which is 21 times, on average, that given to students at government schools. How can government members sit back knowing that, for every extra dollar that went to students, teachers and staff at government schools, $21 went to students in non-government schools? Labor make it clear that we support extra funding going to needy private schools; we support extra funding going to improve the quality of education in non-government schools. But we have to balance that by providing not only significant increases in funding for private schools but also significant increases in funding for public schools.84CTHOMPSONMr Cameron Thompson—We did.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—The member interjects and claims that there was an increase.84CTHOMPSONMr Cameron Thompson—It will increase with the GST.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—The member interjects and claims that a GST will deliver a significant increase in funding to public schools. I simply suggest to the honourable member that he talk to the teachers and to the staff at schools in government schools in his own electorate to know that the GST is not going to be the answer to schools' difficulties in funding. In many cases, the GST will create an enormous additional administrative burden on schools right round Australia, be they public or private. It is the honourable member who will have to answer to the parents of children at his own local schools—government and private—who will be hit by the lost income that gets spent on implementing the GST in schools in his own electorate. So my real concern is that this Prime Minister might actually think that an education budget is a budget that continues cuts in federal funding for universities across the country, that fails to deliver any growth funding for TAFE, that abolishes the Merit Based Equity Scholarships Scheme for disadvantaged young kids, that does not provide the balance in extra funding for government schools and non-government schools.So these decisions prove the government has greater need than ever before of advice from a body like NBEET, because improving children's opportunities at some schools while reducing access to vocational and higher education reflects a blinkered, distorted view of educational experience. Lifelong learning and a properly educated and skilled population begin with quality schooling, followed by access to well-resourced post-compulsory education and training institutions.A sensible government understands the interaction between the sectors and the need for articulated pathways. Through this bill, the Howard government has shown us that not only does it not understand the concept of linkages but also that it does not want to understand, it does not want to listen, it does not want to know. As far as NBEET is concerned, the damage is done. The corporate knowledge has been largely scattered; the personnel have dispersed; and the board exists practically only in name.Soon after the coalition came to office, the predecessor of the present Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs wrote an extremely ungracious letter to the Chairman of NBEET, setting out arrangements for the winding up of the board. That letter failed to acknowledge that NBEET had achieved anything. We believe this government has a record of seeking to silence independent organisations that disagree with government policy. I have to say that this government will be the worse for the loss of that independent advice. Therefore, I move the following second reading amendment:That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:"whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House:(1) is of the opinion that education and training are of fundamental importance to Australia's social and economic well-being;(2) notes that many of the emerging issues in employment, education and training are cross-sectoral in nature;(3) expresses great concern that the body charged with providing independent, cross-sectoral advice to government on these significant issues has been dismantled by the Government;(4) calls on the Government to establish immediately an independent review of the impact of its changes to the Higher Education Contribution Scheme, one of the roles previously undertaken by the Higher Education Council; and(5) notes the commitment of the Australian Labor Party, when returned to government, to re-establish a structure to provide independent, cross-sectoral advice on education and training".10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Is the amendment seconded?JK6McCLELLANDMr McClelland—I second the amendment.16:58:008271Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—I rise to speak in support of the original Employment, Education and Training Amendment Bill 1999 , not the amendment moved by the member for Dobell. The bill seeks to do a number of things. As the member for Dobell correctly pointed out, it seeks to abolish the National Board of Employment, Education and Training and its subsidiary councils—these being the Australian Language and Literacy Council, the Employment and Skills Council, the Schools Council and the Higher Education Council. In 1987, under the chairmanship of Charles Holton, a task force report delivered to the then Minister for Employment, Education and Training, John Dawkins, recommended that there be a rationalisation of advisory structures in the employment portfolio. It has nothing to do with not understanding or not wanting to understand higher education or anything of the sort, as we have just heard.One consequence of the establishment of the National Board of Employment, Education and Training was a loss of what were seen to be the positive attributes of the Schools Commission and the Tertiary Education Commission, from whose abolition it emerged. Firstly, their membership was largely representative of the sectors with which they dealt. Secondly, they were responsible for program administration and, consequently, had larger staffs and a greater capacity to set their own research and reporting agendas. Thirdly, the statutory conditions under which they operated had given them greater scope for independent action.Governments of the day—and at the time, federally, that was a Labor government—and ministers in particular sought advice which bore some relation to budgetary strategy, as any responsible government would. The new advisory arrangements were established by the Employment, Education and Training Act 1988. The critical features of the act were: firstly, a national board to report directly to the minister on all related employment, education and training issues, taking into account any written directions or guidelines from the minister on the government's broad social, economic and budgetary policies; secondly, four advisory councils would report to the board; thirdly, the new board would have no responsibility for program delivery, which would be left entirely to the department; and, fourthly, community based membership of the board and councils.The Employment, Education and Training Amendment Act 1995 added the Australian Language and Literacy Council to the National Board of Employment, Education and Training structure—and the council had been operating as a committee of the board for several years. That is where all this was at at the time of the change of government in 1996. The government's 1996 higher education policy indicated an intention, as was always intended, to wind up the National Board of Employment, Education and Training—a measure which I would suggest was coveted by the previous government—whilst maintaining the Higher Education Council as an independent body reporting directly to the minister.In June 1996, several months after the change of government, the Employment, Education and Training Amendment Bill 1996 was introduced to implement the election policy but it was not passed. Nonetheless, the board and the three councils wound up in response to a request from the then minister. The Higher Education Council and the Australian Research Council have continued to operate, with the board's activities being confined specifically to those councils.The Employment, Education and Training Amendment Bill 1999 abolishes not only the National Board of Employment, Education and Training but also the Australian Language and Literacy Council, the Employment and Skills Council, the Schools Council and the Higher Education Council. The Australian Research Council will continue and will report directly to the minister. In the light of the recent release of the green paper, that is something that I suggest to the House is highly desirable. Its membership will continue unchanged. Whilst the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee recommended that the ARC provide broad policy advice to the minister through the Higher Education Council, it nonetheless recommended that the ARC report directly to the minister on the distribution of grant funding and policies relating to its programs.The opposition, through the member for Dobell, has made a number of points, most if not all of which need some refutation. There is no reason whatsoever on a scholarly basis to believe that the abolition of the National Board of Employment, Education and Training will reduce consultation in any way and it will certainly not reduce independent advice. What it will do is close desks in bureaucracy, possibly to open a few more in the classroom.From what the member for Dobell has said, the opposition also has some interest in how the government will consult with other interest groups. The National Board of Employment, Education and Training, as I said, was established by the previous government, of which the member for Dobell was, I understand, a proud member. Times and funding mechanisms have changed and so too must the consultative mechanisms. The board and councils have already wound up, as I pointed out to the House, with the exception of the Australian Research Council. If expert advice is required in this area, as in so many areas of government policy direction, expert task forces can be established on an ad hoc basis. For example, we can rely upon the advice of the Business/Higher Education Round Table. I would not dare criticise its composition or its work.I am sure that the member for Dobell would not criticise the advice that the National Council of Independent Schools Associations would give to government—or that of the Primary English Teachers Association, the National Catholic Education Commission, the Australian Primary School Principals Association or the Australian Secondary School Principals Association. Are these not all sources of wise and well-informed advice to government?We also have the centres for higher education research and development in Australia. The Australian National Training Authority also plays a pivotal role in, amongst other things, distributing vocational education and training funding to the states and institutions. The Australian Council for Education Research also does that. These and so many other organisations are, to some extent, funded by governments in one form or another and they provide a consistent and reliable source of advice without needing to maintain the National Board for Employment, Education and Training.A number of existing representative bodies, some of which I have listed, also advise the government on issues that were once covered by the National Board of Employment, Education and Training and the four councils being abolished. Bureaucracy is very important and advice to governments of a high quality is particularly important. We need always to be asking ourselves whether maintaining any kind of board, statutory authority or, indeed, part or all of a government department actually serves the interests of not only the sector but, most importantly, the beneficiaries of it who fund it through their taxes and who ultimately should benefit from it.Finally, the ARC will not only report directly to the minister but it will promote informed public debate on research in Australia. As the green paper on higher education research and research training actually sets out, it envisages quite a significant role in policy directions for the ARC—for which it has my full support.Turning to some of the other points that were made by the member for Dobell, Labor, when it was in office, at times promoted higher education as the one and only definition of excellence in education. I felt that, for almost a decade, many young people were of the view that, if they did not achieve a university education and a degree, they were in some way of less value to their families and society and that, even if they came out of university with two degrees, they were in some way inadequately trained. Seventy per cent of Australia's secondary students who did not go on to university could at times be forgiven for feeling that there was less of a place for them in Australian society.The comments that the member for Dobell made about HECs and about how changes to HECs have discriminated against the interests of those seeking higher education fly in the face of reality. The reality is that, when the government changed in March 1996, only 15 per cent of students in higher education institutions in this country came from the bottom 25 per cent of income earning households. By contrast, 30 per cent came from the top 25 per cent of income earning households—with an average income then of $84,000 a year. Whatever one's definition of social justice is, I would not consider that to be my definition of it. In other words, whatever the previous government was doing to try to deliver equitable social outcomes, it was not succeeding. In other words, the taxes of blue-collar workers throughout the country were being used to fund the education principally of people who come, in many instances, from electorates like the one I am privileged to represent.In some cases, if not many, teaching and learning in formal education took place outside the context of real life situations, activities and problems. It is essential in my view that both higher education and in particular vocational education and training take place in the context of their application. The pathways from school to university under the previous government for vocational education and training were frequently disjointed. The Dusseldorf Foundation, for example, in March last year when it published its report, Australia's youth—reality and risk, pointed out a few facts which might provide some discomfort to the Labor members of the House. It said:We need to move from youth management to youth development.It identified marginalised young people as being the unemployed, those who are not in the labour force or not studying and those who are in precarious part-time employment. It identified the need in particular to address the problems of early school leavers. It also argued for an increased emphasis on schools to industry programs, as a consequence of which we now have the Jobs Pathway Program, which is a schools-industry partnership program, and schools, in many instances, acting as brokers. For example, $12 million was made available to them for the Jobs Pathway Program.The Dusseldorf Foundation identified that, in 1999, this year, 15 per cent—or 187,000—15- to 19-year-olds were neither in part-time work nor in education. Of these, 70 per cent had not completed year 12. For every young person looking for work, at least one was locked into marginal activities fairly consistently for up to three years. By age 19 there had been no higher education or vocational education and training undertaken by those who had been unemployed for, in many cases, at least one-third of the time since leaving school. The report went on to say:The key indicators for young people in leaving work during the 1990s either show no improvement or deterioration.In fact, the key indicators for young people in learning and work during the early to mid-1990s show either no improvement or, as I say, deterioration. Youth unemployment in 1996 was no lower in real terms than it was at the beginning of the decade. Year 10 retention rates had fallen below 1990 levels. Year 11 was below the 1991 level and year 12 had fallen to the 1991 level. Those not completing year 12 were identified as being more likely to enter part-time work unlinked to study than year 12 leavers. That essentially is the picture with which the Howard government was presented in March 1996.One of the assertions made by the member for Dobell is that enrolments in higher education are declining. Since the introduction of HECs by the Labor government in 1988, the number of enrolments in higher education in Australia has almost doubled. If there has been any slowing in the rate of application for higher education positions in Australia, it owes more to the substantially increased funding made available for new apprentice ships and traineeships under this government and to programs which enable people to undertake vocational education and training as distinct from pursuing higher education and a degree. As I said earlier, young people were studying for degrees when, in their hearts, they were uncertain about whether they would have a job when they were finished and whether the degree was relevant to their personal interests.Some of the other points need to be refuted. Firstly, in this budget this year—1999-2000—the government is committing over $11 billion per annum over the forward estimates for education and training. The budget saw an increased funding of $870 million for education over the next four years. This budget of over $11 billion includes approximately $5 billion for schooling, $4.2 billion for universities and $1.6 billion for vocational education and training at TAFE and through private providers. This year, direct Commonwealth funding to government schools has increased by 6.8 per cent or $115 million over the previous year.The point that is lost in the debate, if you can describe it as debate, between the opposition and the Howard government on funding for public schools is that they are called state schools traditionally because they are funded by state governments. The Commonwealth government is not the primary funder of public schools; it is state governments. From memory, I think only 12 per cent of state school funding actually comes from the Commonwealth, but that proportion that is provided by the Commonwealth increased this year by 6.8 per cent. The government has also undertaken reforms to raise literacy and numeracy standards in the early years of school, extending it to secondary level with additional funding of $130 million over the next four years for early and middle years. Therein lies another point that ought to be made. I see that a recent survey found that those who purport to represent the interests of parents in state schools, or public schools, are actually out of step with the people they purport to represent, that over half of the parents surveyed actually disagreed with the policies being espoused by those representing P&F representative organisations.Australia's students and teachers are going to benefit from $77 million in the quality teacher program over three years to update teacher skills. And so on it goes. In terms of universities, there is another $93.3 million increase over the previous forward estimates, bringing funding to a total of $288 million over three years, and strategic partnerships with industry research and training grants will be allocated another almost $60 million funding to forge stronger links between industry and universities, bringing it to $162 million over three years.One of the other points that I think ought to be made which is perhaps more of a philosophical nature is that in undertaking these reforms, in abolishing the National Board of Employment, Education and Training and undertaking the other reforms which are included in this bill, we need to reflect upon what is actually the purpose of education. One of the debates that we have not really had is whether education increasingly should be seen to take on a purely utilitarian view or whether on the other hand education should be about learning for life, about education itself. One of the concerns I have is that, increasingly, young people are pursuing training as distinct from education. I say that as a person who was trained as distinct from educated. One of the most compelling speeches that I have read on this was given, not surprisingly perhaps, by Professor David Penington to the Melbourne Winter Conversazione for 1995. I will just quote a couple of things from that address. He said:The rapid changes that are occurring in the world of work mean that vocational education must increasingly be accompanied by general education. Otherwise, graduates will be trained in skills which will fast disappear and they will be left with little capacity for adaptation and change.He went on to say:Control of education to an undue degree by central government in terms of detailed prescriptions of a uniform kind, whether these be national curriculum frameworks or uniform indicators of performance for all institutions of higher education, carries profound dangers. Unless the diversity of human potential is recognised and adequately catered for, not only will individual young people be the losers but the future development of society itself will also suffer.It is time for countries such as our own to rethink their approaches to education in order to achieve what he described as the proud Confucian tradition of Asian nations in respect for teachers and for education. If we do not, he warned, we could be left far behind. I speak strongly in support of this bill. It is a move in the right direction. It reduces complexity of administration and increases consultation.17:18:008275Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—In talking this afternoon to the Employment, Education and Training Amendment Bill 1999 , it is my view that the bill is about accountability, independent advice and a judgment made on the importance of public debate. I say that because of the close link between those who do poorly in education, those who do poorly in the labour market and the one in nine Australians who live in poverty. These very facts make it clear that governments do not have all the solutions. This is precisely why they need independent advice.It is for that reason that the shadow minister for education, the member for Dobell, moved a second reading amendment this afternoon. It raises some fundamental issues. I specifically refer, firstly, to acknowledgment by this side of the House that in our opinion education and training are of fundamental importance to Australia's social and economic wellbeing. That is why we have a view, as we move forward to a new century, that the debate ought to be about Australia being a knowledge based society, one that fundamentally acknowledges and supports and invests in our future as a leading nation which regards education and training as being of paramount importance. We then go on to make this important commitment—if anything a reaffirmation of what the Australian Labor Party committed itself to in the lead-up to the last election. This commitment is set out in point (5) of the second reading amendment moved by the shadow minister. It states that when returned to government we will re-establish a structure to provide independent cross-sectoral advice on education and training.It is for that very reason that today I want to discuss the sort of work that some of these groups have undertaken in the past and why it is so important for the Australian community that there ought to be a source of independent advice on such a fundamental issue as education and training. I want to also suggest that the government may have a particular interest in doing these organisations over. When you look across the range of portfolios that exist under the current government, you see this is not the only source of independent advice that previously existed that the government has gone out of its way to undermine, to white-ant and to remove. I believe politicians ought to acknowledge that they do not have all the solutions, that there is a case for independent advice, and that, if anything, the best policy actually comes from debate and a willingness by independent public servants and a network of organisations that offer that independent advice to actually challenge you on the policy front. That is what I believe the organisations that are being abolished by this bill actually sought to do in days gone by.Mr Deputy Speaker, as you, I and the Australian community know, Australia's No. 1 economic and social problem is unemployment. That is intimately linked to the debate this afternoon. The budget and the $20 million squandered on buying the GST make it clear that it is not the government's priority, but that does not change the reality. The fact is that unemployment is the biggest economic and social problem we face and, despite what the Treasurer and the Prime Minister would have had us believe in question time today, we have not made enough progress. Yes, unemployment today stands at 7.2 per cent, but the Prime Minister failed to mention to the House today that, since the current government was elected in March 1996, the participation rate in Australia has actually fallen by almost one per cent. That has been a major factor in reducing the unemployment rate in Australia.The Prime Minister also failed to acknowledge, when he talked about the strength of the Australian economy today, that he in actual fact inherited a very strong economy. I read with interest a speech by the Prime Minister at a function in Newcastle, just a couple of Fridays ago, about some very famous Newcastle identities, one of whom was a fellow by the name of Maurie Rudd, a leading trade union official in Newcastle and a major representative of iron workers involved in the steel industry and related industries. On reading that speech, I found an acknowledgment by the Prime Minister that 18 months ago he was not sure or confident that the Australian economy would weather the Asian storm but that he was pleased that we had weathered the Asian storm.The reason we have weathered the Asian storm, despite some mismanagement by this government and the fact that it slashed and burned in its first couple of budgets and made it far more difficult for us to perform, is that this government actually did inherit a very strong economy. The fundamental changes were made in the 13 years prior to 1996. The major changes that went to make a modern-looking economy, which included significant investment in education and training, were what the Prime Minister inherited.For that very reason, when we talk about the issue of unemployment, we should also face up to the facts. Yes, we have 7.2 per cent unemployment at the moment and, yes, the participation rate has actually fallen by almost one per cent since March 1996, but more importantly—and this is of fundamental importance—on the basis of the economy that the Prime Minister inherited we should be talking about an unemployment rate of five per cent or a little bit more at this time.It is interesting to acknowledge that was not only the view of this side of the House after the 1996 election but also the independent view of the Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs which at that time—despite an endeavour by the minister to suggest that five per cent could not be achieved—acknowledged very publicly that we were on target to achieve an unemployment rate of five per cent. So when we talk about the issue of education and training it is important that we associate with it the question of how we perform as a nation, whether or not the economy is functioning well and whether or not we are actually making enough progress on the employment front.To us on this side of the House, that is important when we are talking about these issues, because we believe that the issue of education and training or lack thereof is the single biggest cause of poverty and material hardship. But, even more than this, it is important because it can give to or deny people, our fellow citizens, a crucial means of self-worth and personal dignity. That is what one's fundamental achievement on the education and training front is about, because one's achievement on that front also determines to a large extent one's opportunity in life. It determines the nature of the job that one might be able to achieve and also one's capacity, in a rapidly changing economy, to maintain a reasonable level of employability.That is what the new debate is about. It is not about the sense of security that previously existed in many jobs because of the nature of employment that existed in a range of different industries in days gone by. The new debate is about knowledge. It is about investment in education and training, which is fundamentally linked to one's employability over one's working life. That is why, in this context, we must always be willing to ensure that we are challenged by independent advice—from organisations such as those that will be abolished by this bill—to make sure that we get it right on the education and training front. We must do that so we get it right when it comes to ensuring that we do our best to ensure that throughout people's working lives they have a capacity to maintain decent employment opportunities because we have invested in a fundamental way in their employability.Mr Deputy Speaker, you—and especially those on the other side of the House—might wonder why we so significantly relate this issue to the question of unemployment. The unemployment problem is not a simple one. It goes to a number of issues. One of the most consistent relationships that you will find over time is that between educational outcomes and the chances of unemployment. The Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business has said that he is not interested in new and creative solutions to unemployment. I am pleased to say that the Labor Party is, always has been and always will be interested in creative solutions to reduce unemployment in Australia.That is why we want a debate about ideas. We do not want, as the Minister for Employment Services would have it, name calling and pointing the finger at the unemployed and those in depressed suburbs or regions who actually find it very difficult to get a job at this point in time. It should be a debate about ideas, not about name calling and pointing the figure. That is why, when we listen to what the community has to say, we understand that the analysis, the questions and the debate come before the answers. That is where some of the research by NBEET and the Schools Council in particular fits in. Their work, I believe, is an important part of the broader literature on the link between educational and labour market disadvantage. That is what it is about when you talk about employability. That is what it is about when you talk about someone's self-worth and someone's capacity to get a decent life through a capacity to get a job. It is about overcoming educational and labour market disadvantage.What this research shows is that those who struggle in the labour market are those who have struggled in the education system. And it even goes beyond this. We must ask why people struggle in education. Not surprisingly, one finds that outcomes in education are largely driven by individual environments. Parents, peers and other personal and social support networks all affect educational outcomes in a fundamental way. Ultimately, it is these educational outcomes that largely determine labour market prospects.NBEET and the Schools Council have played their part in this debate. The Labor Party in government did not always like the advice of these organisations, but we were prepared to at least be challenged and to consider their independent advice. That is what the strength of government and leadership is about: acknowledging that you are open to debate and new ideas. It is therefore disillusioning that people charged with public responsibilities—as are this Prime Minister and minister for education—want to shy away from such a debate. Why is the government so scared of this debate? Why is it so keen to silence these organisations? Clearly, it is because the government does not think it needs independent advice. It thinks that a narrow ideology will deliver the real world explanations and solutions. Is it because these organisations are committed to decent principles of social justice, and the coalition has as much faith in the word `social' as it does in the words `union' and `collective'? Of course it is hard to believe in social justice if you think there is no such thing as society or a sense of community.This Howard government wants to silence these organisations because when these organisations look at the facts and analyse the evidence they come to conclusions that shake the coalition government right to its philosophical roots. They spell it out: society is more than the sum of its individuals. The truth is that our environments matter; our educational opportunities matter; where we live matters; what types of jobs our parents have matter; and what industries exist in our regions or our suburbs matter. You need the facts and the independent advice to actually work out the solutions to overcome those barriers that are getting worse in the Australian community. The gap between those who have and those who do not have is actually widening because of the inability of this government to admit that there is a need for further action and for new solutions.The fact that we depend on others and that others depend on us is more than the starting assumption needed for us to develop practical solutions. It is the very basis of a just society. What the government must understand is that incorporating a social dimension makes the policy development task much more difficult, and it is easier to ignore it. To actually incorporate the social dimension is a challenge to those in government.When experts analyse a problem and find that the explanations for poor educational and labour market outcomes are complex, you must begin to acknowledge that simple solutions are not enough. Broader acceptance of the fact that solutions to unemployment must take into account the influence of schools, families and communities—the support systems that surround us every day of our lives—would be a critical step forward in the government's approach. It is unfortunate that this government is not prepared to acknowledge the importance of support systems, for when narrow individualism is all you have you continue to tear at the nation's social fabric. This is evident to all but those who are not prepared to look.The fact that today we have 680,000 people unemployed—and that is an understatement of the problem—suggests that governments have failed to appreciate this. That is why Labor is committed to a comprehensive approach to improving educational outcomes and reducing unemployment. Complex problems require solutions that are well thought out and subject to independent scrutiny. On this side of the House, we welcome that scrutiny. In developing solutions we must recognise the links between economic outcomes and the social context. We must recognise how the education system affects the labour market, and we must have the research that tells us what is going on, not just our own view but independent research at arms-length to government. We need research that is factually based and capable of challenging the government about new solutions. We must all recognise the vital role that education plays in shaping our individual and collective futures. Labor is clearly prepared to listen to independent advice on these issues; the coalition government is not.As shadow minister for employment and training, I am interested in whatever the facts, analysis and independent advice throw up. Labor is interested in and committed to developing real and workable solutions. Compare that approach with the coalition's approach to this bill. The bill, in truth, puts the nail into the coffin of these institutions that were exceptionally important in providing independent advice to government. The truth is that the government buried them long ago by gutting them of resources. In a democratic society neither the facts nor different opinions, especially when they are informed opinions, are dangerous. We should cherish such an approach to government.If we choose to, we can listen to each other, learn from each other and seek to understand each other. It is unfortunate when a government fundamentally misunderstands what education, knowledge and the pursuit of understanding can do for us. When governments discard independent advice they discard the accountability that is central to our political system. It is the sort of action that too often lets this government masquerade social injustice as mere misfortune. It is the sort of theme unfortunately pursued all too often by representatives of this government's front bench as they walk away from real debate and from an endeavour to engage the Australian community in a debate about finding real solutions.I simply suggest in conclusion that Australia deserves better than this bill. Australia wants to and should be a knowledge based society—a society that is prepared to be challenged and a society that expects that in government we support independent advice and challenges to our ideas. This bill continues the government's process of ripping out any sense of independence of the Australian Public Service. The government is gutting it. They put political clowns in key positions as secretaries to departments and then dismiss them willy-nilly if they do not like their advice. When it comes to engaging others in the broader community—parents or unions or community organisations or representatives of educational institutions—the government says, `No, we are not interested in your advice; we know better. After all, we've got a minister for education, Dr Kemp, who can write a book.' He has written a book, but he is not prepared to think about independent advice and to be challenged.I challenge the government to revisit today's bill—to reaffirm independence of government and the need for independent advice and analysis. The Labor Party again gives that commitment. On re-election, we will re-establish a structure to provide independent cross-sectoral advice on education and training. The Australian community deserves that.17:38:008279Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—I rise to speak on the Employment, Education and Training Amendment Bill 1999 . I could not agree more with the shadow minister that education and training are very important. Unfortunately, though, Labor's results with regard to unemployment give a lie to this assertion. I simply cannot believe that the shadow minister opposite is criticising the 7.2 per cent level of unemployment that the coalition has been able to achieve. The Labor Party in government were responsible for the highest postwar level of unemployment of 11.2 per cent. The member for Batman said we should be looking at five per cent. Along with `the cheque is in the mail', another one of those great myths of the 20th century is, `The Labor Party was on target for its 14th year to achieve that.' Fortunately, the Australian people had a say in that and Labor are now enjoying the opposition benches.I will now speak about the bill specifically. In its 1996 policy statement on higher education, the coalition undertook to abolish the National Board of Employment, Education and Training and to establish independent councils to advise the government on higher education and research. This bill marks the beginning of that process. That policy entitled `Quality, Diversity and Choice' recognised that the existing administrative structure of advisory boards introduced by the Hawke Labor government in 1988 was cumbersome, unwieldy and not attuned to the policy directions of the coalition. Under the Labor Party structure, which this bill seeks to abolish and replace, the Australian Language and Literacy Council, the Australian Research Council, the Employment and Skills Council, the Higher Education Council and the Schools Council all reported to the minister via the national board.While superficially this may have seemed a good idea inasmuch as it provided the minister with some sort of grandiose plan and big picture strategy, it was a recipe for dissension and pettiness, as the various interests and causes felt that their arguments, recommendations and perspectives were being filtered by the overarching national board. There was, as there is now, a feeling that the national board exercised too much power and influence in recommending preferred priorities to the minister and the government. As the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs made clear when introducing this bill, the coalition has a policy of ensuring that policy advice from all of the key areas flows directly to the minister. The need for a board which filters this advice is obviously redundant.I believe that the education, training and research community will welcome this bill, as it allows them via the new structure to present their views directly to the minister and the government. This represents a very significant breakthrough in providing a higher and far more relevant standard of advice for the minister and the government. Thus this bill will abolish the national board, the Australian Language and Literacy Council, the Employment and Skills Council, the Schools Council and the Higher Education Council. The Australian Research Council will continue to be an independent council reporting directly to the minister. It is the government's intention to create more independent councils which will report directly to the minister, and this bill flags that future creation. The Australian Research Council will continue with its membership unchanged and will report annually to the minister on its operations. That report will be tabled.The minister and the government are to be congratulated for this move, which not only introduces a new level of accountability and transparency but cuts the stifling and divisive red-tape procedures of the national board established by Labor. Members of the new councils will be able to more clearly focus on their relevant responsibilities and not be distracted by unwanted intrusions, censorship and potential direct meddling by the national board.While the coalition's policy document was entitled `Quality, Diversity and Choice', it also included the notion of flexibility in obtaining that advice. We can only wonder why Labor did not want specialist advisory bodies to report directly to the minister when a critical aspect of formulating policy is an uncensored and vigorous public debate.Under the coalition's policy, to encourage this healthy open philosophy there will be the flexibility to establish expert ad hoc task forces to advise on specific issues as they arise, and of course there are the many existing representative bodies which can and will give the government advice on issues previously covered by the national board and the four councils which are to be abolished.It is appropriate, within the general policy context that this bill partially addresses, to consider the greater matter of diversity and choice in education. Australian parents are increasingly adopting a marketplace ideology and are shopping around before choosing their children's schools. They are making decisions about choice not only between school sectors—government or non-government—but also within sectors as states abandon government school zoning.Of non-government schools, religious affiliation is most often the overriding consideration for school choice. Other considerations are whether the school is co-educational or single sex and the travelling distance from the family home. Smaller school sizes are also an attraction, with growing evidence that many problems of students in schools are less acute in smaller schools. Other criteria include a school's academic performance and discipline policy.The coalition government has been a staunch supporter of the right of Australian parents to choose the most appropriate schooling for their child. Educational choice is seen by the government as the capacity of parents to choose between schools in the government sector or to select and/or establish a non-government school. The government's abolition of the new schools policy—or, as it is more commonly known, the no schools policy—which placed restrictions on the establishment of new non-government schools, was the first demonstration of the coalition government's commitment to supporting freedom of educational choice. The new model of funding non-government schools is another step, with one of its stated goals to give low income families greater access to the school of their choice.In the ministerial statement launching the new funding model for non-government schools, Dr Kemp stated:Parental choice has prompted quality in schooling, and ensures that Australian children receive an education which reflects the values of their community. Non-government schools are a living reflection of the breadth of our community.As early as 1973, the Interim Committee for the Australian Schools Commission, in its landmark report, Schools in Australia —known as the Karmel Report—acknowledged the value of diversity and high standards that it saw present in non-government schools. It also supported the right of parents to educate their children outside the government school sector. Since the publication of this report, research and official government statistics have continually reinforced the perception that students from non-government schools have better educational outcomes than students from government schools. According to a report released in March this year in the Australian School Monitor , non-Catholic private schools increase a student's chance of graduating from secondary school by 21 per cent and from university by seven per cent. The raw data from that study shows that 36 per cent of government school students graduate from year 12 compared with 68 per cent of non-Catholic private school students, and 31 per cent of the latter complete university compared with 12 per cent of government school students. Results from the 1996 National Schools English Literacy Survey, reported by the Sydney Catholic Archdiocese, point to similar outcomes for primary school students, with Catholic school students performing above the national average.It would be remiss of me not to say at this opportune time that the Catholic Education Office in Rockhampton, which also services my area of Mackay, have asked me to pass on their heartfelt thanks for the support the federal government has given to their schools. They wanted me to personally thank the Prime Minister for the outstanding support that the coalition has given to Catholic schools in my area. Many of those Catholic schools are in needy areas and parents are not able to give the support that parents in other areas are able to give. The increased federal funding has been of significant assistance to those schools.Some argue that the new diversity in educational choice, with 146 new non-government schools approved for Commonwealth funding in 1997 and 1998, is a threat to Australia's social cohesion and egalitarian tradition. Counters to these concerns include the acceptance and consideration of the multicultural composition of Australian society and a reflection of a system responsive to the concerns and demands of parents.It certainly seems that outcomes achieved by state schools across Australia are behind those achieved by the private and Catholic school sectors. Nobody is suggesting that this is because the brightest and best students have abandoned the state school system; nor, as I have said, is it a matter of socioeconomic disadvantage, since many of the Catholic Church schools choose the most needy areas in which to set up their schools.Retention rates for students in the non-state sector are consistently higher. In 1998, across the nation government schools achieved a 65.7 per cent retention rate to year 12 while the non-state sector had a rate of 84.8 per cent. The fall-off in retention rates occurs in years 11 and 12, the two critical years that really determine a student's career path and direction if higher education is to be an option. At the end of year 10 the retention rates for both systems were above 95 per cent, but the slump in the rates for the state system after that grade was appalling.On the general subject of retention rates, there has been a steady decline since 1992 when an impressive 77.1 per cent of all students stayed to year 12. In the three following years—1993, 1994 and 1995—there was a very worrying fall to 72.2 per cent. This decline happened at a time when the percentage of school-age children at government schools declined.Clearly, parents are opting for the non-government sector if and when they can afford it. It is no secret that Labor Party members, who champion the cause of the state system both in and out of parliament, do not wait a second to enrol their children in non-government schools when their income permits it. I recall that recently the Premier of Queensland, the Hon. Peter Beattie, was asked where his children attended school. Significantly, he declined to answer the question. However, I am charitable and see this as a manifestation of a strongly emerging trend by parents across the spectrum to send their children to schools that provide the best opportunities. I would like to say at this juncture, in defence of state schools, that they take all comers. Every student is accepted and that needs to be taken into account when looking at the results and outcomes they achieve. This does not mean that there are not state schools and teachers who work with professionalism and enthusiasm to equip their students for life. There are certainly many outstanding examples of this, but nationally the results are disappointing.In 1996, there were 9,630 geographically isolated schools in Australia, both primary and secondary, which were eligible for funding under the Commonwealth's Country Areas Program, known as CAP. States face greater difficulties in staffing isolated schools than in staffing schools in capital cities or other urban areas. Student participation in education in isolated areas often requires additional time, effort and commitment on the part of students and their families than would generally be the case in an urban community.Generally across Australia, secondary school completion rates have been lower in rural areas than in metropolitan areas. In the 1980s there was roughly a 10 per cent difference in year 12 completion rates between urban and rural students. By 1994 the difference in completion rates between urban and rural female students remained the same, but the recent national decline in school completion rates has been far greater for boys in rural areas than for those living in the city.Rural students are also underrepresented in higher education. In 1996, their share of student enrolments was around 18 per cent. Rural students' share of commencing enrolments has declined steadily since 1991 when it was 19.6 per cent. Students from isolated areas comprised only 2.1 per cent of com mencing students in 1996. The limitations of post-school options for geographically isolated students has been reported by a number of states, with decreasing local options for employment and limited options for post-secondary education without moving to a capital city or other large urban centre being the major concerns. The lack of post-school options is also seen as contributing to the decreasing number of senior secondary students.These concerns were reinforced by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission report, Bush Talks, released earlier this year. It reported that rural drop-out rates were double those in the city and that the percentage of rural young people taking up tertiary studies was continuing to decline. For those of us who believe in rural and regional Australia, this is very disappointing news, as is the lack of opportunities for young people in areas outside the metropolitan cities. Government needs to address this most serious matter and ensure that students from rural areas are given every possible encouragement to continue their education. As our minister, though, has started, I have no doubt that he will finish. The bill that is before the House is one that I commend and support.17:54:008282Gillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD83LLalorALP00—As the recent budget made clear, this government's vision for education is limited to cutbacks and to punishment. A quick look at the last budget confirms that this is the case. Government school kids were punished and given a paltry $10 extra per year while their private school counterparts received $210 extra per year—$10 for 70 per cent of school kids and a favoured 30 per cent get $210. Universities received less for teaching, and the government's own university equity scholarships were scrapped. TAFE, the sector on which we fundamentally depend for the provision of lifelong learning opportunities, received no growth funding at all. The key to our future competitiveness—research and innovation—was dealt a blow, and its share of GDP will fall from 0.78 per cent in 1995-96 to 0.63 per cent in 1999-2000.But you do not have to actually take the word of the opposition—the word of our side of politics—to expose this government's and this minister's lack of vision on the question of education policy. Indeed, as referred to in question time today, one of his principal critics is the Liberal Minister for Education in Victoria, Mr Phil Gude, who has said about the performance of the federal Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, amongst other things:Literacy is our highest priority and, despite Dr Kemp undermining the previous collaborative process, we are determined this important process goes ahead.And:He ought to do the right thing . . . own up to the fact that he's manipulated the figures in a most dishonest and disgraceful fashion.He has also said:It is a debate that has hit the public arena as a result of political grandstanding by Dr Kemp.Education policy under this government is not about vision. But despite its lack of vision for education, this government does have an agenda for education: to give the minister an unfettered ability to punish and to blame anyone and everyone except himself and this government for the problems in the education system.This minister knows that he does not have any answers, but he wants to make absolutely sure that he and he alone gets to pick the scapegoat for the problem. Today it might be the teachers unions, tomorrow it might be the student unions or, even more fashionably according to yesterday's newspapers, it might be the so-called poorly performing schools. The minister wants to be able to do that free of the scrutiny of independent and expert advisory bodies. He wants to be able to do that without being subject to criticism from those with the credentials to proffer intelligent and perceptive criticisms. When you do not have a vision for education, what you absolutely do not want is independent expert advisory bodies blowing the whistle on you and letting people know that you do not have that vision.Indeed, at base, that is the purpose of the Employment Education and Training Amendment Bill 1999. This legislation is about ensuring that those bodies, which could expose by their advice and their reports the huge holes in this government's approach to education, do not exist anymore. Stripped to its essence, this legislation is about burying the able representative bodies this government has, in effect, already killed. This legislation is really about burying the corpses of those bodies which have already been killed by executive action—by stopping funds and appointments.There is no other justification for this legislation. One can read the minister's second reading speech time and time again—it does not take very long to read; it is a nice short one—and not find any real justification for this legislation. That is because the justification that really underpins this legislation is something that he would not want to put on as public a record as Hansard. The real purpose of this legislation is to silence critics and to silence possible sources of alternate advice.So how does the legislation go about that process? This bill abolishes the National Board of Employment, Education and Training—commonly known as NBEET—and its councils. It does maintain—and at least this is one point of merit in the bill—the Australian Research Council. But, in abolishing NBEET and its councils, this bill overturns a 40-year tradition of having in this country independent and authoritative bodies in the education area from which to draw advice; that is—if I might put it like this—a conservative tradition, one started off by a conservative government and which ranged over 40 years. This bill basically gets rid of 40 years of independent and authoritative advice.What could be a justification for that? I guess a justification for that could be that the government had looked at NBEET and its councils and said to itself, `They're not doing their job.' That could be a justification for this legislation. But when you turn to the facts and actually look at them, does that justification ring true? Does it hold up? I do not think so. I do not think the facts support any claim that NBEET or its councils were not doing their job. In dealing with this point, I turn to the 1994 Wiltshire review of NBEET which found: The actual record of NBEET, in terms of measurable output, has been impressive by any yardstick.The review goes on to state:There would be few comparable research organisations in the country which could match the NBEET productivity/equality record.The Wiltshire review also provided us with numerous examples of NBEET's work which has been recognised externally as having a significant impact on the education debate in this country and on education policy. I turn briefly to some of those quality publications and reports which have been generated by NBEET and its councils. From the Higher Education Council, which up until this bill reported annually on the impact of the higher education scheme, we had the document Achieving quality (in higher education). From the Schools Council, which was charged with the responsibility of advising on primary and secondary education, we had the document Australia's teachers—an agenda for the next decade. From the Employment and Skills Formation Council, which advises on matters relating to TAFE and employment, we had the document The Australian vocational certificate training system. From NBEET itself we had the document Fitting the need which highlighted the need to address the `big picture' resource issues across all education sectors.So the government is completely unable to maintain the claim that NBEET's demise has anything to do with a failure on its part. On the contrary, the government is fully aware of this fact and has instead adopted a strategy of death by starvation and has simply refused to appoint new members to NBEET and its councils. What is almost wearying about this process is that we have been down this path before. The government tried to go down this path in 1996. It tried then to abolish NBEET and it presented a bill to this House in order to do so.It should be noted that the bill we are dealing with today contains a worse proposition than the 1996 legislation. In the 1996 proposal the government was going to keep the Higher Education Council. That was used among the education constituency and community, which ought to include all of us, as a central selling point for the government's claim that accountability and independence would not be eroded. In the bill before us, the Higher Education Council, which was the primary source of advice under NBEET on general higher education issues, is also to be tossed aside. It is to be thrown on the scrap heap along with the other councils deemed to be no longer relevant to the government's agenda and from which the government does not want to see scrutiny, proposals and expert independent advice.In 1996, the bill that was introduced in this House was the subject of a Senate inquiry. Specifically, the Senate Employment, Education and Training Legislation Committee inquired into the Employment, Education and Training Amendment Bill 1996 as it was then proposed. It is worthwhile recapping some of the principal findings of that Senate inquiry because the committee's very perceptive comments apply to the bill before the House today. The Senate committee found that the `overall thrust of the evidence received by the committee'—that is, the Senate committee—`argued for the importance of portfolio advisory mechanisms being independent and publicly accountable.' Further, the committee found that `the requirement for independence ensured that government departments and agencies did not monopolise the advice available to the minister.' That is, the minister would have the benefit, when making very important decisions, of very diverse advice from diverse communities; the minister would not be captive to the bureaucracy or to narrow sections of advisory structures. Instead, the minister would have available a full range of advice.Indeed, taking that imperative to get the fullest and most comprehensive advice, the Senate committee recommended that the reports arising from whatever advisory structure eventuated be tabled in the parliament within 15 days of their receipt by the minister, so that advice could be available to parliament generally. So concerned was the Senate committee about the implications of the government agenda as it then was in 1996 that the committee went further and suggested that any future alternate advisory framework be expedited to fill the void left by the abolition of NBEET. It was basically saying, `If you are going to do away with this advisory structure, make sure that you put something else in its place as soon as possible. Don't leave yourself, as a minister, as a government, without the wider sources of advice, without independent sources of advice, without authoritative sources of advice.' In 1996, the government did not in any way outline what, if any, alternate structure was proposed had that bill gone through. In today's circumstances, where we are dealing with this bill as it is presented to this House, that same criticism remains as strong today as it was in 1996—and that is, what next, what else, where to from here, where are we going to go? All those questions remain unanswered.The submissions before the Senate committee also focused on the important cross-sectoral role played by NBEET. Independent of government, independent of lobbyists, NBEET could consider the implication of advice to the minister across all sectors. It could synthesise and balance out competing claims from the various constituencies and sectors in education. As we are all aware, the education system in this country—dealing as it does with the education of our very youngest children right through to the adult education sector, our university sector and our drive to create lifelong learning opportunities—is such a complex sector, with its many parts, that it is obviously going to provide advice to a minister from its various bits. There needs to be a balancing out, an overall view. If you are going to get an authoritative view, you really need to be considering what each sector is saying, how the sectors relate to each other and what is best for the sector overall. That is, of course, a principal role that NBEET has played in advising government. Yet, despite the Senate committee's focus on that as an issue, the government has studiously ignored the impact of the single coordinated framework for advice on employment, education, training and research policies and programs.The Senate inquiry also highlighted concerns over the shift to a greater reliance on departmental advice, not only because the department has a very specific role in terms of delivering government policy but also because it has difficulty—again, I quote the Senate committee—`gaining cooperation from the full range of agencies from which the department itself sought information in order to monitor implementation of policies and initiatives'. So there was an issue about gaining the best possible cooperation across the sector.Examples of the need to keep yourself as close as possible to the sector and of the role that an advisory structure like NBEET and its councils can play—the role that is already lacking because, in effect, NBEET and its councils have been killed by slow starvation—have already been provided by Leigh Tobrett, the Director of the Office of Higher Education in the Queensland Department of Education. It concerns the issue of the government's approach to the overenrolment of universities last year.The government—abstracted as it is from the day-to-day process of the higher education sector here in Canberra, not out there at a university actually dealing with the day-to-day process—claimed when the overenrolment issue came to light that `universities were poor at managing their enrolment processes, had strategically overenrolled to get their hands on the subsidy for overenrolment offered for the first time by the government, and that it was a sign that the sector was overfunded'. This is what we were told by someone who was on the ground or in better touch with the on-the-ground issues than this government:A quick reality check with the sector would have developed another view on that issue, and save the Minister an irritated and hostile response from the sector which in the long run is bad for both parties. That over-enrolment was an outcome of a genuine concern about the punitive action if targets were not met, at a time when the impact of second semester enrolments was still being tested, and planned resource cuts of around 17 per cent loomed large on the horizon.That is a small example—not an unimportant example—of the type of problem happening out there on the ground in the education sector—the distance between what is happening out there and what government can build. It is that kind of distance that NBEET and its councils—independent as they were, cross-sectoral as they were, expert as they were—helped to bridge. By starving NBEET and its councils to death, the government has put itself in the position—it certainly will be post the passage of this bill—where there is no effective structure to bridge that gap.Anybody who looks at it closely would have to conclude that that is very bad public policy which is not going to drive our education sector forward in the way that we as a community would like to see it go forward, given how convinced I think Australians are of the fundamental and pivotal role played by education in our society and increasingly played as we work within a more globalised economic setting.To summarise what is wrong with this bill and why it is bad public policy, let us again count through the points. It is bad public policy because, firstly, we need quality literature in the area of education and a source of that will be lost without NBEET and its councils. We need quality, authoritative reports. We will not have them. Secondly, we need independent bodies—independent of government and the bureaucracy—to be analysing the sector and providing advice upon it. Thirdly, we need cross-sectoral bodies, bodies that are across the complexity and breadth of the education sector, can look at all of its parts and also, very importantly, can look at the whole. Fourthly, we need expert bodies which are close to the ground, in touch with the education community, the education constituency, reporting on the problems, needs and issues as they see them day-to-day as they go about their work.Each of those reasons, I would have thought, would have convinced a government that this bill represents flawed public policy. Unfortunately, we have not convinced the minister of that. As I said at the outset, I think that is because the minister is in the business of centralising to himself all power in relation to the education sector. I suspect the motive for doing that is that he does not want the actions of himself as minister and this government in the education sector to be subject to scrutiny, to balance, to independent oversight and to independent bodies having a look at what he is doing. He wants to be in the blame game. He wants to pick the victims. He wants to tell us what is going wrong and we know for sure that it is never going to be him; it is always going to be someone else. The day after the budget, in its editorial the Australian stated:The poor provision for higher and further education in Tuesday's federal Budget laid bare an incomplete thought process.We can only speculate how bare and incomplete a thought process we are now going to get, given the contents of this bill.18:13:008286Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—The Employment, Education and Training Amendment Bill 1999 seeks to amend the Employment, Education and Training Act 1988, to abolish the National Board of Employment, Education and Training—NBEET—and its subsidiary councils: the Australian Language and Literacy Council, the Employment and Skills Council, the Schools Council and the Higher Education Council. All these councils and NBEET have had a long history of providing quality reports and quality scrutiny and advice to governments. This bill also seeks to amend the act to retain the Australian Research Council, which will report directly to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. At least we can be grateful for the fact that one of these councils is going to survive the minister's assault.This is the Howard government's second attempt to abolish NBEET. The 1996 legislation did not progress through the parliament. The difference between this and the 1996 legislation is that the Higher Education Council is also a casualty of the minister's knife, slicing into the councils that have operated independently in our country, looking at the education, training, skill and employment needs of Australians. We might ask why the minister has gone down the path of deciding to abolish the Higher Education Council when previously he had decided that maybe it did have a role to play and that he would leave it in place. I would like to argue that the reason he is abolishing that council is that he does not like what it is saying. It is the same old story: if you do not like the message, shoot the messenger.The 1992 report looked at the impact of the government's HECS policies in 1991 and it showed that there was no impact on socially disadvantaged students. Unfortunately, the 1997 report was not quite as convincing in what it had to say. It indicated that government policies were impacting on socially disadvantaged students. There had been a drop in enrolments and, generally speaking, all the indicators that were in place showed that this government's policy was attacking those people who needed the most support to be able to attend university and gain an education, to be put on the same footing as other students who came from a more socially advantaged background. The 1998 report, which was looking at this issue in a little bit more depth, has been lost. Where it is no-one knows. Hopefully it will turn up, but I suspect it will not turn up whilst this government is in power.The Howard government has really had a vendetta against universities and those students who are not socially advantaged. They have cut the operational grants to universities and they have reduced the HECS repayment threshold. Even the changes that they have made in the area of youth allowance have impacted on students attending university. I have a son and daughter who both go to university, and I have only to listen to them and their friends talking. They worry about the huge debt they are incurring. They know that the policies that this government has put in place are affecting their ability to obtain education. A number of their friends whose parents are unable to support them have had to leave university and get jobs. Some of them are able to attend on a part-time basis, but overall this government's policies are biting and affect the most disadvantaged students.I think their policies are having the effect that the government want; they are making sure that it is only those people who have money, who are wealthy, the so-called elite—their friends—are the ones who can access university education. Even before the last election, when I was out doorknocking I came across a young woman who complained bitterly to me about the way she was having to pay back many thousands of dollars because of the changes this government had made to the HECS repayment threshold.University education should be there for everyone. It should not be there only for the wealthy and the elite. It should be something that ordinary Australians and ordinary Australians students who attend public school can access. I really do not believe that is the case with this government. The Howard government's 1999 education budget directed dollars to students attending private schools. They received 21 times more money than public schools. This means that those private schools, particularly those elite private schools, are going to have greater resources. They are going to advantage those students attending those schools: they will have more computers; those students interested in sport will have greater access to elite sporting programs; and all the time the gap between those who are socially advantaged and those who are socially disadvantaged will get bigger and bigger.This is this government's idea of cross-subsidisation: subsidise the wealthy private schools at the expense of the public schools. I have grown up with the concept that you help those people who need assistance, those in greatest need. But this government says, `If you have got money, if you are advantaged, we will give you a bit more.' Students who are attending public schools are disadvantaged by this government's policies. Then they are disadvantaged by the impact of this government's policies when they attend university. Once again, it is making education affordable and accessible only for the wealthy. Abolition of the merit based equity scholarships has been a further step down the path of supporting those who have at the expense of those who have not or those that are more socially disadvantaged.The minister is closed to any new ideas or anything that is different from his own ideas. He has pushed through his ideas relating to student unions and pushed for voluntary student unionism. Even his programs that look at literacy and numeracy are about testing rather than about actually improving the literacy and numeracy skills of students. The minister and, I am afraid, the Prime Minister are both idealogues. They are trapped in the 1950s and they cannot get out. This government is an antieducation government, a government that supports only organisations, groups, boards or councils that support its points of view, its doctrines, its ideology.That is why NBEET was doomed. NBEET was a body that offered independent advice and had independent, new ideas—something this government objects to. You must fit inside the box, you must be philosophically correct, you must lack innovation, you must be controllable. If you are not, you are out, you are cut, you are abolished—it is the end of you. And that is the problem with NBEET and its councils. The councils had community representatives. We all know what this government thinks about community representatives. Its attitude is: `We don't want the community to be involved. We don't want the community to have a say. We don't want any of those ideas to sneak into a report to the government.' Otherwise, it may actually have to look at them or consider them. It wants people it can control. Therefore, what do you do? You abolished the board and its councils.NBEET has been effectively abolished for some time, because this government has failed to appoint new members to it, and it has been retained only in form and not as an operational body. Yesterday we had the republic debate, when once again the government showed that it would not accept the views of anyone that did not agree with it. The Prime Minister was hell-bent on making sure that he presents a question to the Australian people that is in line with his ideas and that provides him with the best opportunity to get the result he wants. He totally ignored the recommendation of a bipartisan committee. Today we have the government introducing legislation to abolish an independent board and independent councils. It is very much the way this government operates. You have to agree with it, you have to follow its ideology, or else you are out. So yesterday it was the report and the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee on the Republic Referendum; today it is NBEET.I support the amendment moved by the shadow minister, who is committed to a whole-of-life cross-sectional approach to education. He recognises the importance of a knowledge and skill based society. We must have a cross-sectional approach to education, training and employment. We live in a changing society where education, training, skills and employment needs are paramount. We are looking at very different types of issues in these areas from those we looked at in the past. We are looking at the need for accreditation, credit transfer and pathways. Even school education is very different from the way it used to be. You have students who are involved in vocational education where part of their schooling is done within the traditional classroom, another part of their education may be done at TAFE and another part of their education may be obtaining skills out in the work force.Our education system, our approach to learning, training and developing skills must be able to encompass this. But I am afraid that this government does not feel that way. That is why it is abolishing the board. That is why it is going to abolish the councils—cost-effective bodies that provided advice to government on education and training for a number of years. The government does not want advice, because it is caught in its ideological warp. Australians are being disadvantaged and left behind because of this government's approach. Governments need independent bodies that can stand back, review policies and make recommendations for new policies and new initiatives. They need to get advice from bodies other than the departments, and they need to get ideas that go outside their own cabinet, their own party room, But this government refuses to do that. You need to look at what works and what does not work. You need to recommend new strategies to meet the needs of our high-tech society. If we do not do that, Australia is going to be left behind. And that is what this government is doing: putting Australia in a position where it will be left behind the rest of the world.Unfortunately, this government is so tightly locked into its ideology and its 1950s view of Australia that it continues to attack those programs that do not match its philosophy. We have seen the Jobskills program go. We have seen changes to apprenticeships that are disadvantaging young Australians. The Jobtrain program, a skill based program that provided training to people in areas that were identified as areas of need, has gone. LEAP, a program that was designed to help young Australians get skills and formal qualifications while getting experience working on the job, has gone. What has it been replaced with? Work for the Dole. It is a narrow approach that is designed to say, `If you are getting any sort of assistance from the government, we want you to go out and work and pay for it.' It is not about getting skills, it is not about getting education and it is not about getting training.This government stands condemned for its failure to deliver the programs that will meet the educational and training needs of Australians, a failure that is leading to a society where Australians lack the skills they need to find employment in a highly technical, knowledge based society. The amendment moved by the shadow minister would assist Australians to meet the challenge of the new millennium—something that John Howard's 1950s style government cannot do and something that attacks on independent bodies like NBEET and its councils will not achieve.Sitting suspended from 6.30 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.Miscellaneous82888288Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—Before I call the member for the Northern Territory, I would like to make a statement to the House. The engineering staff at Parliament House have advised that the AGL gas company main valve serving Parliament House has failed. This has led to a major pressure surge of gas into the building which has damaged a number of internal gas valves. Gas to the building has been turned off. AGL staff are outside the building fixing their equipment and Joint House has called in all plumbing staff to rebuild damaged valves and check all lines. This is a major task.The results are that (1) gas, the main cooking fuel, was not available in the kitchens tonight and (2) as gas is the only heating fuel for the airconditioning system, the building will become progressively cooler during the night and will be quite cold by midnight. All members are assured that everything possible is being done to restore gas to Parliament House as soon as possible but, at the earliest, not before tomorrow morning.Bills8289r7868289Debate resumed.20:01:008289Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—Thank you, Mr Speaker, for that advice. I am sure we will all be rugging up progressively into the evening.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for the Northern Territory need not feel any obligation to add any heat to the argument.IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDON—I will not, but I am pleased that we do not have lots of wooden chairs—we have some, actually—but we need to watch out that there are no bonfires around the place.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I assure you that there is no risk or, of course, the place would have been evacuated.IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDON—I certainly hope so, but you never know.It is well to remind ourselves that the Employment, Education and Training Amendment Bill 1999, which is before us, abolishes the National Board of Employment, Education and Training—NBEET—and four of its five councils. The Australian Research Council will be retained and will report directly to the minister. The issue for us is what this means for education in Australia. The abolition points to a new method of advising the government. It is clear that the government's preoccupation with outcomes has led to the demise of a holistic approach to issues. The replacement is a fragmented model that denies the opportunity for various interests within a policy area to work together to develop a coordinated approach and to reach a consensus of opinion on policy issues.I will refer specifically to the Schools Council. The purpose of the Schools Council was to provide advice and information as requested by the minister, by the national board or on its own initiative on primary and secondary education in Australia. The membership of the council was broadly based, with representation from the government and non-government school sectors, teaching unions, businesses, and community and parent organisations. Abolition of the Schools Council means that no mechanism is now in place to bring together representatives from all the key sectors and organisations with an interest in school education to formulate independent advice to the government reached through a consensus of opinion by all interests.The advice mechanisms the government now has in place are therefore not holistic. They are one-dimensional, fragmented, ad hoc and formulated on an issue-by-issue basis without consideration for the totality of the school education environment. It is worth noting that, in its submission to this year's budget, the organisation so often maligned in this place by the minister—the Australian Education Union—called for the establishment of a schools advisory council as a principal forum to advise both the Commonwealth and state governments on national schooling policy.The demise of the Australian Language and Literacy Council has had a similar impact in the area of advice to government on literacy. The role of the ALLC was to provide advice to the minister on priorities, strategies and targets for the development and implementation of the Australian language and literacy policy. Its membership included representatives from educational institutions, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations, linguists, educationalists and industry.There is a certain irony, given this government's asserted focus on literacy matters across the spectrum, that it has no peak industry body to advise it in this area. As with the abolition of the Schools Council, there is no longer a body that can provide what I regard as a holistic approach to providing advice to government on literacy matters. The problems caused by this vacuum have been further exacerbated by the government's cut in core funding to Language Australia, which now has to rely on project funding for its survival. The purpose of Language Australia is to coordinate and undertake research, conduct professional development and produce and disseminate information about language, literacy and multicultural issues.That is particularly relevant in the context of the Northern Territory. You would be aware, Mr Speaker, that the Northern Territory has a very diverse population, is multicultural and multilingual. More than half of the schools and a quarter of its students are located in remote areas and suffer severe disadvantages. School-age children comprise 25 per cent of the population. That is more than in any other state or territory. Indigenous students comprise 34 per cent of the total student population of 40,000.Mr Speaker, you will recall that, during a previous session of this parliament late last year, I asked a question of the Prime Minister on bilingual education which he refused to answer. I took umbrage at his lack of response and I was quietly, although not without some verbal resistance, evicted from the chamber. I took no pride in that, Mr Speaker, but it was a sign of my frustration and a demonstration of the frustration that many of my constituents feel about the response of this government on issues to do with literacy and language and in particular on the issue of bilingual education.That frustration is ongoing and we have not had an adequate response from this government on the issue of bilingual education. Indeed, it is still an issue which is causing a great deal of concern in many Aboriginal schools around the Northern Territory and within the Aboriginal community and education fraternity generally. You may be aware, Mr Speaker, that the Northern Territory government's unilateral decision to axe bilingual education for Aboriginal students was believed by many to be inexcusable and to not have a valid basis. It has caused enormous anxiety. I am paraphrasing there the words of Chris Sidoti, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commissioner. He was speaking after hearing submissions from the Yolngu people at the Yirrkala school near Nhulunbuy. Mr Sidoti had said there that there was concern about the loss of bilingual education programs and that it was swamping his national education inquiry. I want to quote what he had to say:The message that we are getting loud and unequivocally from Aboriginal people is that they want their kids to be fluent and literate in English and in their own language.This he told the Canberra Times on Friday, 14 May this year. He went on:It is not a rejection of the importance of English. On the contrary, they are saying that they want English skills of a higher level than present because they see the English language as being the only passport into the world of most Australians.I am acutely aware of this concern and of the frustration and hurt that is being felt not only by Aboriginal students but also by their parents and their communities at the failure of not only this government but also the Northern Territory government to respond to the legitimate requests to have this program reinstated. There is currently an inquiry under way in the Northern Territory being undertaken on behalf of the Northern Territory government by a former Senate colleague of ours, Bob Collins, who was, as you would be aware, Mr Speaker, a former minister in the Labor government.It is very hard to describe, in a way which this parliament will understand, the enormous concern that Aboriginal Territorians have for this issue, but this concern is shared by those who are involved in providing education to them—not only in the government school system but also in the non-government school sector. It is worth pointing out that some of the loudest concerns have been expressed by the Catholic system. In the context of the government system, I visited communities such us Yuendumu and Willowra where people demanded the right to be able to give their views to the minister of the day in the Northern Territory and to have me express on their behalf their views to this parliament.I was left in the position last year, Mr Speaker, where, when I asked a question of the Prime Minister, which was then deflected to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, not only was he unable to answer the question but his arrogant response left me with little option but to raise my concerns forcibly in this place. The sanctions which were applied were no doubt legitimate, but I make no apologies for raising that issue and I make no apologies for continuing to raise it. I say to the government and to the minister responsible for education that, when he is blithely talking about his achievements and what his government's policies are, he ought to pay some credence to what the communities around Australia, and particularly in the Northern Territory, are demanding of him and his government as well as the government of the Northern Territory. They ought to be aware that this issue of bilingual education is regarded by Aboriginal communities right throughout the Territory as non-negotiable. It is not an issue about which they have a choice.It is not just a question about improving literacy in English, it is a fundamental issue about cultural maintenance, and that seems to have bypassed this parliament, or at least this minister and this government, because if they had an interest or an understanding they would be demanding that the Northern Territory government immediately reinstate the program. If the minister is not able to do that, then he should be making funds available so that these programs are directly funded in the Northern Territory, and the Northern Territory government is bypassed. That is possible. Indeed, when the Labor Party is re-elected to office I will be advocating that course. It seems to me that we have to be able to respond to the wishes of the community. I note that the minister is prepared to respond readily and quickly to the demands of the non-government school sector, yet in the context of the demands of the government school sector it is as if their pleas fall on deaf ears. They have certainly fallen on deaf ears in the context of Aboriginal bilingual education in the Northern Territory.It is also worth pointing out that this week in the Northern Territory the Australian Education Union is boycotting the transmission of MAP, multilevel assessment program tests, until the Northern Territory government restores the bilingual education program. The MAP program is to be administered to year 3 and 5 students throughout the next two years. The tests have been in the Northern Territory for the last 15 years.This week teachers throughout the Northern Territory are considering whether or not they will be administering the MAP test and have threatened that they will not administer it. They will be reporting back to their organisation this week after meetings in Tennant Creek, Nhulunbuy and Katherine on Thursday and Friday. But the union is expecting to hear back from the Northern Territory government, who are jumping fast. The union has had meetings yesterday and today with Northern Territory Minister Adamson, who in the context of a hierarchy of dills around Australia is probably the biggest. The Northern Territory government has said it will come back, possibly tomorrow.Action is being taken because of misuse of MAP data to discredit the bilingual education program. The teachers also want an undertaking that the information be confidential to each school community, which was certainly not the case with the bilingual education decision and the decision to close Traeger Park School in Alice Springs. It had been used publicly as an excuse to knock off the bilingual program and to close the Traeger Park School. They also want an undertaking that the information will be confidential to each school community, which has certainly not been the case. The benchmark data is used in reporting to the Commonwealth, which is used by the Commonwealth to determine the funding which goes to the Northern Territory.The union, rightly, wants a guarantee for the number of positions involved and the resources available to the bilingual education program. It is very clear that this MAP data has been misused in the past, and it rightfully wants guarantees that it will not happen in the future. The Northern Territory government illegitimately compared bilingual and non-bilingual education schools when they have enormously different factors involved in their assessment, not the least of which are their geography and the nature of their school populations. It is a completely illegitimate use of the MAP data to use it as a reason to close the bilingual education program. They used the same data to close the progressive Traeger Park School.These things are happening today. It seems that the Northern Territory government is only worried about the outcomes in Aboriginal schools when the data received from them is concerned with raising money from the Commonwealth. The system-wide programs in the Northern Territory have not been used properly, and it is clear that the data which is being collected on behalf of the minister here in this place is being used to discriminate against certain schools with regard to their achievements. Students who are not achieving up to standard will suffer, and there is no benchmark test or program in place for the allocation of extra resources to address these needs. The minister here has said that it is the schools' responsibility, that they will get as much each year as they require to get all students up to scratch. The fact is that this has not happened.We hear a lot in this place, and I have heard outside this place, about issues to do with community development and the role of training and employment. Fundamental to all of these things, to improving the community benefit, to improving the social capital of this country, is a foundation in education. I will not have time tonight to talk about education in remote and rural Australia and for isolated children but I would like to, because they too have been disadvantaged by decisions of this government and the Northern Territory government, and I am sure by other state and territory governments. What is clear in terms of the resources that are required to provide people with the basic skills, whether it is literacy and numeracy, social skills or whatever, is that a large proportion of the school population outside of the major metropolitan areas is missing out. So obviously when they go and compete for jobs in a tight labour market they do not have the skills required not only to get the job but also to get into the most basic foundational education program in a post-school environment, in a pre-vocation program. Is it their fault? Is it the community's fault? Invariably it is not their fault. Invariably it is the fault of governments, who have the responsibility to allocate resources and to respond to community wishes and community demands. But also invariably, and I might say almost as a matter of course, governments nationally and at a state and territory level do not adopt this strategy. If we are to improve the educational outcomes and therefore the employment outcomes and promote industry development on a regional basis, there is a fundamental requirement for us to accept and understand that regions across Australia differ, that states and territories have different demands and that within their boundaries those demands differ. We have to accept that we need to address those demands in a way which achieves the outcomes which are best suited to those particular communities and regions. We have not come to grips with that, and it is clear, given the way in which bilingual education has been addressed not only by this government but by the Northern Territory government, that there is no prospect of them coming to terms with those demands in the near future.I say to this government and to the Northern Territory government that the best way to improve the educational outcomes of these children and other children throughout the Northern Territory and indeed Australia is to understand and respond to their community and regional needs. If you do that, you will divert resources that, in my view, need to be diverted away from other areas and focus on the areas of greatest need. That is yet to happen. I am hoping that at some stage this minister and this government will come to terms with their responsibilities, although I am sorry to say that I doubt it will ever happen. (Time expired)20:21:008292Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—This has been a wide-ranging debate on education policy, as it deserves to be. Through the Employment, Education and Training Amendment Bill 1999 the government is trying to abolish the primary sources of independent advice that it receives on education. That of course is regrettable, but at least it provides an opportunity for opposition members to provide advice to the government on education policy. Education has always been important to the goals outlined by the member for the Northern Territory—social cohesiveness, social tolerance and social capital—but more than ever education policy is coming to the centre of economic debates. Education is becoming increasingly important in public policy, particularly economic policy. This in turn has been driven by two major changes in the economy, indeed by an economic revolution.The first change relates to the way in which things that were once made by muscle and machine power are now made much more by brain power. The second revolutionary change refers to the mobility of the economy, the fact that companies can make their products anywhere and try to sell them everywhere. This is a very different set of economic issues and events for policy makers to consider. At their heart, the heart of both mobility through new information technology and the importance of brain power, is the overriding significance of education and the propagation of knowledge. These are the central themes now for not only a good society but a strong economy. It is what Kim Beazley has so beautifully described as `Australia's aspiration to become a knowledge nation'.In fact this recognition of the importance of education policy is even starting to trickle down to the other side of politics. I note that in recent months the Prime Minister has been breaking the habits of a lifetime by actually bursting into some rhetoric about the significance of education and the development of knowledge. But of course talking about knowledge based industries and knowledge economics is a different thing from understanding them. It reminds me a bit of what Paul Keating once had to say about micro-economic reform. These days you can walk into any pet shop and you will find the resident galah talking about education policy.I think it is regrettable that the government is abolishing the advisory bodies led by NBEET. This is not a time for governments to narrow their advice on education policy. In fact, they need to broaden their advice to consider the ongoing debates and indeed some of the confusion about what good education policy might now entail and, in turn, what good education policy can do for the strength of economic outcomes. It is not a time for narrowing; it is a time for broadening advice and taking a far wider perspective about education policy. To fully understand knowledge as an economic input is not an easy task. Peter Drucker, the US guru, has pointed out that economists are still waiting for an Adam Smith or a David Ricardo of the knowledge economy; that is, someone who can cut through the new economic disciplines and the new economic events and make sense in theory of the importance of knowledge to the economy, to make sense of where we should be headed with education policy.The new economy based on knowledge is very much different from the old economy based on commodities. Knowledge is subject to increasing economic returns; commodities are subject to diminishing economic returns. This is an interesting idea—that knowledge actually increases the more it is used. The more someone learns, generally the more they want to learn, whereas in the normal understanding of economic events when you use a commodity or an economic input its worth and its value will diminish as it is used. Knowledge is the opposite. The more it is used, the more its importance and its value grows. So it is a fundamental rewriting of one of the old laws—diminishing economic returns—that you would find in every schoolboy's textbook. So too knowledge is a mobile input to economic events, commodities tend to be much more immobile.Knowledge displays many public good features; that is, everyone can use it and no one person's use of knowledge stops others from using it. Commodities are much more a private good where use is much more exclusive. Knowledge opens itself up for niche production and niche consumerism in the economy, whereas the old base of commodity production was much more in tune with mass consumption and mass production. Knowledge is very much unpredictable. It is about problem solving. The old commodity based economy was more predictable; it gave rise to a whole generation of economic planning ideals.The point I am making is that the move to a knowledge based economy is a total rewriting of economic theory. It is a total reunderstanding of the way in which education policy might apply to economic outcomes. So this is not a time to narrow down the advice available to the government. The government should be broadening its economic policy advice to take account of new growth theories in economics, to take account of all these fundamental changes in the economy and to try and link sound education policy not only to good social outcomes but to very important economic outcomes. It is not a time for narrowing. The whole focus of education policy needs to change in tune with the new economic focus.My preliminary reading of this, if I can explain it in one concept, is that governments need to start thinking about the economy in terms of inputs, and the most important input is education and knowledge. The generation of ideas, innovation, the invention of new commodities and the marketing of new concepts are all fundamentally important goals for economic growth, but they rely on inputs to an increasingly unpredictable economy. The old style of industry policy was very much focused on outputs. It was very much focused on outcomes, the idea being that industry policy could manipulate market outcomes, that you could throw in a subsidy, a tariff and a bit of protection, prop up profitability and that would impact indirectly on employment outcomes.The whole economic focus has fundamentally changed. Those industry policy and industry planning ideals have been blown apart in the new economy and they need to be replaced by a whole new approach, a whole new methodology in not only economic policy but education and research policy. We need to focus, first and foremost, on inputs to the new economy—the inputs of learning, the inputs of knowledge propagation and the inputs of research—and on the environment by which people will innovate and invent. That of course leads one fundamentally to strong conclusions about the need for competition policy for open and competitive markets. In the new knowledge based economy, markets are the best place to settle outcomes. The best role for government is to fashion inputs, to build up the education resources of a nation, to build up our knowledge investments and to improve our research base. These are all the valuable inputs that a wise government would develop for a knowledge based economy. Unhappily, the Howard government has done exactly the opposite. The sorry tale of this government's performance has been fundamental cuts to education, training and research—exactly the opposite of what national economic policy requires at this delicate time in our economy's transition to a knowledge base.I make these points not really to dismiss the importance of old industry policy but just to point out that it is so outdated and old-fashioned as to have become totally redundant. Was there ever an industry plan which anticipated the Internet? Has there ever been an industry plan which anticipated a new industry? I have read a lot of economics and education policy in my time and I am yet to find one. This, of course, points to the fact that these new knowledge industries are so unpredictable. In fact, they cannot be forward planned; they cannot be planned at all. We are talking about technologies that are not yet invented, industries that are not yet conceived and jobs which have not yet been conceptualised. How can government know what the market is going to do with these knowledge based industries more than the market itself does? How can government plan against an uncertain future when the technologies, the industries and the jobs are still unfolding in practice? The market knows these things best because it deals with these disciplines on a daily basis. Government is in no position to know these things or to plan ahead and fashion policy around them. If industry policy were a problematic task in the old economy, it is a mission impossible in the new economy.I make these points out of my concern for some of the misuse that the government may be making of the Ralph review. This idea that you can use business taxation policy as a new way of manipulating economic outcomes in knowledge based industries is a fantasy. To introduce capital gains concessions, to open up tax avoidance on a major scale and to have capital gains rates below corporate tax rates is a foolish policy because government cannot pick winners in the knowledge sector. Government cannot plan ahead for the new technologies, the new industries and the new jobs. Only one part of the economy can have any chance of understanding these ideas: the market based disciplines that deal with them on a daily basis.So what are the right inputs? If government cannot plan ahead for economic outputs and outcomes in the new economy, what are the right inputs? The great discipline, the great policy imperative, is to fund people, not profits. The important thing in education research policy is to fund the smart people, the researchers, the personnel, who are going to develop the new ideas and the new knowledge that will drive forward the new economy. They are the people who are needed to generate and create the wealth in the first place upon which the market might commercialise good ideas and turn them into marketable products.So the main discipline is to fund people, to fund the best and brightest of Australia's researchers. We should have a great national effort to identify our best undergraduates and deliver to them portable research scholarships that keep them in Australia working on their ideas and their research in this country and developing the knowledge base that will drive the Australian economy and Australian society forward in the coming decades. Fund people, not profits. Create the knowledge first and allow the market to commercialise these new ideas and new products as only the market can.Again, this just exposes the absolute folly of putting tax expenditures into capital gains cuts while we have not got a growing research base in Australia. We are losing our best researchers and our best people to countries overseas. Our first spending priority as a parliament and as a nation must be to our people to fund the skills, the insight and research of Australians and grow our research budgets, not cut them back. This government is totally misguided in giving a greater focus to the Ralph review than the green paper on research. It has its priorities upside down. We need to grow the research quantum in Australia and we need to deliver the portable research scholarships for the best and brightest of our undergraduates as they move into postgraduate research work.I mention this research issue not just out of national concern but also as a regional concern in Western Sydney. There is often speculation as to what portable research scholarships would mean for those universities outside the so-called `great eight'. What would it mean for a university like Western Sydney? My belief is that all universities can develop a research specialty. All universities should have the capacity to do the things and research the things that they do best. For the University of Western Sydney this is now a critical goal. You do not need to be in the great eight in Australia to do research well. If you build on your strengths and on your specialties, you can in fact build an international research reputation.Our universities now are very much positioned in a global environment—talk of Internet degrees and massive exchanges of students on an international scale. Universities now need to pitch themselves and their performance to the global learning environment. For the University of Western Sydney this is a critical goal. It has been for a decade or more our great hope, the great inspiration, for our region that our best young people can go on and get a university education where they live. They do not have to trek down to the centre of Sydney as some of the old-timers like myself had to do in the 1970s and the early 1980s.But the University of Western Sydney needs to be more than a great hope and a great inspiration; it needs to be a great performer. It needs to move on to its second stage of development beyond hope and inspiration and into hard-nosed performance. On the research agenda it needs the staff to build up an international reputation. What can it do well in Western Sydney? My belief is that it can develop a research reputation using our great social laboratory. If you had to take any part of Australia—and I would even speculate any part of the world—and look for diverse labour market conditions, diverse urban geography, diverse social and economic outcomes, cultural diversity, the impact of globalisation, the information revolution, the new labour market, issues of community and social capital—a whole melting point of all these changes—it would be Western Sydney. If you had to take one part of this country, and indeed the whole planet, which had a real and diverse social laboratory in which to study these things, it would be the suburbs of Western Sydney.The natural resource for research at the University of Western Sydney is our own region. That university should be building up the specialties for social and economic research related to all those issues. It can do that by specialising and by using the one resource that will give it an international reputation. Of course, an international reputation brings with it extra public and private sector support and that, in turn, builds the university.In recent decades we have seen so-called junior universities like Wollongong and Newcastle build up over time: they start out small, they specialise and build up expertise, research and teaching capacity, and now they are the great improvers. They are leading the improvers handicap when you look at the league table that comes out every year on Australia's universities. The University of Western Sydney can do the same. It needs to move into its second phase of development and build up those particular research specialties.In the time left to me I would like to talk about some training issues, because they too are relevant to the way in which this government is narrowing its policy advice. I mentioned earlier the unpredictable, very fluid nature of the new economy. This is one of the great tasks for training policy. How do we anticipate technological change? How do we mould training packages around the inevitability of workplace restructuring? I believe Australia needs to move its training agenda from patch-up labour market programs to pre-emptive training.We have a worrying habit that we get serious about training initiatives only once people have been unemployed for 12 months. Only when they have really removed themselves from active labour force participation does the federal government at any stage seem concerned at all about their prospects. That patch-up job is a lot harder once people have been so long out of the work force, because the longer someone is unemployed the more likely they are to remain unemployed. The training and the social costs of getting them back into work of course grow exponentially. We need to move to a pre-emptive training agenda. We need to have training programs and training funding that allow low income, low skill workers to anticipate or at least work with technological change in the workplace and not be retrenched in the first place.A good model for this is Singapore. Singapore is not an antibusiness economy, but it has a levy that it places on all businesses for low income, low skill workers. The government collects the pool of money and the companies have to tender back with training programs that help the low income, low skill employees. This has the advantage of helping the company. It has the advantage of improving corporate investments in training, particularly for low income, low skill people. If you look at all the training outcomes, it is the middle to high income earners who will get the money, either out of their own pocket or the company's pocket, to do the training that keeps them economically successful. It is the low skill, low income workers who get left behind and ultimately go on the unemployment queue.We need to move pre-emptively against that. We need to establish a scheme that pools corporate and public money and allows the companies to tender back on the training program and put in place all the training in the workplace that will upgrade the skills of their low income workers. As the technology changes in the enterprise, the workers are uplifting and improving their skills, staying with the business and avoiding the curse of long-term unemployment.On this agenda there is also a corporate responsibility with regard to disabled workers and older workers. It is possible to calibrate this corporate contribution to give very strong consideration to training of disabled workers and older workers. If companies are not willing to do that, then governments should put the money into training disabled and older workers who already have been made unemployed. So there are corporate as well as governmental responsibilities that can improve Australia's training outcomes.Many more things need to be addressed in education policy. I sometimes feel I could go on all night about these things—middle school crisis, the disadvantaged schools program and changes to the school funding initiatives. I have touched on research and the new economy tonight and I have touched on training initiatives, but I do say to the government that it should reconsider the narrowing of its policy advice. Now is the time to broaden and work out the whole revolution of not only economic policy but education policy that needs to be built into all the public programs in this nation.20:42:008297Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLP10—I would like to begin by thanking the government speakers, the member for Bradfield and the member for Dawson, for taking part in this debate, and also the member for Dobell, the members for Batman, Lawler, Shortland and the Northern Territory; and it is always interesting to listen to the member for Werriwa.As the member for Werriwa has said, as it turned out, this was a very wide-ranging debate, so I will remind the House what this bill is really about. The Employment, Education and Training Amendment Bill 1999 amends the Employment, Education and Training Act 1998 to abolish the National Board of Employment, Education and Training, or NBEET, and four of its councils: the Australian Language and Literacy Council, the Employment and Skills Council, the Higher Education Council and the Schools Council. The Australian Research Council and its membership will continue unchanged, and it will operate as an independent council providing advice and will report directly to the minister. The bill also makes minor technical amendments to the act, removing definitions no longer required under the act, removing schedule 1 and retaining the position of director to service the ARC. The bill also includes transitional provisions providing for continuity of membership of the ARC, the councillors and the committees which it assists.The member for Dobell has made a number of claims, which I will refer to. One claim was that there was no good reason to abolish NBEET. The member for Dobell may not realise that the board and councils being abolished in this bill have already wound up their work and only the ARC is currently working on advice to the minister. There are ample existing representative bodies to give advice to the government on issues which were covered by NBEET and the four councils being abolished. These cover all sectors of education. In addition, as specific issues arise, the government can establish short-term task forces to advise on specific issues. In line with the government's intention to create more independent advisory bodies, the ARC will now provide advice and report directly to the minister and take responsibility for promoting informed public debate on research in Australia.There were also claims made about the falling number of postgraduate places. In fact, postgraduate places are rising, and the government is committed to ensuring that opportunities for all Australian students continue to increase. Universities' projections indicate that the number of student places will grow between 1996 and 2001. The focus on undergraduates means that more people than ever before are receiving their first opportunity for higher education. As I said, the total of all domestic postgraduate places is rising, with universities forecasting a 10 per cent increase by 2001. Postgraduate fee-paying student places have increased by almost 50 per cent since 1996. The number of research student places continues to rise. Universities project a 7.6 per cent increase between 1996 and 1998, and a further 11 per cent increase is forecast to 2000. The member for Dobell also made comments about the education budget.MG4LEEMr Lee—What education budget?8V5Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH—The member for Dobell's interjection demands the question: what Labor policy is there on education? From their amendments, there is obviously something, and that is to find another NBEET-like body—Mr Latham interjecting—8V5Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH—The member for Werriwa lost a few policy points at the last election, and they have not been replaced. The truth is that the government is committing over $11 billion per annum over the budget and forward estimate period to develop stronger, vibrant education and training sectors into the new millennium. This budget sees increased funding of $870 million over the next four years—not that one would have known that from listening to the opposition debate tonight.The member for Dobell has moved amendments, but that is an attempt to recreate an NBEET-like body, and the government of course would seek to listen—as I think the member for Werriwa hinted was a good idea—to advice from many different sources. The impact on HECS got a mention, and I remind the member for Dobell that the number of people from disadvantaged groups is increasing steadily. Essentially, HECS remains as it was when Labor introduced it—a scheme that enables people to attend university and defer the cost until they have a reasonable income level.The member for Lalor made some comments about funding to government schools, and they were also inaccurate. I remind the member for Lalor that government schools get 85 per cent of their public funding from state governments and 15 per cent from the Commonwealth. Non-government schools get 18 per cent of their public funding from state governments and 37 per cent from the Commonwealth. The really important point is that all state governments are overwhelmingly in favour of government schools, but no-one claims that state governments are opposed to non-government schools for this reason. When all sources of public funding are taken into account, that is, Commonwealth and state—and I do hope the member for Lalor is listening to this—governments spend, on average, $5,600 per government school student. The same figure for a non-government student is $3,500. For students at wealthier schools, this figure can be low as $1,500 per student.The member for Werriwa has been interesting in his discussion of education policy again tonight. I agree with him that muscle power is giving way in many instances to brain power, that mobility is important, and that education and knowledge must be propagated. These are challenges for policymakers. But, having heard this from the member for Werriwa, we would not want to limit our advice from NBEET. It is not time for narrowing; it is time for increasing and receiving advice from a wide range of sources, and that is exactly what the government is doing. Partnerships are being formed between governments, industry and educators, which of course is what is so important for our young people in an ever-changing world.The member for Werriwa has also made comments about research. He must be making a glowing endorsement of the portable research grants which are recommended and proposed in the `New knowledge, new opportunities' government discussion paper on research and research training which was released on 30 June. I hope that has clarified some of the issues. Again, I thank those who have taken part in this debate.Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Lee's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. [8.54 p.m.](Madam Deputy Speaker—Mrs J. Gash) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 ——Voting lists are recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Question so resolved in the affirmative.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.8299Motion (by Ms Worth) proposed:That the bill be now read a third time.21:01:008299Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—I have never seen the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs move so quickly. Did you see how quickly he left the chamber? He was desperate not to be given an opportunity to speak at the table and actually debate this piece of legislation, the Employment, Education and Training Amendment Bill 1999 , that he has introduced into the House. The reason the minister has flick-passed this legislation to the member for Adelaide is that this is, once again, another piece of legislation where the minister is seeking to deny the people who know something about education having an input into this government's decision making processes.During this debate the government has made a number of outrageous claims. First of all, the parliamentary secretary representing the minister for education made the claim that, under the Howard government, HECS is basically unchanged from the HECS that was left by the former Keating government. I say to the representative of the minister for education that obviously she does not understand that there have been massive increases in HECS fees for students. The students at university today know it is the Howard government that has massively increased the charges that they are hit with every year they are at university.What is even worse than the higher fees that the government has placed on those students who are making the effort to study at university is the government lowering the repayment threshold at which students start to repay their HECS debt. Under the Labor government it was based on average weekly earnings of $27,000 or $28,000 a year. People had to earn that each year before they started to repay their HECS debt. Under this government, that threshold has been dropped to only $21,000. Under this government, more and more part-time workers and part-time students are finding it almost impossible to make the effort to go to university without being hit with the requirement to repay the HECS debt as they go. At the same time they are trying to pay off a housing mortgage and look after their families. These are the people who are hardest hit by this government's unfair and inequitable changes to the HECS system. For the Howard government's representative to get up in this chamber and claim that HECS is basically unchanged demonstrates that they are out of touch. The Howard government and the minister for education do not understand the damage that they have inflicted on higher education in Australia.In deciding to abolish the Higher Education Council, the government denies itself the opportunity to hear dissenting views and to learn about the damage that is being done by these changes to HECS. It denies itself the opportunity to learn how many students from low income backgrounds, from non-English-speaking backgrounds, from remote communities and from indigenous backgrounds will be less able to afford to go to university because of its changes. The government is denying itself the opportunity to listen to independent research and to hear from people who actually know what is happening in the community. In deciding tonight to abolish the Higher Education Council the government is refusing to listen to these alternative viewpoints.The representative of Dr Kemp, the minister for education, said in the House tonight that under this legislation the government will hear more opinions and will consult more widely—by abolishing the very body that gives advice to the government about higher education issues. The way we are going to find out about the damage that is being done by the increase in HECS is to abolish the very council whose job it was to investigate the damage that had been done by HECS. As my colleague the member for Port Adelaide has said on many occasions, under this minister for education you feel like you are living in 1984. You feel like you are hearing newspeak.SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—Kids used to be able to read in 1984.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—You go back to fixing up the Western Australian forests. Go and ring up a few more constituents, Wilson. You did a good job on the weekend. The point we make is that the government has demonstrated in this debate that it just does not understand the damage it has done to higher education across the country. It does not just stop at the minister for education, I am afraid to say. When the Prime Minister of Australia said, the week before the last budget, that he was going to bring down an education budget, there were a lot of people around the country whose hopes were raised. They thought that maybe John Howard would see that he has made mistakes in cutting back funding for universities. They thought that maybe he realised it was time that Australia invested more in education.People's hopes were raised the week before the budget but, when the budget was brought down, what did it do? There was to be another year of further cuts in the operating grants for universities. There was to be another year with no growth funding for TAFE. It was to be a year when the government abolished the merit based equity scholarship scheme, the scheme that gave kids from low income backgrounds and from remote Australia a chance to get a scholarship to go to university. It was an education budget where the government decided to give $21 to private schools for every dollar it gives to government schools. The government has failed completely to provide a fair balance in funding for schools across Australia.Labor believes that we should be investing more in Australia's schools—our government schools, our public schools and our private schools—because that is the only way we can make sure we lift the quality of education that kids are getting in schools right across the country. My worry is that I think the Prime Minister did believe that this was an education budget. In his terms, an education budget is a budget that cuts funding for universities and does nothing about TAFE. It is a budget that provides an unfair system of extra funding for private schools while ignoring government schools, and it abolishes those merit based equity scholarships. That is what the Prime Minister thinks is an education budget. That is what will doom this minister for education and this Prime Minister for the decisions they have taken.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a third time.Committees8300830010000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Gash)—Mr Speaker has received messages from the Senate acquainting the House that Senator Gibbs has been appointed a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade; that Senator McLucas has been appointed a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund; and that Senator Ludwig has been appointed a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties.Bills8300r7848300Debate resumed from 30 March, on motion by Mr Bruce Scott:That the bill be now read a second time.21:07:008300Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—It was a big day for defence today. Here we have another piece of legislation dealing with some important issues in the Defence Force and the Minister for Defence is not here—he is still AWOL—nor is the junior minister, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, here—he will probably come in. Anybody who knows anything about it on the government side seems to be absent tonight.Mr Laurie Ferguson interjecting—8I4Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN—We will see whether that is the case. There are some important issues in the Defence Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 which we are dealing with tonight. It is not often that legislation dealing with defence issues comes before the parliament and gives us an opportunity to talk about some of the important issues facing the ADF at this point and to consider changes that are necessary to ensure that ADF personnel are treated appropriately in a variety of circumstances. This bill seeks to implement a process for urine drug testing of members of the Australian Defence Force who are involved in combat or combat related duties, as well as establish associated disciplinary measures by amending the Defence Act of 1903. This is necessary because for some time the ADF has had a no-drugs policy. That policy requires the relevant service authority to initiate disciplinary or administrative action against any member of the ADF found selling, possessing, dealing in or administering an illegal drug. The administrative sanctions include termination of appointment for officers, discharge from the services for non-officers or reduction in rank.This is not a new measure. In fact, the decision to commence this process was taken during the tenure of the former Labor government. In September 1993, the then Chief of the Defence Force directed that a urine testing program be implemented across the ADF. The proposal entailed a UTP of samples from randomly selected ADF members, testing for narcotic substances. The testing program was going to have an emphasis on personnel from operational basic training establishments. That is quite appropriate.We hear much about drugs in sport. We hear much about drugs in the workplace. Quite clearly, if anybody is in a working environment, whether it be as a runner or a swimmer or in the workplace as we would traditionally know it, then obviously we want to ensure that occupational health and safety considerations are foremost in an employer's mind and indeed in the minds of employees.Individuals in the Australian Defence Force find themselves in a special circumstance, as we have been trying to point out to the Minister for Defence over the last couple of days. People in the Australian Defence Force train for particular tasks which are dangerous and intense and require people to work in very difficult conditions. Obviously, we need to ensure that those people are at peak condition. Through testing procedures, in terms of fitness we actually are achieving that, although to some extent the fact that these fitness regimes have been put in place and used to weed out some people from the Australian Defence Force perhaps is not the consequence which was intended as part of that process. The urine testing program which we are talking about here ensures that people are fit in the workplace environment. Quite obviously, it is vital for our ADF personnel to be clean and able to perform the high risk tasks which are part of their everyday working environment.This initiative was supported by the then Minister for Defence back in 1993, Senator Robert Ray, and the Minister for Defence, Science and Personnel, Senator Faulkner. However, it was not able to be implemented without legislation because concerns were raised by the Privacy Commissioner and the Attorney-General's Department. That same year, legislation was drafted to implement these recommendations but did not get introduced into the parliament before the 1996 general election. It is regrettable that it took three years from when the decision was taken to do something about testing, having to go through a minefield of bureaucratic red tape and through the processes of satisfying people's concerns about privacy and other legal constraints imposed by the Attorney-General's Department.Those on the other side may well echo the usual chant which they continue to throw up: `You had 13 years to do something about this.' We did have three years to do something about it; that is true. It is now 1999. The present government has also been in government for three years and this legislation is only now being introduced so that this testing process can take place.The Australian Defence Association and the Armed Forces Federation of Australia support in principle a drug testing program but, as I understand it, do not have a specific position in respect of the legislation which we are debating tonight. A general view expressed by both the ADA and AFFA is that any drug testing program should apply equally to all uniformed personnel, irrespective of their duties, considering that in time of combat all ADF personnel may be in combat or combat related areas. Clearly, it is a matter of balancing occupational health and safety concerns with concerns about civil liberties of ADF members, but like the initiative launched under the previous Labor government, this program would specifically focus on combat and combat related personnel. That is a very important point which needs to be made at this time: we are talking about combat personnel who are combat ready and have a degree of readiness to perform appropriate tasks. It is part of the no-drugs policy which certainly the ADF has in place and which is supported obviously by the government and certainly by the opposition.I would like to turn now to the next issue contained in this legislation, which relates to the transfer of senior officers to the reserves. The bill itself seeks to allow certain officers to transfer to the reserves when their term of appointment ends. It is designed to hold on to skilled and experienced senior officers once they leave active service, by making transfer to the reserves easier. And I have got to say that the way some of the senior officers in the ADF are falling over under this minister, there are quite likely to be a number of positions available which these people would like to be able to slip into. Hopefully, this legislation, Minister, might give them that opportunity. At present, an officer who wishes to move to the reserves has to retire or be retired from the relevant service and then seek to be appointed to the reserves. Given that the reserves are part of Australia's armed services, this is a somewhat administratively cumbersome approach and I endorse the fact that the government is trying to do something about it. The provision is restricted to service chiefs and senior officers engaged on limited tenure promotions. I want to say, in respect of this concept of senior officers being transferred into the reserves, they are probably going to be needed.I say to the minister opposite—the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence—and say to him quite genuinely, that this question of the reserves is a real problem at the present minute. I try to offer some comment to you in the spirit of bipartisanship, arising from some recent visits which I, my colleague the Shadow Minister for Defence Science and Personnel and members of the caucus National Security and Trade Committee experienced in the last couple of days. Last week we had the opportunity to visit both Brisbane and Townsville and speak at length with people in the Australian Defence Force. The week before, my colleague the shadow minister and I had the opportunity to visit Rockhampton and to meet specifically with people from the reserves and to talk about the sorts of concerns they had.I might say, Mr Deputy Speaker Hollis, that you as the Deputy Chairman of the powerful Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade would be across this issue yourself. The issue about senior officers being able to transfer into the reserves is relevant and important. There is a vacuum being created, regrettably, because of government policy in one area, which I will come to in a moment, but also because for some reason—and people in the reserves will tell you this themselves—there is not quite the attractiveness out there in the broad community for people to pursue a military career, whether it be in a full-time capacity or in the reserves.An interesting statistic which the minister knows, I am sure, was put to us last week when we were travelling around: proportionately more of the people who sign up for the reserves, and indeed the armed forces, come from Queensland. There is something about Queensland; there is something about the concept of Queenslanders that fits very nicely in the ADF. The minister would be delighted about that, I am sure. Maybe that is why he and his senior colleague, both from Queensland, have been given responsibility for defence issues.But we were informed that the sorts of people being attracted into the reserves these days are people who are unemployed or students. There are some business people who clearly want to make a contribution, but we have been led to believe, and I think it is pretty close to the mark, that whilst this may be the case, unfortunately the number of those sorts of people wanting to get involved is starting to trend downwards. Perhaps they see that the excitement, the conditions of service, or whatever, that are necessary are no longer appropriate to them. But I suspect that, more importantly, it is tied to two other issues.One, as I said, is a policy issue: it goes to the decision taken by your ministerial colleague, the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, to tie in leave for reservist activities and so on and to reduce that as an allowable matter under awards. That is having a significant effect. It is having a significant effect for people now getting released from work to be able to participate and to train for the Australian Defence Force reserves. I am sure the minister would agree that it is no longer appropriate these days to run a reserve force like it is Boy Scouts or a branch meeting of the National Party or the Labor Party, where once a month or once a week on a Tuesday night you go along to the local hall and you do a bit of drill and that is about the extent of it. In terms of our broader strategic environment and in terms of our force structure, there is unfortunately going to be a greater reliance upon and need for reservists to play an active role, particularly now as the government has got a second brigade on 28-day-ready deployment. We have to look at ways in which those reservists can be encouraged.It was put to us that it is very difficult for small businesses. For instance, a watchmaker or somebody in a jewellery shop, I think it was, had a number of employees and each of those, because they liked the lifestyle, was in the reserves. But as the small businessman himself said, `I can't afford to give all these employees who belong to the same reserve regiment an opportunity to just leave for a period of three to four weeks at a time to go off on training exercises, because who is going to run the shop when I am not there?' So it becomes a real problem. This question of the allowable matter, which, as I said, the minister's colleague unfortunately has been able to put through, has created an incredible difficulty for people who perhaps would like to serve. I say to the minister, if he can convince his colleague Peter Reith to introduce amending legislation that will make it possible for employers to give reservists time off for military service, particularly in the light of the increased role for the reserves in respect of the requirement of bringing the first brigade to 28-days readiness, I will give you this commitment in this place tonight that we will support it 100 per cent, because it is an important issue that needs to be addressed.I say this in fairness to the minister as well. I know that the government is looking at this whole question of reserves. I know that the Prime Minister has been lobbied about this and has taken an interest in it, and I know that the minister and his senior colleagues have asked for a full and thorough review—of the reserves and how the system might work—to be provided to the government. We would welcome that. We would welcome an opportunity to perhaps make comment on any of the suggestions that come forward from a review of that nature. We certainly have some views about the way the reserves are currently structured. We have some views about the Ready Reserve. We have some views about the way in which the importance that is now placed on the reserve as an important element of the way the ADF operates needs to be fully considered by the government of the day. We would like to think that we have heightened readiness because, under the Defence Reform Program, there is still a process whereby people leave—and are meant to leave to get it down to a manageable force structure that the government believes is going to be appropriate for the circumstances today. The rotational necessities associated with people going in and out of those 28-day readiness organisations is significant for the reserves themselves to play a real part. So we would like to think that that is an opportunity the government might be looking at as part of this review.As far as the senior officers being able to be transferred into the reserves is concerned—absolutely. You cannot lose corporate memory. When these people who have reached 20 or 30 years of service and are occupying the senior positions in Australia's Defence Force leave—they might be admirals, be generals or whatever—we should provide opportunities for them to continue their very valuable contribution to the defence of this nation by passing on those skills to people within the ADF. That can be done of course through the reserves. There are needs to be addressed here. They are needs to be clearly looked at around the country. We do not want to see a whole bunch of well-meaning people get together on a Tuesday night, do a little bit of drill, maybe learn a little bit about military history—and then go and spend a couple of hours at the pub. That is really not what reserves are all about. They are an integral part of the Australian Defence Force now and will be a growing part of the Australian Defence Force.The other issues contained in this legislation are minor administrative and technical changes to a variety of defence related legislation. The legislation seeks to extend the time limitation for the laying of charges from three to five years under the Defence Force Discipline Act, following recommendations of a Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee on the crash of the RAAF Nomad aircraft. I might also say to the minister that of course the Joint Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee recently handed down a report on military justice which, I suspect, may have some interest in this as well. Whilst not suggesting for a moment that this minor amendment about time limitation in any way should be altered as a result of that, I do think that the government should keep this issue under review and have a look at the recommendations in that joint committee report. I thought it was quite a thorough report, having been a member of the committee for a brief time and having participated in some of the work that was done. That report is relevant to the issues before us.This Defence Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 also endeavours to make minor wording correction amendments to the Defence Force (Home Loans Assistance) Act of 1990 and the Defence Legislation Act (No. 1) of 1997. The minister will know that over the last couple of days this issue of Defence Force housing and other fringe benefits has been the subject of some questioning in this place by us. The reason this has been done is the widespread concern which we were made aware of by spouses associations, by serving men and women themselves and by any simple reading of Army, Navy or Air Force magazines regarding what people consider to be an unfair attack being mounted upon their conditions of employment in the ADF by the Australian Taxation Office.It concerns an interpretation of legislation under the better tax system—or whatever the government calls its new tax system legislative program—which would see the value of fringe benefits, whether in housing or whatever, grossed up so that this would appear on group certificates. People say, `Why not? Every other element of the work force should be treated in the same way.' I have to say that the Labor Party does not have a problem with that philosophical position. We do believe that benefits other than those in cash form should be accounted for on group certificates, as should any other allowances or ways in which governments contribute—whether it is through the tax system, the social security system, the education system or whatever. However, that said, in terms of the Australian Defence Force, I think a very clear argument can be made that these people are not like others in the work force. These people sign up. They are sent to different locations around Australia—quite often not because they choose to do so but they know they are in the Army and that is expected. They are on call 24 hours a day. They do not have access to the same justice systems that we do in the context of the normal work environment. They do not have access to all the other things which people normally associate with awards or with conditions of employment—whether they be under the government's own preferred system of work contracts between employers and employees. As a consequence of that, we now find that there is an attack being launched by the Australian Taxation Office. I know—and I think most people in this place who have taken interest in this would know—that General Peter Dunn has made submissions on behalf of the Australian Defence Force to the tax office. I think those submissions are also being directed towards the government. Again, I say to the minister: we would be only too delighted to lend support to a legislative change which sees the Australian Defence Force excluded from what we consider to be punitive measures under the fringe benefits tax reporting mechanisms.It is probably an unintended consequence. It is probably something which people did not want to happen. Certainly, this did not happen under Labor. We introduced the fringe benefits tax, but Labor quarantined people in the ADF from that tax. We did so in recognition of the special place that these people have in the Australian work force—for want of a better description—and because of the role they play in the defence of this nation and because of what they have to give up.I do not think the Minister for Defence comprehends the strength of feeling about this issue. I would be surprised if his colleague on the other side is not more aware of this because I know that he gets around a fair bit and talks to people in the Defence Force. Minister Scott, you need to get the ear of your senior cabinet colleague and tell him to start reading a few of the letters to the editor in the magazines that I referred to earlier. Tell him to get out of the Bushmasters and off the bridges of the FFGs and to start talking to the people—the sailors, the privates and, importantly, the spouses of these people. He will get an earful.I know that you have had an earful, Minister, but the Minister for Defence should listen to what these people have to say. It is critical for these people. The feeling runs so deeply that we have had women say to us, `If my husband gets moved again and this fringe benefits tax regime comes in, I tell you what, he is going to be going and we're out the door because we can't afford to live like this anymore.' People have an expectation that fairly low paid people who serve in Australia's Defence Force should not be subject to this punitive regime.We do not think they should be either. We never did and we never will. There are special cases here. We say, and we always will, that they should be quarantined. I hope that some of the reviews that the minister has referred to will address this issue. I see by the sly grin on his face that he is probably going to make some announcement about this in the next couple of days—and I hope he does.8T4FERGUSONMr Laurie Ferguson—Another review.8I4Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN—No, I do not want a review. I would like to think that this minister has the opportunity to talk to the Minister for Defence and say, `Get back into the cabinet room and see if you can convince Mr Reith and Mr Costello that the Defence Force needs some special consideration in this.' We would certainly support them. If you do not do something about it, I am afraid we might have to do something in this place or in the Senate.I conclude where I started. The legislation is timely although, in the broad scheme of things, the basic thrust of what it seeks to do with drug testing through urine analysis in the Australian Defence Force has been around for some time. The transfer of senior officers to the reserves is a timely measure which will bring invaluable experience to the reserves. The reserves are something that the government needs to consider very carefully. Because the main defence policy in this nation is enacted in a spirit of bipartisanship, we would certainly like to assist the government in any discussion on these sorts of issues so that a common position can be adopted. As I said, purely from a strategic point of view, from a force structure point of view, the reserves are going to play an even more critical role in the ADF as time goes by.Finally, fringe benefits tax legislation is one of the major issues facing our Defence Force personnel at the moment. It is an issue which I know the minister is acutely aware of. I hope his senior colleague, the Minister for Defence, is also acutely aware of that after the last couple of days and that between the two of them something can be achieved to alleviate the burden on people who, at the end of the day, are serving their nation. They deserve recognition for the sorts of conditions under which they are expected to serve the nation.I think Minister Scott knows that Darwin is not exactly the greatest place in the world to be in the middle of summer. Because of our strategic environment, we now have another brigade on 28-day readiness. We have Air Force units and Navy units there as well. That really is at the pointy end of the defence of this nation. Special consideration is necessary for people in those circumstances. After all, this is the government that says it stands up for families. Defence Force families need support. We are quite prepared to give that support. We are quite happy to lend support to the government in its endeavours to try to redress what we consider to be some very difficult circumstances at the present time.21:35:008306Thompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON84CBlairLP10—In addressing the Defence Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 today, it is plain that we are discussing the defence of Australia. There are 25,000 different defence facilities at 400 discrete sites around Australia. Some 4,000 troops are located at Townsville, which is one of the larger bases, along with their dependants. Defence people have a very large impact on our communities and they fulfil a very important role in the defence of Australia. For example, when it was decided to establish a greater Army presence in the north, they set out to move a total of 2,285 troops, plus 2,600 dependants, to Darwin. The management of our armed forces is absolutely crucial. What is important is the way we go about it, the monitoring of the processes and ensuring that what we have is quality and not merely quantity.This bill takes us down an important path. The Navy, Army and Air Force are well known for the degree of rigour that goes into their training and for the degree of rigour that applies to their lifestyle. One of the main provisions of this bill is the introduction of drug testing of the urine of defence personnel. To ordinary civilian Australians that kind of testing might seem to be something which is reserved for athletes or people like that. However, we are talking about a highly specialised group of people—people who have a difficult job to perform in which there is no margin for error. It is very important that they function at their best. The introduction of this kind of testing is very important.Other provisions of this bill include allowing the chief of the Army and the chief of Navy to delegate their powers to retire officers and to terminate the appointment of officers down the line to ranks as far down as Brigadier in the Army and Commodore in the Navy. It also allows very senior officers on limited tenure promotion to transfer to the Army or Navy Reserve. It also includes amendments being made to the Defence Act 1903 and the Naval Defence Act 1910. The Supply and Development Act 1939 is to be repealed because it becomes redundant. Because of the ongoing processes of corporatisation, contracting out and competitive tendering, the need for that particular act has ceased. Under the old system, that particular arrangement provided an option for contractors to be employed. Obviously, we no longer need that as a mechanism to employ contractors.In fact, a measure of the impact of the contracting out process is apparent at RAAF Base Amberley, which is in my electorate. The whole evolution of defence in my electorate is having a big impact on the development of Ipswich. First it began with the contracting out of maintenance on F111 aircraft, and that is not fully complete yet. That has brought Boeing on site and it is having a huge impact. Over the next five or 10 years Amberley is expected to double in size in terms of the number of people to be based there. The contracting out is providing a core of new skills and new learning. Coupled with the development of the University of Queensland campus at Ipswich, we are getting into some real opportunities for high-tech skills development that were not there before. This all comes about as a result of contracting out. If we are going to move into that sphere it is covered by this provision of the bill to remove the Supply and Development Act 1939.At Amberley we are going to have a new contract awarded for the construction of these AEWAC aircraft. In awarding the Boeing contract, I understand that, of the seven Boeing 737s that are to be built and delivered—the first of which will be delivered in 2004-05 at a total project cost of $2 billion—five are to be built on site at Amberley. That will bring the highest of high-tech industries right into the centre of the Ipswich area. The work will go on in a big hangar—I think it is 6,000 or 9,000 square metres. They are establishing a very large area of hangar space. The end result will be a huge boost for the surveillance capability of Australia. I really do believe the capabilities of these aircraft should have been taken into account way back when they were looking at the Jindalee over-the-horizon radar. We have finally got around to taking the bull by the horns and going right down the track of having these airborne early warning and control aircraft. They are so much more efficient at doing the job than anything, as far as I can see, you could base in Alice Springs or Longreach to keep watch over the sea gap north of Australia.There will be massive industry spin-offs in my area. I am pleased to see that, in allocating the Boeing contract, the minister has said that the government has learnt from the bitter experiences of the Labor Party with the Jindalee over-the-horizon radar and the Collins class submarines and that we will have much better contract management in this case.Moving on to the urine analysis testing program, this is part of the rigour of running a modern defence force. The people who are to undertake the test are members of the ADF operating defence machines worth tens of hundreds of millions of dollars. It is estimated that a Collins class submarine is worth $838 million, although I am sure that figure is jackpotting at the moment faster than you might see watching Sale of the Century. Anzac frigates are worth something like $610 million and AEWAC aircraft of the type I was just discussing are worth $286 million. Even the new C130J, which is being sought at the present time, is worth $85 million. So these people are in command of very high-tech and very expensive equipment and we naturally expect them to be able to function at their top level. If they did not do their job then that huge taxpayers' investment would be at risk, other Defence personnel could certainly be placed at risk, civilians could be at risk and, at the end of it all, the security of our country is also at risk if we do not have people operating at their absolute top level. So there is no room for drugs in the Defence Force.What really got me reading the Bills Digest on this particular issue was the incredible dead hand of bureaucracy that gripped this whole process when the former Privacy Commissioner, Kevin O'Connor, got involved. I do not think there would be a member in this House who could not see the good reason behind the need for urine testing of people in the Defence Force. It is a plain point. In fact, the opposition spokesman conceded that three years were lost under the Labor administration and more time has been lost in the early part of the coalition government because of the intervention of that Privacy Commissioner. It is typical, I suppose, that under that Labor administration at the time we should have a Privacy Commissioner going and sticking his nose into the drug tests that we need in our Defence Force. I am not surprised to see that at all. In those days we had the politically correct police running amok, and the Privacy Commissioner is a very good example of it.I looked up the 10th annual report of the Privacy Commissioner—that of the replacement for Kevin O'Connor, Moira Scollay—and I am pleased to see that not a single reference is made to this issue of drug testing in the Defence Force. It is good to see that the Privacy Commissioner has got into areas that are probably more suitable than messing around with the Defence Force. Anyway, that is a good point that we should be pleased to welcome. It is good to see, though, that the coalition did in the end overcome that dead hand of bureaucracy and on 1 April 1997 the coalition approved this legislation that we are discussing tonight.To look at the way testing will work, it is going to occur on a random basis. People in the Defence Force will give their sample in private and be given a notice explaining what is going to happen to that sample. They will be told the result and, if it is positive and they cannot give a medical explanation as to why it would be positive, they must go on to a doctor for assessment. They then get 28 days to state the reasons why they should not be discharged if they are not an officer or why their appointment should not be terminated if they are an officer. That 28-day process and the whole development of the process of the handling of these samples cannot be delayed by recourse to any of those appeal mecha nisms that are so friendly to people who are confronted with an allegation like this. They cannot go to the ombudsman to seek a delay in that process. I suppose they can go to the ombudsman, but the process continues, and that is important.If, heaven forbid, the person involved in this kind of allegation was above the rank of major general, only the Governor-General can terminate their appointment. That is how serious it can be, I suppose, if you want to take it that far. Terminations for people involved in this are issued in writing. Apart from being exited from the Defence Force, there are possibilities there that we could have penalties by a reduction in rank or even a warning. I suppose that depends on the written response that the people are able to be given and the circumstances that apply. This whole process is to be administered by someone within the Army of the rank of brigadier or higher, in the Navy a commodore or higher and in the Air Force an air commodore or higher.All that said, I think we should bear in mind that Defence Force personnel are not like elite athletes. Their job is to defend Australia, and it is not our responsibility to do anything other than ensure that they are able to do it to the best of their ability. There are drugs and treatments that can improve the performance of soldiers as well as the performance of elite athletes. For example, in the research I did looking at this particular issue I found that apparently the Russian military have been using a stimulant called Bromatan to keep their troops alert. They had been doing that under their administrative structure. They probably use other drugs as well, but those are actually allocated to their troops. I understand from looking at some of the information that similar tactics are now also being used in the Australian Defence Force and in New Zealand's SAS unit. I alert the House to that and draw the attention of members to an article in the Daily Telegraph of 5 April 1999 on this allocation of drugs, in effect, to members of the armed forces. It says:Under these guidelines, members of the Special Air Service Regiment in Australia, the 1 Commando Regiment and some infantry units will be exposed to chemicals to improve endurance and a procedure called `blood loading'. That involves the removal of up to a litre of blood which is put back into the soldier's body just before a battle or exercise. Some of the chemicals being evaluated include modafinil, ephedrine and caffeine which all enhance endurance.Apparently there is the possibility that some naturally occurring substances may also be allocated in that regard. I think it behoves members of this House to take an interest in that process. Clearly there is a fine line that none of us would want to see crossed in this regard, because there has been a history in the past of troops being used in experiments and subsequently we discover that there have been some horrendous consequences of those sorts of investigations. There have been allegations that blood loading has become fairly common among athletes. If it is deemed by medical authorities to be a safe process, it could probably be of great assistance to soldiers in the field. But we do need to take a close look at this process, because what is now happening is that the involvement of members of those elite regiments, the Special Air Services Regiment and the 1 Commando Regiment, as well as some infantry units in Australia, is being looked at.In the same article it was also noted that a survey that had been conducted found that more than 50 per cent of elite troops were already using performance enhancing aids and energy boosters. Those things can be as simple and as basically harmless as ginseng and some specially developed carbohydrate type foods, but it is an issue that we need to keep a close watch on. Of course, that is not the same thing as we have been looking at in relation to this other problem of drugs, marijuana or other recreational drugs. Those are the ones that will be picked up by the process of urine testing.In closing, I would like to congratulate the government on its decision to award the AEWACs contracts. There has been a concern that arose, with the sudden arrival of various groups of boat people on the shores, that the existing resources available to our armed forces were being tested. It is good to see that we are grasping the nettle—if at some quite considerable cost; it will cost $2 billion to get these AEWACs aircraft—and that we are going to take on a capability that really does catapult Australia forward a long way in terms of its overall capability.Two of those aircraft are to be based at Tindal in the Northern Territory and the rest are going to be based permanently at Williamtown. Their capability will really count significantly when it comes to detecting inappropriate movements of traffic not only in the air but also on the surface—I think they can do that kind of thing. That will be significant, as will be the capability to be able to direct our forces far more effectively than what we can possibly do at the present time. I pay tribute to the minister for this development. He has grasped some very difficult issues within the Defence portfolio.Clearly, in the time since the coalition has come to power we have faced a lot of changes in the world. It is entirely correct to say that no-one in the world foresaw the Asian economic crisis. Whether they were military experts or anybody else, they had no great extra special capacity beyond the great capacity of the universities and everybody else that was wrong-footed on the Asian economic crisis. The impact, however, of the need to expand our Defence Force has been taken up very strongly by this government and the capabilities gained through the allocation of this AEWACs contract will be significant. It is good to see them being handled in such an effective and efficient manner.21:54:008309Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON8T4ReidALP00—The previous speaker, the member for Blair, who had obviously done some research on various drugs and their use in sport et cetera, referred to practices in the Russian armed forces. I would have wished, however, that he had done a bit more research on the Privacy Commissioner and his role in regard to the Defence Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 . Unfortunately, he tortured us all with a conventional attack upon privacy commissioners, basically accusing people of having thought police, and using all that kind of conservative rhetoric that we have heard over the last few years. The irony was that, having attacked the Privacy Commissioner for his supposed role in delaying this legislation, he went on to enumerate positive facets of this bill which are derived from the activity of the Privacy Commissioner. He told the parliament how great some of these provisions were, not knowing for one moment that they stemmed from the Privacy Commissioner.In fact, most of the delays, whether they have been by the Labor Party or the current government, really are not attributable to the Privacy Commissioner. Even today we have people in here crying crocodile tears with references to some senator's husband being mentioned by an opposition member of parliament, and then the member for Blair comes around complaining that we have privacy commissioners to protect people and their rights.The other point that he did not quite understand was that there were clear indications that this legislation could not even come before the parliament because it needed other legislation. The Privacy Commissioner pointed out that you could not enforce this without legislation. That was not understood by the previous speaker at one stage, so I think it was a matter of coming in here and mindlessly just deciding, `I'll have a bit of a shot at somebody. It sounds good back in voterland and it might sound good at the local branch of the Liberal Party.'In reality, in this legislation the Privacy Commissioner has played a very important role in protecting individuals in the armed forces who, as we all know, do not have union representation and have very limited employee rights. Quite frankly, if there is any group in this society that needs a bit of external protection, it is the members who serve this country in the armed forces.This bill chiefly seeks to implement a process for random urine testing to detect drug use by Australian Defence Force personnel who are employed in combat or combat related duties. It also repeals the Supply and Development Act 1939 and makes a number of housekeeping amendments to a range of other pieces of defence legislation. Under the current government it is indeed an extremely rare event for a parliament to consider defence legislation. Such matters are clearly a low priority for the coalition. For example, we still await the changes to the Military Compensation Act 1994 that were announced in June 1997. We also keenly await the coalition's response to the recently completed inquiry into the military justice system. The minister opposite is a leading practitioner of government by inquiry. I have personally lost count of how many inquiries he has launched in regard to the end of war list, various awards, the Far Eastern Strategic Reserve—YT4SCOTTMr Bruce Scott—Ones you know nothing about.8T4Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON—I will give you some commendation because even your inquiries are an improvement upon the activities of your predecessor and I agree, quite frankly, that you have had quite a few problems dumped in your lap by your predecessor. However, it is a question of government by inquiry and certainly the department—and probably the minister as well—has lost count of how many inquiries have been launched.While the coalition has not managed to incorporate such matters into its legislation program, we have seen it inflict collateral damage on serving personnel as a result of its other policy agendas. Examples include defence leave for reservists being removed as an allowable award matter. Quite frankly, in a practical sense we are already seeing around Australia in a variety of awards and agreements attempts by employers to delete this right for employees.I have had the opportunity to go to a variety of bases around this country with the shadow minister for defence, as he noted earlier. Quite clearly, on the ground—I think many coalition members are aware of this—we have a very big problem in regard to recruitment levels at the moment. Whether it is because of the unattractiveness of military life or actually of the reserves or because of changes in the work force—casualisation et cetera—we are having trouble attracting people. Yet this is an environment in which the government is saying that we need them.In the context of a society where there are decreasing numbers of people at various work sites and where employees have more objection to their workmates taking time off and putting more pressure on them, we obviously need people to have award protection for their right to pursue this reserve work. To remove it as an allowable instrument is clearly a problem in regard to reserves at the moment.You do not need to listen to me. Quite frankly, we know that the Premier of Victoria had a long-term interest in reserves and the Victorian State Council of the Liberal Party called for their reintroduction. Peter Reith's comment in this House was `Big deal' when the Victorian State Council of the Liberal Party passed a motion calling for its reintroduction. Another instance is ADF personnel being disproportionately slugged under the new fringe benefit tax reporting legislation, and the future of the pay-setting system for the ADF remains under a cloud.I turn now to specific provisions of the bill. The ADF has had a no-drugs policy for many years. Under this policy, disciplinary or administrative action is initiated against any serving member who is found to be selling, possessing, dealing in or administering an illegal drug either to himself or herself or to someone else. The administrative sanctions against those who breach this policy include termination of appointment for officers, discharge from the service for non-officers or a reduction in rank. On enlistment, new recruits to the armed forces are required to sign a written acknowledgment that they have been made aware of the ADF's no-drugs policy.In September 1993, the Chief of Defence Force approved a drug testing program entailing analysis of sample urine samples from randomly selected uniformed personnel. This program was to focus on operational personnel and on basic training units with an emphasis on the detection of narcotic substances. It was due to commence in July 1995. This drug testing program was supported by the then Labor government but could not be implemented without legislation because of concerns that were raised by the Privacy Commissioner and by the Attorney-General's Department.The point we are making is that, whether people want to stand around wasting the time of this parliament by attacking the Privacy Commission, the strict legal situation in this country was that what the Privacy Commission said had to be done had to be done. In particular, the Privacy Commissioner expressed concern that the policy was unnecessarily intrusive, was not justified by evidence of extensive drug use in the ADF, captured drug use that was not particularly relevant in an operational sense to an individual's function in the armed forces and ignored legal drug use that could equally hamper a person's discipline, safety and efficiency.As a result of these concerns, the government agreed that random drug testing should proceed only if it were explicitly authorised by legislation. Cabinet endorsed the preparation of such legislation in April 1997, but it was not introduced until March this year. The testing program authorised in this bill is designed to detect illicit drug usage that might otherwise hamper the ability of serving personnel to carry out their combat or combat related duties in a safe, efficient and effective manner. Combat and combat related duties are broadly defined for the purposes of this testing. It will occur on a random basis and will focus on the detection of cocaine, opiate, cannabis or heroin use.The bill sets out procedures for the conduct of tests to address privacy and other concerns. Where possible, the collection of samples is to be supervised by a qualified medical practitioner. Personnel whose urine samples display evidence of them using these drugs will face administrative action including possible discharge. The first step will be for Defence to arrange for a doctor to provide an assessment of whether the person is fit or suitable for further military service. If the doctor considers that he or she is unfit or unsuitable for further service, the serving member is then to be given the opportunity to show cause why he or she should not be discharged or have his or her appointment terminated.The Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, Mr Scott, has said that personnel whose random urine samples reveal illicit drug use will not face formal charges under section 59 of the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 under which such use is punishable by a fine or a term of imprisonment or under the Crimes Act 1914. The bill does provide, however, that a refusal to provide a urine sample, or tampering with a sample, is a serious offence attracting a maximum penalty of six months imprisonment. Any member whose service is retained despite a positive test result will be placed on a regular follow-up testing regime. Performance enhancing drugs, such as those reportedly used by the SAS and some other Army units, are excluded from the testing program.I note that the key defence lobby groups do not oppose the principle of urine analysis drug testing. Some have said, however, that the drug testing regime should apply to all uniformed personnel irrespective of their duties. Given the earlier concerns of the Privacy Commissioner, much denounced by the previous speaker and others, it is probably sensible to commence the testing program on the restricted basis provided for in the bill. The results of the testing program can then be used to assess just how widespread and serious drug use actually is in the ADF.I note that Australia is far from alone in introducing random drug testing of military personnel. Similar programs of urine testing are already in place in key allied countries such as the US, the UK, Canada and New Zealand. Random testing was introduced in the British forces in late 1994. According to the Times of 16 May 1995, the first quarter of testing in 1995 produced positive results in half a per cent of cases or in one in 200 personnel.In response to the widespread and fairly notorious use of illicit drugs by servicemen in Vietnam, the US military developed policies to combat drug abuse in its forces from the late 1960s. It is noticeable that Congress insisted that prevention of alcohol abuse be incorporated into Defence Department drug use prevention programs.The risks of undetected drug use were highlighted in a serious accident that occurred in 1981 when a US Navy jet crashed on the aircraft carrier Nimitz. Tragically, 14 sailors were killed in this incident. An official autopsy revealed that the pilot was using non-prescription antihistamines, and six of the others on board showed traces of cannabis use. This incident led to the introduction in that same year of urine testing to detect drug use by American personnel. Breathalyser tests have also been conducted.It is interesting to note that since 1980 the US military has also conducted a series of surveys on drug and alcohol use by enlisted personnel. As well as illicit drugs, these self-report surveys have covered alcohol use, the use of inhalants and the non-medical use of psychotherapeutic drugs such as stimulants, tranquillisers, sedatives and analgesics.It is acknowledged that self-reported studies are likely to somewhat underestimate drug use compared with urine, breathalyser and blood tests. With this qualification, a 1992 paper by Bray, Marsden, Herbold and Peterson in the journal Armed Forces and Society reveals that reported illicit drug use in the preceding 30 days declined steadily from 27.6 per cent in 1980—at the beginning of US activity in this field in their armed forces—to 4.8 per cent in 1998. Heavy alcohol use, on the other hand, rose to 24.1 per cent in 1982 and then fell to 17 per cent in 1988.Bray et al cautioned that these changes could not be simply attributed to the introduction of education and testing programs. During the same period, the composition of the military's work force also changed, becoming older, better educated and more likely to be married—all characteristics associated with lower levels of drug and alcohol use. The Bray paper also refers to published comparisons of military and civilian drug and alcohol use in the United States. Note that these were standardised studies, adjusted for demographic differences between the two groups. The authors conclude:Military policy directed against drug abuse has resulted in lower drug use among military personnel than among civilians; in contrast, military life may be conducive to a greater likelihood of abusive levels of alcohol among military personnel than among civilians in general.In quoting these results, I am not implying that drug use in the military is not of concern. It is obvious that defence personnel engage in more hazardous activities and are responsible for the safety of others to a greater extent than occurs in the civilian work force, with the exception of pilots, air traffic controllers and train drivers. This justifies the application of testing procedures and discipline requirements that would be unacceptable in other work situations. Equally, heavy drinking is clearly a problem in the armed forces that can also cause safety and fitness problems. One wonders how effective are current programs within the ADF to address this problem.I now turn to the other aspects of the bill. The bill provides a more efficient mechanism to enable the Chief of the Defence Force, the Chief of Army, the Chief of Navy and officers on limited tenure promotion to transfer to the Army Reserve and Navy Reserve when their term of appointment ends. The proposal was designed to retain the service of skilled and experienced senior officers once they left the full-time service by making it easier for them to transfer to the reserves. In parallel with this amendment, Air Force regulations will also be amended to implement a similar mechanism for RAAF officers. Currently, a service chief or an officer on limited tenure promotion who wishes to transfer to the reserves is required to first retire and then seek appointment to the reserves. Given that the reserves are an integral part of the ADF, this is an unnecessarily cumbersome and inefficient procedure.Other measures in the bill are largely of an administrative or technical nature. They include a new provision allowing service chiefs to delegate their powers to retire or terminate the appointment of officers, an amendment extending the time limitation on charging persons under the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 from three to five years and the repeal of the Supply and Development Act 1939, which is now redundant because the relevant defence production facilities have all since been corporatised, privatised or closed.As indicated by my colleague the member for Cunningham, the opposition will not be opposing the bill. In conclusion, however, I take the opportunity to join with him in expressing our concern, obtained from on-the-ground visits to a number of bases over the last fortnight, about the impact of fringe benefits tax upon morale in the armed forces and about the significant numbers of people leaving. I do not need to reiterate at length the points that the minister quite clearly understands. I think the member for Cunningham is accurate in saying that the minister opposite has a reasonable handle on the feeling of people in the forces. He has been available enough and he has been around the bases enough to know that at the moment we do have a very significant problem.These people, as I said earlier, are not conventional day-to-day employees in society. They do not have representation. Essentially, they are subject to levels of discipline that the average person is not. They are forced by whatever government of whatever political persuasion at any one time to undertake very difficult activities. They are forced to move their families on many occasions. This has led to a greater level of family strain and—this has statistically been borne out—there is a higher level of divorce. That impacts on child support. This interpretation of fringe benefits tax by the ATO will essentially lead to very great burdens upon a significant number of the people in the armed forces. We must be concerned that the minister does take up with his colleagues the need to ensure that that impact does not lead in the long term to what I feel genuinely is on the ground at the moment—a very low level of morale and concern as to whether a significant number of people would be terminating.22:12:008313Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELINHV5GreyLP10—I must say that I quite enjoyed listening to the speakers tonight on the Defence Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 . To the members for Cunningham, Blair and Reid, I thank them from my own personal perspective for their contributions because I thought each in their own way brought different perspectives. They have very well laid down the purposes of the bill.In the few minutes that I will speak on it—I do not intend to use all of my time—I will highlight the government's commitment to the defence capability of Australia and remind those who may be listening to this discussion tonight that we will spend in the current financial year just over $18 billion on defence procurement. The new initiatives approved include the acquisition of the reconnaissance and aerial fast port helicopters for the Army. No doubt that reconnaissance effort was in some of the discussion that the member for Blair shared with us out at Amberley. We have additional air-to-air missiles for the RAAF's FA18 hornets, enhancement of RAN minesweeping and minehunting capabilities, improvements to the electronic countermeasures of our F111s, new Evolved Sea Sparrow ship based missiles and new air-to-air weapons for the F111s.This capability underscores the reality in the late 20th century of the highly technological nature of defence capacity throughout the world. Recent events in Europe remind us of this remarkable capacity in terms of NATO's sustained air attack against the former Yugoslavia. As I understand it, we saw not one loss of human life in that whole campaign. Sadly, there were losses of life in accidents and misadventure in training exercises, and I think subsequently in Kosovo itself there have been some losses of life in incidents there. But it really highlights the highly technical nature and the highly capitalised nature of the war machine of our era.I am reminded of issues around the Collins submarine which will no doubt require, in the current budget allocation, some hundreds of millions of dollars to upgrade. I heard earlier that it cost $838 million for one piece of equipment, and this just highlights the issue of drug testing. It is said that you can replace a machine—even though it is a fairly elaborate and expensive machine—but the prime consideration for a commanding officer and others in positions of leadership in the armed forces must be the danger to personnel. It is very important for our service personnel to be able to minimise risks associated with the taking of drugs. The member for Reid reminded us of the Privacy Commissioner's role and the things that happened in the US and other countries, and these are quite useful in helping us to understand some of the issues of drug testing.Other matters of the bill have been well covered by other speakers, including the transfer of officers to the Reserves and the delegation of powers. The legislation seeks to extend the time limitation for the laying of charges from three to five years under the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982, following recommendations of a Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee inquiry into the crash of a RAAF Nomad aircraft. The Supply and Development Act 1939 has been mentioned, and there is a technical amendment to the defence homes legislation.I want to emphasise my support for those who choose the defence forces as a profession and the value that this parliament puts upon it. The demands on defence personnel have been well described earlier such as the extra demands on family life. Comparisons have also been made of the difference between military life and civilian life. All these things need to be recognised in the way we treat our service personnel. One of my very sad memories in coming into this place is the Black Hawk disaster near Townsville back in 1996. It reminds us of the very narrow margins and the very high risks that our defence forces work under. Even though this is reasonably procedural legislation, it reminds us of the importance of giving maximum support and practical backup to our defence personnel.In conclusion, I compliment Minister Scott and Minister Moore. When we have had such a long period of peacetime, it is very difficult to keep the defence forces focused in a way which reflects our national interest. It must be an absolute challenge for the leadership of our defence forces, for the defence department and for the ministers to keep our national interest very much in the forefront. With those few words, I congratulate the government and wish this legislation speedy passage.22:21:008314Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNEUU5PatersonALP00—I rise to support the Defence Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 , and I do so because it is important to defence personnel. One of our defence bases is in the Paterson electorate, and I support it because it is important to the morale and future careers of some of the 3,000 RAAF personnel who live in and around the Paterson electorate.It is unfortunate that over recent weeks we have heard a lot about management, or mismanagement, of our defence forces—particularly by the minister. With a force that is affected by cutbacks in staff, and with the total number of our defence personnel plummeting to the lowest level since pre-World War II, the morale in our defence forces is certainly not good. But the measures in this legislation are good for the morale of our defence forces. We on this side of the House are proud of the fact that a considerable part of this legislation was started by us back in 1995 when Senator Robert Ray and Senator John Faulkner were the relevant ministers.We need to understand that Defence personnel are immensely proud of their drug-free status, and they want this legislation to be in place to support their reputation. Mind you, I sometimes think we are overzealous with respect to drugs in our Defence Force. I particularly remember making a submission for an insulin-dependent diabetic. He was devastated because he was compulsorily forced to withdraw from the RAAF on medical grounds. It was particularly harsh because he had just signed up for his final term of duty, at the end of which he would have been eligible to receive a Defence pension. The point was that he was quite a skilled person. He was a fellow who used to maintain the ejection seats and the parachutes in fighter aircraft. He was considerably skilled at that and he trained others. The reason that he was forced to withdraw from the RAAF was that, in a theatre of war, insulin may have been denied to him and therefore he would not have been able to perform his duties. I found that a very harsh and fairly inhumane end to the career of a person who actually loved what he was doing and was very good at it.That point leads on to another part of the legislation. That piece of the legislation that I refer to is the piece that now allows regular or permanent members of the Defence Force at the end of their tour of duty to pass into the reserves. That is very important, because in the modern Defence Force with modern weaponry, modern communications and all the planning that goes into warfare, it is important that those skills be retained and that those people do not simply have to drop out at the end of the period for which they signed up. It certainly makes sense, and I agree with the legislation. If they can then transfer to the reserves, that is a very good thing. We should also be mindful that, under the Hawke-Keating government, Australia made a quantum leap to develop its own defence industry. We are building our own frigates, our own mine hunters and our own submarines and, in my own electorate of Paterson, British Aerospace will very soon be building the Hawk lead-in fighter trainer. They certainly hope that will lead to bigger and better things when the FA18 is phased out of service, and hopefully Australia will be capable of building its own fighter aircraft. This is a new industry, with all the technology and all the skills that are required.It is interesting that, earlier this evening, a number of people referred to the Collins class submarine rather apologetically. I do not see it that way. Sure, everyone knows that we will probably have to spend another half a billion dollars to bring these submarines up to scratch, but if as a nation we had not embarked on that project—we still wanted submarines and we would have brought in already constructed submarines from elsewhere and they may have been lemons too—we would not have developed a new industry. The way I see it is that the project is not over yet. If, with the expenditure of that extra half a billion dollars, we develop a top-class submarine, then we will have an industry that we can probably sell to the world and we will also have the potential to train our own young Australians in this highly skilled area of developing our own weapons.As a matter of fact, in my own electorate, particularly in the Hunter region with the mine hunters currently being built in Newcastle, with the lead-in fighter being built there and with the AEWAC aircraft going to be based there—although we had hoped that all of the work to do with the AEWAC would have been done at Williamtown but unfortunately that is not to be so—I certainly see that Defence has an enormous opportunity. This is particularly so when we consider that the demise of our BHP as we know it is certainly going to occur in the next six weeks. There is enormous potential for Defence in the Hunter region to employ our young people, to give them skills and to give them a career path that will be ongoing as Australia moves into the 21st century with its very own defence industry.One of the reasons that I am here to speak tonight is that we do support this legislation. It is bipartisan legislation and it has been developed in a bipartisan way over a number of years. It is very important that we have the highest level of skills and the highest level of trained personnel in our Defence Force. I also believe that it is great that Australia is now moving to be self-sufficient in its own defence industry—something that only two decades ago we certainly could not have looked to.Traditionally, we were a country that went overseas every couple of years. We bought the F111s and the Oberon class submarines—you name it, we bought it. Currently, of course, there are a couple of American warships that—perhaps inadvertently or perhaps otherwise; time will tell—were bought from the United States Navy and are being refurbished in the Forgacs dockyard in Newcastle. Unfortunately, there have been a couple of overruns, but I have no doubt that, at the end of it, the Australian Navy will finish up with two top-class warships and we will have learned from those mistakes. I would have preferred that we had, right from day one, built those warships here in Australia. As an island nation we needed them, and it is important that we develop those industries ourselves here in this country rather than depending on others.That is the positive thing that I see happening in Defence today. It is important that the morale of the Australian Defence Force be lifted and I believe that this legislation is going to go a long way towards doing that.Debate interrupted.Adjournment831510000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 10.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn. 831622:30:008316Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—Prior to the 1998 federal election, all members and senators received a letter from the General Manager of the Department of Finance and Administration outlining the arrangements covering the use of entitlements and facilities after the dissolution of parliament. I seek leave to table a copy of that later.Leave granted.KL6Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDREN—Paragraph 5 states:Senators and members' entitlements to staff and facilities, including information delivery service and travel . . . are to assist you to carry out your parliamentary and electorate responsibilities, but are not available for party business. Long standing convention is to regard electorate business as including activities in support of one's own re-election.It goes on to say, with regard to members' travel claims:As the House of Representatives has been dissolved, it would be difficult to rely on parliamentary business as a justification for travel.Last November I placed on the Notice Paper a question designed to compare election campaign travel and overtime by members' staff with the average monthly bill. What the answer shows is that, during the month of the 1998 election, federal members of parliament—mostly government, I should say—authorised staff overtime and travel allowance amounting to almost a million dollars more than the 1997-98 financial year monthly average. The figures I quote here are rounded down, but full details are available in Hansard in the answer received on 7 July to question No. 90.While the total average monthly travel allowance bill for the personal staff of members of parliament for the 1997-98 financial year was $225,000, during the election month this increased by more than 3½ times to $817,000. It was largely the same story for overtime. During the election month at least $156,000 was authorised for personal staff overtime as opposed to a monthly average of $88,000, while for electorate staff $660,000 was authorised compared with a monthly average of $300,000.A quick look at the figures from some prominent offices tells the story. During the election month the Prime Minister authorised $160,000, or nearly 10 times his office's average monthly staff travel allowance bill, and $22,000, more than three times its average, in personal staff overtime. The Leader of the Opposition authorised $79,000, or more than six times his office's monthly average for personal staff travel. And so it goes on.Another prominent office holder authorised $28,000 in staff travel allowance as opposed to an office monthly average of $6,000 and another $29,000 as opposed to $5,000. Again it goes on. But none of these was even up for re-election, being mid-term senators. Of course, none of these figures includes air fares which are also likely to run to tens of thousands of dollars. Why, I ask, should the taxpayer fork out this extra funding for personal staff participation in election campaigns—no doubt targeted at marginal seats—when they already pay for it through generous public funding laws? In recent times, there have been ever burgeoning numbers of spin doctors and advisory staff and these figures will only increase unless the tribunal gets real teeth.XJ6ANTHONYMr Anthony—What was yours?KL6Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDREN—Have a look. The question these office holders must answer is why, when the departmental guidelines clearly state such allowances may only be used for parliamentary or electorate work—not party business—they authorised claims during the 1998 election period far in excess of what they would have authorised during any normal month. Do they expect the public to believe that last September was a particularly busy parliamentary month although parliament had dissolved or that, as permitted by the longstanding convention, all of the personal staff of mid-term senators were working towards their bosses' re-elections when they were not even running?The answers point to widespread misuse of taxpayers' funds during the last election, largely for party political purposes as opposed to parliamentary or electorate work as set out by the tribunal. The guidelines are clearly inadequate. The Prime Minister must ensure they are tightened. These figures make the much publicised travel rorts of 1997 pale into insignificance and the worry is that it has probably been going on for years.831722:35:008317Hull, Kay, MPMrs HULL83ORiverinaNP10—I rise in the House this evening to speak on the republic. There is a well-known quote, `What price hast thy soul?' I ask in the same vein: what benefits will a republic bring to the people of Australia? We were told by the member for Werriwa that to be an Australian head of state is something to which our children can aspire. The member also told us that he does not agree with the content of the legislation that is before the parliament. He believes in a directly elected President but, because he is a true republican, he will vote yes in the referendum. He believes that all Australians should vote yes in the referendum, even though the wording is not right. He believes we should worry about the fine print later: that is just detail—simple things like who can be a head of state or an Australian President, whether a person has to be born in Australia, what resources it will take to implement this and how much the total cost will be in fulfilling the promise of a republic. I ask the member for Werriwa whether he would sign a contract to sell his house, his business, his livelihood and not know the purchase price—in fact, know that the contract in its written form does not reflect his wishes, but he should sign it and worry about all of these issues later: that is in the fine print.Do you really believe that Australians have so little intelligence or are so foolish that they will not want to know some of these details? In addition, Australians would need to understand how this alternative is better than what currently exists in Australia. When Australians ask these questions there is no answer. I repeat: there is no answer. There is no alternative better than what we have currently. Can anyone tell us that overseas countries refuse to trade with us because we are not a free country? Can anyone tell us that we are being penalised because we are not a republic? Can anyone tell us that having a republic will address issues like health, aged care and education?We are told by the opposition that being a republic will make us a better people; it will give our children something to aspire to—to become the Australian head of state, our President. I guess it will. It will create one job, but then again it will replace one job. I suggest there are many hundreds of thousands of our kids out there who would aspire to have just one job, any job, in this current climate.I begrudge the money that has been spent and that will be spent in the future on this issue. There are many things that need reform and action within Australia before we reform our Constitution. It is not the Constitution that jeopardises the future or the survival of rural and regional Australia. It is not our Constitution that prevents us from dealing with our growing drug problems. It is not our Constitution that prevents us from offering a quality of care for our aged, our children and our mentally and physically disabled. It is not our Constitution which prevents us from having world-class education, roads, infrastructure and jobs for Australians.The opposition speaks of emotion ruling this debate. They speak of the emotion coming from our side of the House. I suggest that the emotion comes from the opposition benches and is clearly a memory of 1975 when Gough Whitlam was sacked by the Governor-General, Sir John Kerr. The opposition will never accept nor forget this. I have sat here and listened to the opposition speak. The one thing that was consistent and dominant in the whole debate was the use of the Whitlam catchcry `It's time.' Most speakers said, `It's time.' I ask again: `What price hast thou soul' that they would sacrifice our country's stability in order to deliver their so-called justice?831722:39:008317Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—The issue of genetically modified food, or GMF, is of fundamental concern to all Australians and indeed the world. It is no exaggeration to say that GMF constitutes one of the greatest single biological issues yet faced by the human race. It is an issue that affects everyone. GMF is more than a mere `scientific' issue; it invokes serious ethical, health, environmental and trade dilemmas.There are many misconceptions about GMF. Therefore, a definition of GMF is required. GMF is defined as `food produced using gene technology which has been derived from an organism which has been modified by gene technology but does not include any substance regulated as a food additive or a processing aid'—standard A18, Food Standards Code.Right from the outset, we are not talking about food additives or other `processing aids'. GMF is something entirely different. It specifically relates to the modification of the genes within the food itself. I stress this distinction so that this House is absolutely clear as to what we are talking about. Many members of this House and members of the public will assert that food has been modified for years. For those who then point to additives or other processing techniques as if it were the same as GMF, this is simply incorrect.This raises the first of the ethical issues. Adolf Hitler is quoted as saying, `A bird flies because it is a bird.' This philosophy asserts that, because we can do a thing, therefore we must do a thing. Contrary to some reports in the media implying that all GM food will be labelled, I raise the issue of labelling and quote the Australian Medical Association's press release of 4 August 1999, which states;Suggestions were made on 3 August 1999 at the Ministers' meeting to include a minimum threshold level of genetically modified foods that would be exempt from labelling. Determining that `loophole' threshold level, if there is to be one, will be of utmost concern to the AMA. The standards must be stringently monitored to ensure food companies do not abuse the labelling system. Any loopholes could provide companies with opportunities to misinform the public about their product which would severely water down the extended labelling that the health ministers have strongly endorsed. The just jury is still out on the benefits and risks of genetically modified foods on public health and the environment.I note the common food industry arguments for not labelling; that is, it is too costly and damages consumer confidence. I further note a report in the Australian newspaper on 4 August 1999 that GM foods `have not been tested on human beings'. The immediate concern is the implementation of the FSC in the forthcoming Australia New Zealand Food Authority Amendment Bill 1999 . The bill proposes to permit the Australia New Zealand Food Authority to administer what they consider to be minor issues without consulting the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Council, although ANZFSC retains the right to veto such decisions.There is also concern about the future of Commonwealth government administrative arrangements. In an increasing age of philosophy of reduced government regulatory involvement and self-regulating industry, these concerns are more than justified. The single most pressing issue is the justified fear that, like so many other government regulatory powers, the market is driving policy towards a universal laissez-faire philosophy at any cost. Fears are being expressed that the Foods Standards Code will be watered down to meet competition policy principles and manufacturer and trade imperatives rather than consumer specifications, including public health and the right to know and choose. Specifically, the World Trade Organisation talks in November will deal with discussion about free trade of genetically modified products.However, the Biosafety Protocol—trade in living genetically modified organisms—has mysteriously stalled. This is a clear indication of the manipulation by powerful trade groups and stakeholders in squashing the truth about GMF. Further evidence of this worldwide gagging of the implications is to be found in the United Nation's Codex Alimentarius meeting in May 1999 in which Australia and others rejected the United States led resistance to compulsory labelling of GMF in the first stage vote on the proposed international draft labelling standard for GM foods.I end this speech by quoting the precautionary principle from section 6(2)(a) of the Protection of the Environment Administration Act (NSW) which states, inter alia:If there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty should be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation. GMF is a clear case of such a threat. We cannot therefore postpone measures to prevent such environmental degradation. I urge this House to stop GMF entering the market.831922:44:008319Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr RONALDSONXT4BallaratLP10—It is always great for the Chief Government Whip to get the call in the adjournment debate. There is great competition. I recently received an email from a constituent, Jamie Bedson. It was from Banja Luka. It says:My name is Jamie Bedson and I am writing to you from Banja Luka in Bosnia and Herzegovina. I have been living here since the start of February this year, and I am teaching English for a local branch of the Cambridge School of English. I am a Ballaratian—and a very fine one too, I might say—having been overseas for the majority of the last four years. I'm living in Bosnia until I come home early next year.The reason I am writing to you is for some suggestions and possibly some help in relation to the current refugee crisis in Albania, a result of the conflict in Yugoslavia. Currently volunteers are needed in Albania with my specific skills, and I now have the opportunity to provide this help. Being here has put me in the unique position of being very close to the current state of events in the former Yugoslavia and surrounding areas.As I am coming home next year and am able to report back to any interested organisations at home, I thought there might be the opportunity to involve local Ballarat charitable organisations in an international project, especially those concerned with youth. It is with this in mind that I write to you now.During the course of the bombing in Yugoslavia it is estimated that 600,000 refugees from the Kosovo region made their way to Albania, and they have been living there under extremely uncomfortable circumstances. Many of these have been in refugee camps run by Non Government Organisations, while others have found room with host families.This young man, who is working for the Sunflower group, is doing what a lot of young people want to do; that is, doing something for someone else. There are plenty of Jamie Bedsons not just in Ballarat but all over Australia and I think all the world who are trying to do something for someone else.I have written to a number of Ballarat organisations—the city council, the Ballarat secondary college where my constituent went to school and other organisations—to assist this young man to live in these camps and help these young people. These young people of course have very few skills in English or anything else. This young man is also a musician and he is involving himself in helping children to express themselves. After what they have been through, I think they deserve every bit of assistance they can get.I thought the response of the Australian community to the Kosovo refugees was an indication of the absolute backbone of this country. We have always been prepared to fight for someone who was getting a raw deal. We have done that for a long time. We have proved ourselves in various theatres of war and we have proved ourselves in peacetime to be a nation that is prepared to get in and have a go. We are a nation that is prepared to break what might seem to be the rules to achieve those ends. We have done so with great pride and we have done so with great gusto.In the very short time that is left to me tonight I would like to speak on another topic. Time constraints yesterday with the urgency to get the Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) Bill 1999 across to the Senate meant that I could not have an opportunity to say what I wanted to say. I have made it clear in the past that the present system has served this country well and, if needed to, could do so just as well for the next 100 years. Many months ago, I made it quite clear that I would consider supporting a republic if and only if it was a model that allowed the Australian people to be a direct part of the presidential election process rather than excluding them as the referendum model does. That requirement I think is one that has widespread support throughout the Australian community.I am one of those who believe this is the people's referendum, and I will not be actively campaigning, but I will start campaigning if I hear any of this patent and blatant nonsense from some quarters that someone who supports the present system or supports another model is in some way un-Australian or unpatriotic. I hope this debate is a sensible one. The Australian people—politicians and others involved—deserve a proper and sensible debate that is not based on emotion and I hope all members will respect that. (Time expired)832022:49:008320Wilkie, Kim, MPMr WILKIE84GSwanALP00—I would like to take the opportunity of providing the House with information on a tremendous initiative operating in Western Australia. This initiative sees members of parliament `adopted' by families where a family member has a disability. The Politician Adoption Scheme, which is an initiative of the Developmental Disability Council, aims to support members of parliament in representing the needs of people with disabilities in their electorates by providing a more personal insight into the impact of disabilities on people's lives. This occurs through regular contact with their `adopting family'. Politicians therefore develop a better understanding of why support services are so desperately needed and are therefore better informed so as to advocate for the necessary funds to be provided for this vitally important sector.I was honoured to be invited to participate in this program. On 18 June, I was adopted by the Gotti family of Victoria Park. This ceremony occurred at Government House, WA, and was presided over by the Governor of Western Australia, Major General Michael Jeffery. I am pleased to advise that this program received bipartisan support, with both members of the coalition and Labor being adopted.The problems faced by families where a member has a disability are enormous. For many, even the most routine of tasks, which many of us take for granted, become major projects. To illustrate this I would like the House to consider the Gotti family and their circumstances. In order to achieve this I will quote from the speech made by Mrs Gotti at the adoption ceremony. Mrs Gotti describes the difficulties faced by people in these circumstances far more eloquently than I would ever be able to by quoting from personal experience:My name is Rosa Gotti. I am married to Danny. We have two boys, Ben, sixteen and Jamie nine and a half.Ben is our special needs child. He was born with cytomegalovirus, has microcephaly, cerebral palsy (quad spastic), is functionally blind, unable to speak, epileptic and a mild asthmatic. In a nutshell Ben is my sixteen year old "baby".A teenager with all the normal feelings and emotions of anyone his age unfortunately trapped in a body that physically requires the care given to a baby. How frustrating it must feel for him when his carers, his parents, have to feed him, dress him, toilet him etc. etc.Ben is unable to turn himself at night. When uncomfortable he wakes and wakes me, I turn him and go back to bed and hopefully we go back to sleep, not always. This happens three to four times a night, sometimes more. Some nights we are all awake.Ben is taller and stronger than me with extremely strong muscle tone and this is taking a toll on me physically. The hoist we have is of some help but still requires two people to use it. It is not functional in all the rooms where lifting is necessary.Having a disabled child has been draining, physically, emotionally, socially, monetarily and totally frustrating. It does not improve with age nor time. As he gets older we are continuously running into more and more bureaucratic superfluous red tape.Having Ben, as difficult as it is, is continuously compounded by the system which is totally orientated to addressing the peripherals and not the problems of the disabled.Ben is a very clever young man who has achieved significant goals regardless of all the impediments, thanks to a lot of hard work on his part and the vision of a dedicated few. He uses an augmented communication system, a Macaw to speak.With the help of an army of volunteers during his first six years of therapy there was born the witty charming and lovable, social Ben of today.It is this person and his family who is adopting Kim Wilkie M.P. Federal Member for Swan as advocate for all disabled Australians.This is an example of one family's courageous struggle. That they have been prepared to open their lives to scrutiny in order that I may obtain an insight into the plight of people in these circumstances is a selfless act which is to be highly commended.Some members have asked what they can do to assist. Firstly, members need to gain an insight into the impact on families of caring for a family member with a disability. Members should also be involved in any Politician Adoption Scheme in their electorate if one is operating. Members need to advocate for people with disabilities and keep their electorates informed about disability issues. For my part, I thank the Gottis for their trust and look forward to the challenge of keeping parliament informed regarding disability issues.832122:54:008321Lawler, Tony, MPMr LAWLER834ParkesNP10—The town of Forbes's first Peace Ambassador Award has recently been awarded. A local man, Don Sewell, who now manages the Jemalong Retirement Village, spent 6½ years in Vietnam during the Vietnam War. He says that the time has left a lasting impression on him and that those memories will never go away. This was the man who was awarded this first Peace Ambassador Award.The town of Forbes is amongst several go-ahead towns in my electorate. Some well-known events are held in the town: Carnivale, an Australia Day and many other social events for which the town has become very well known. The people of Forbes have taken it upon themselves to set up this Peace Ambassador Award.Don Sewell had volunteered to work in a 90-bed hospital in Vietnam that was caring for Vietnamese civilians who were victims of the war. Patients comprised war victims: those injured or mutilated by war activities, those starving from lack of food, those horrifically burned, countless orphans from the four large orphanages in the district and countless thousands of refugees afflicted and dying from almost every known disease and illness. I quote from the Forbes Advocate:On arrival at the hospital, Mr Sewell's job was as Assistant Director and jack of all trades. Supervising office work, scrounging from U.S. army bases, overseeing the provision and supply of equipment and supplies to the various areas of the hospital.He became so involved in the work that, despite volunteering to go for one year, he eventually stayed for six years and left when he was evacuated just before the communists arrived in the city. Early in 1975 the communist forces began to take over the country and he was advised by American security to evacuate as many of his international staff as possible. Don Sewell ordered 10 others to fly to Saigon, leaving four behind to try and keep the hospital going. On Good Friday, 28 March 1975, Don received a phone call saying that they had 1½ hours to get themselves on the last plane out of Qui Nhon before the communist forces took over the town. They were allowed to take only one small bag and had to leave most of their personal belongings behind.Records of experiences of special people like Don Sewell should be written for following generations to read and learn about, so that they will appreciate history that hopefully will never be repeated. Don Sewell now manages the Jemalong Retirement Village in Forbes and shows the same care to the elderly residents and is a fierce advocate for those unable to care for themselves. Mr Don Sewell has now settled into Forbes, and Forbes has settled in with Don Sewell—Forbes's first Peace Ambassador recipient.Question resolved in the affirmative.House adjourned at 10.58 p.m.Notices8321The following notice was given:Mr Slipper to present a bill for an act to amend the law relating to superannuation, and for related purposes.Answers to Questions in Writing8322The following answers to questions were circulated:8322(Question No. 743)7438322Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio7T4ProspectALP00 asked the Ministers for Foreign Affairs and Trade, 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 the 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 1998-99.8322Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—As indicated above, the honourable member has asked identical questions of both Ministers. The following answer is provided on behalf of both ministers:Libraries are operated by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (the H.V. Evatt Library), and by AusAID.(a) the sums spent by the two libraries are as follows:DepartmentAusAID1996-97$44,1711996-97$8,6071997-98$46,7571997-98$12,9611998-99$57,4171998-99$7,277(b) A list of books acquired by these libraries since 1 July 1998 has been provided directly to the Honourable Member in view of its length. The list includes donations, as it would require an unreasonable diversion of resources to separate donations from purchases.8322(Question No. 579)5798322Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 11 May 1999:Further to the answer to question No.116 (Hansard , 11 May 1999, page 4157), concerning the engagement of the Hon. Dame Margaret Guilfoyle, DBE, to undertake a review of the social security review and appeals system, (a) is she entitled to parliamentary superannuation benefits, (b) was membership of, or holding office in, a political party a factor which was considered in her selection, (c) how was she selected, (d) who was involved in her selection, (e) how were fees for the review determined, (f) on what basis was the fee of $100 000 paid to her, (g) over what period was the review conducted, (h) was departmental support provided to the review; if so, what was its nature, (i) who drafted the report arising from the review, (j) was the sum of $1647.95 referred to in paragraph (F)(I)(ac) of the answer in addition to the sum of $100,000, (k) what was the destination of each trip made away from her home base and (l) what was the standard SES travel allowance payable for each trip to a destination away from her home base.8322Anthony, Larry, MPMr AnthonyXJ6RichmondNPCommunity Services10—The Minister for Family and Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(a) No. Dame Margaret Guilfoyle is already receiving a Parliamentary pension. (As a former Senator of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, the Hon Dame Margaret Guilfoyle DBE is entitled to receive a Parliamentary pension).(b) No.(c) and (d) Several names were raised and discussed by the Minister for Social Security and the Secretary and Dame Margaret Guilfoyle DBE was regarded as best suited to the task.The Minister for Social Security and the Secretary of the Department of Social Security were involved in Dame Margaret's selection.The appointment was made by the Minister for Social Security taking into account the Terms of Reference for the Review. On this basis it was considered that Dame Margaret Guilfoyle's background and knowledge of the social security system made her eminently qualified to undertake the Review.(e) and (f) The fees were estimated on the basis of 100 days of work at $1,000 per day based on an assessed rate of comparable payments to legal consultants lawyers' payments.(g) Minister Jocelyn Newman announced the review and the appointment of the Hon Dame Margaret Guilfoyle DBE to undertake the review on 20 December 1996. The review was completed in September 1997.(h) Yes. 1 SOG B part-time. 1 SOG C for 6 months. 1 ASO 4 part-time as required.(i) The Hon Dame Margaret Guilfoyle DBE.(j) Yes.(k) and (l) DatesItineraryTravel Allowance $20/1/97-22/1/97Melbourne-Canberra-Melbourne388.1503/2/97-04/2/97Melbourne-Adelaide-Melbourne234.3013/2/97-04/3/97Melbourne Sydney-Melbourne280.3018/2/97Melbourne-Canberra-Melbourne 44.0024/02/97-25/02/97Melbourne-Hobart-Melbourne228.2016/3/97-18/3/97Melbourne-Brisbane-Melbourne 471.2523/3/97-24/3/97Melbourne-Canberra-Melbourne220.8009/4/97-11/4/97Melbourne-Perth-Melbourne402.9028/4/97-29/4/97Melbourne-Canberra-Melbourne239.3029/5/97-30/5/97Melbourne-Cairns-Darwin-Melbourne269.7015/5/97Melbourne-Canberra-Melbourne44.004/8/97-7/8/97Melbourne-Canberra-Melbourne590.4013/8/97-14/8/97Melbourne-Canberra-Melbourne211.351/9/97-2/9/97Melbourne-Canberra-Melbourne220.70Travel allowance was based on standard SES rates applying for January to September 1997 period. The standard SES rates applying at the time are as follows:DestinationAccommodation Pre-May 1997Accommodation Post-May 1997Adelaide$95.00-Brisbane$137.00-Canberra$100.00$97.00Darwin$119.00$127.00Sydney$141.00-Meals and incidentalsBreakfast$13.60$14.00Lunch$18.50$19.00Dinner$27.60$28.35Incidentals$16.75$17.008324(Question No. 585)5858324Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Employment Services, upon notice, on 11 May 1999:Has the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business undertaken research into the success rate of employment services companies using FLEX3 to place persons in employment since the introduction of the Job Network; if so, how do the outcomes compare with the performance of Employment Services Regulatory Authority employment services.8324Abbott, Tony MPMr AbbottEZ5WarringahLPEmployment Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Yes. While it is too early in the market to assess the full impact Intensive Assistance has had in gaining employment for job seekers, the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business is closely monitoring the success rate of Intensive Assistance Job Network members in placing persons in employment.I refer the honourable member to the National performance data of Job Network employment outcomes on a region by region basis that I released on 11 June 1999 in connection with the release of the second Job Network Request for Tender:. from 1 May 1998 to 4 June 1999, there were over 342,000 Intensive Assistance commencements;. there were nearly 99,000 Job Matching placements of job seekers who have commenced under Intensive Assistance; and. furthermore, the department's analysis shows that, in terms of placements into sustainable jobs (that is, jobs not subsidised by the government) and where clients satisfied the conditions for an outcome payment, Intensive Assistance Job Network Members are achieving around 60% more outcomes than were achieved under case management.(Note: The comparison is based on outcomes after seven months using a methodology which ensures comparable treatment of placements and eligible job seekers).8324(Question No. 594)5948324Wilkie, Kim, MPMr Wilkie84GSwanALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Justice and Customs, upon notice, on 11 May 1999:(1) Is the importation of cigarette lighters banned under regulation 4S of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1996 being investigated; if so, what are the details.(2) How does the Australian Customs Service (ACS) ensure that imported cigarette lighters comply with regulation 4S.(3) Has the ACS prosecuted importers for imports contravening the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations.(4) How many cigarette lighters are imported into Australia annually.8324Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The Minister for Justice and Customs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) Customs has received a number of complaints that cigarette lighters not meeting the child proof standards are being sold in Australia. Each complaint has been investigated and the appropriate action taken to ensure that all future importations into Australia meet the legislative requirements.(2) Regulation 4S of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations requires the importer of cigarette lighters to produce to the ACS either:. a written permission from the Minister for Justice and Customs; or. a statutory declaration stating that a certificate of compliance, within the meaning of American Standard 16 CHR 1210, has been issued.Lighters imported without a Ministerial Permission or statutory declaration are seized by the ACS.Customs conducts random examinations of imported lighters to ensure that the details on the statutory declaration are correct.(3) There have been several seizures of lighters where non-compliance with the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations has been detected. Customs currently has one prosecution pending where the importation of cigarette lighters contravened regulation 4S of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations by failing to meet the statutory declaration requirements amongst other offences. In the other cases seizure of the lighters was considered an appropriate penalty rather than prosecution action.(4) Annual statistics for the importation of cigarette lighters (itemised by tariff item) have been obtained for the years 1997 and 1998. These cover the two complete years since the controls for lighters to which regulation 4S applies were put in place: Tariff ItemType of LighterNo of lighters imported 1997No of lighters imported 199896.13.1000Pocket lighters, gas filled non-refillable (ie disposable)48,545,59454,905,89196.13.2000Pocket lighters, gas refillable3,788,9561,600,48896.13.3000Table lighters2,64835896.13.8000Other lighters2,899,2532,504,097TOTAL55,236,45159,010,834Disposable lighters (tariff item 96.13.1000) must comply with the provisions of regulation 4S however, the other types of lighters will only need to comply if, as provided by regulation 4S(5)(c) of the regulations, they have a customs value, determined under section 159 of the Customs Act 1901, of $2 or less.8325(Question No. 614)6148325Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 12 May 1999:(1) How many active reservists in the (a) RAN, (b) Army and (c) RAAF have 8 years or more service with the Australian Defence Force.(2) How many reservists referred to in part (1) receive a subsidised housing loan under the Defence HomeOwner Scheme.(3) What is the estimated annual cost of the subsidised loans referred to in part (2).(4) What procedures are used to advise reservists of their potential housing loan entitlements before resignation or transfer to the inactive reserve.8325Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (a) 270(b) 7191(c) 393These figures do not include members who may have had previous service in the permanent force included in the total number of years served. Those figures are unable to be obtained.(2) 773 as at 30 April 1999.(3) $1,005,000(4) The Defence Housing Authority provides information on the Defence HomeOwner Scheme at its Website. Articles are published in Service related newspapers and Reserve newsletters as well as being disseminated to Reserve agencies for dissemination. In addition to this, I have asked that Defence HomeOwner Scheme information be supplied periodically to Reserve commanders to inform their personnel of potential entitlements to loans under this scheme.8325(Question No. 621)6218325Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 31 May 1999:(1) Is it a fact that approximately 253 million litres of used oil are generated in Australia annually.(2) What means are used to dispose of used oil.(3) Was a meeting held in April 1998 between representatives of the Australian waste oil refinery industry, the Department of the Treasury, the Australian Customs Service and Environment Australia; if so, did the meeting agree that Environment Australia would propose a tax concession to assist used oil recyclers to remain financially viable.(4) Did Commonwealth and State environmental authorities agree to meet on 15 May 1998 to address problems facing the oil recycling industry and advise the Oil Recyclers Association of the outcomes the week after the meeting.(5) What environmental risks are associated with burning untreated waste oil.(6) Does the Government support further recycling of used waste oil; if so, what steps will the Minister take to encourage it.(7) Has the Government considered using economic incentives for the collection, storage and treatment of used oil; if so, what incentives, will they be implemented; if so, when and what im mediate and long term effects will they have on the used oil recycling industry.(8) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the prospect of the used oil recycling industry closing down if economic incentives proposed by the Oil Recyclers Association are not acted upon.8326Vaile, Mark, MPMr VaileSU5LyneNPTrade10—The Minister for the Environment and Heritage has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) I am advised that waste oil generation per year is approximately 260 million litres (ML) per year.(2) I am advised that the burner fuel in industrial furnaces and kilns use 75 per cent of collections and that diesel extender use is 20 per cent of waste oil recovered and recycled. Use as a lubricant is negligible.(3) Yes. At that meeting Environment Australia agreed to examine the Oil Recycler's Association of Australia's proposal for an exemption from excise duty on recycled base lube oil blended into diesel.(4) No. Such a meeting was only canvassed.(5) State and Territory air quality protection arrangements ensure that burner oil, or fuel or lube products derived from waste oil, or fuels blended with waste oil, do not cause health and environmental problems from contaminants and particulates.(6) Yes. The Commonwealth will fund the development of a comprehensive product stewardship arrangement and provide transitional assistance to ensure the environmentally sustainable management and re-refining of waste oil and its reuse. It will support economic recycling options and the development of stewardship arrangements. Any diesel extenders or other products manufactured from recycled oil will be required to meet the relevant Commonwealth environmental standards.The long term solution to avoiding environmentally damaging disposal of waste oil is the development of an effective product stewardship partnership linking the oil companies, the States and the Commonwealth.A stewardship program will see the oil companies progressively assuming a greater share of these costs.(7) Refer to answer for question 6.(8) The Oil Recyclers Association of Australia has provided such advice although contrary advice has been provided by the Independent Australian Oil Recyclers Association and suppliers and operators of industrial furnaces. 8326(Question No. 625)6258326Edwards, Graham, MPMr Edwards83RCowanALP00 asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 31 May 1999:What funding is available through his Department in 1999-2000 for the (a) Joint Venture Scheme, (b) Community Care Seeding Grants Program, (c) Residential Care Development Scheme, (d) Healthy Lifestyle Encouragement grants, (e) Never too late! Grants, (f) health promotion grants, (g) grants-in-aid, (h) Their service-Our heritage commemoration program and (i) Claims Assistance Grants Scheme.8326Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(a) Joint Venture Scheme $1.105m.(b) Community Care Seeding Grants program $1.300m(c) Residential Care Development Scheme $3.488m(d) Healthy Lifestyle Encouragement grants $106,000 (includes a one-off grant of $53 000 for the International Year of Older Persons for 1999)(e) Never Too Late! Grants $50,000(f) Health Promotion grants $130,000(g) Grants-in-aid $140,000(h) The Their Service—Our Heritage program was launched in March 1997 with funding of $10.4 million provided for the four years until the Centenary of Federation in 2001. The program supports a range of commemorative activities. Funding is available in 1999—2000 under the program for proposals which honour and acknowledge the service of Australians in war and other conflicts since Federation. Three grants components are included:. the Regional War Memorials Project (RWMP);. the Local Commemorative Activities Fund (LCAF); and. the Commemorative Activities Program (CAP).Grant applications are not separately budgeted for within the overall available funding, but are assessed on their respective merits. In May 1999 the total of grants made under the program passed $2 million. Further to the initial program funding, an additional $1 million over the next four years was announced by the Government in March 1999 to be directed towards the RWMP.(i) Funding under the Claims Assistance Grants Scheme (CAGS) expired on 30 June 1999. In its 1999-2000 Budget the Government announced the Building Excellence in Support and Training (BEST) program to replace CAGS. A total of $5.6 million is available over the next four years to resource and train ex-service organisations to improve the preparation of primary claims and deal expeditiously with cases awaiting review. Of this amount, $0.76 million will be available in 1999—2000.8327(Question No. 645)6458327Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 1 June 1999:On what occasions, by what means and with what outcomes have steps been taken to thwart complex tax haven avoidance schemes since the answer to question No. 1717 (Hansard , 17 August 1989, page 209)8327Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:A number of legislative changes and administrative measures have been introduced to address the revenue risk presented by complex tax haven avoidance schemes.The legislative changes are detailed in various Budget papers and the administrative measures undertaken by the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) are outlined in the Annual Reports of the Commissioner of Taxation.The ATO annually releases `Taxation Statistics' which details revenue revised from various sources.8327(Question No. 646)6468327Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 1 June 1999:(1) What are the names, qualifications and terms of the members of the Australian National Commission for UNESCO.(2) When and where (a) did the Commission last meet and (b) will it next meet.(3) Did Prime Minister Fraser open the fifth session of the World Heritage Committee at the Sydney Opera House on 26 October 1981.(4) Did the Australian delegate to the World Heritage Committee's 20th session (Merida, Mexico, 2-7 December 1996), 21st session (Naples, Italy, 1-6 December 1997) and 22nd session (Kyoto, Japan, 30 November- 5 December 1998) inform the Committee of the Australian Government's wish to host the 24th session of the Committee in Australia. (5) Will the Government formally invite the committee to hold its 24th session at the Sydney Opera House in the year 2000.8327Vaile, Mark, MPMr VaileSU5LyneNPTrade10—The Minister for the Environment and Heritage has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) The term of membership is three years. Membership of the Australian National Commission (including qualifications of the members) for the period 1999-2001 is as follows:Professor Ken Wiltshire AO, Chairman. J D Storey Professor of Public Administration and Director of the Centre for Public Administration at the University of Queensland; Special Adviser to the Australian National Training Authority; President of the UNESCO Intergovernmental Council on the Management of Social Transformations (MOST). Member of the National Commission since 1982 and its Chairman since 1993. He will be representing MOST at the World Science Conference in June.Mr Geoff Spring, Deputy Chairman. Chief Executive Officer of the South Australian Department of Education, Training and Employment; former Secretary of the Victorian Department of Education. Member of the National Commission since 1989. Mr Spring was the key organiser of the UNESCO Asia Pacific Regional Conference on Education for the 21st Century in Melbourne in March 1998.Ms Jennifer Bott—General Manager of the Australia Council; former General Manager of Musica Viva Australia, and currently member of the Australia International Cultural Council chaired by the Minister for Foreign Affairs.Professor Paul Bourke—Professor of History in the Research School of Social Sciences at the Australian National University; former President of the Academy of the Social Sciences. Member of the National Commission since 1996.Dr Peter Bridgewater—Former Chief Science Adviser and Supervising Scientist, Department of Environment and Heritage. Member of the National Commission since 1993. Dr Bridgewater has previously served as Chairman of the Co-ordinating Committee for the UNESCO Man in the Biosphere (MAB) program, and was Chairman of the UNESCO Asia Pacific Regional Conference on Science for the 21st Century held in Sydney in December, 1998.Mr Michael Chugg AM—General Manager of the Frontier Touring Company, and member of the Australia International Cultural Council chaired by the Minister for Foreign Affairs.Ms Patricia Feilman AM—Executive Secretary of The Ian Potter Foundation; former Chair of the Victorian State Film Council. Member of the National Commission since 1996. Ms Feilman is involved in the Bookmark Biosphere Reserve project in Renmark, South Australia.Mr Cameron Forbes—Arts/Law student at the University of Melbourne. Member of the National Commission since 1997, and Youth Member on the Commission. Mr Forbes is making an important contribution to UNESCO's work as Convenor of the National Commission's recently established Youth Network.Mr Gareth Grainger—Deputy Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Authority, and contributor to UNESCO Communications activities over recent years. Mr Grainger organised the UNESCO /ABA Asia Pacific Internet Conference, a regional forum on "Online Services in Asia & the Pacific" held in Bali, Indonesia in March 1999.Ms Lynette Liddle—Education Officer for Aboriginal Programs, Murrumbidgee College of Agriculture, Yanco. Ms Liddle participated as a panellist at the UNESCO Asia Pacific Regional Conference on Science for the 21st Century, in Sydney in December 1998.Ms Susan Pascoe—President of the Australian College of Education, and Co-ordinating Chairperson for Curriculum and Support Services at the Catholic Education Office of Victoria.Professor Merle Ricklefs—Director of the Melbourne Institute of Asian Languages and Societies, University of Melbourne, and former Director of the Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies at the Australian National University.Parliamentary RepresentativesThe Hon Trish Worth MP—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Representative of the Federal Government on the National Commission.The Hon Gareth Evans QC MP—Representative of the Federal Opposition on the National Commission.Honorary MembersJustice Michael Kirby AC CMG—Judge of the High Court of Australia; former member of the National Commission; recipient of the 1998 UNESCO Prize for Human Rights Education, and member of UNESCO's International Bioethics Committee.Professor Ralph Slatyer AC—Visiting Fellow at the Institute of Advanced Studies, Australian National University, a former Chairman of the National Commission and Ambassador to UNESCO during which time he chaired the UNESCO Governing Council for the Man and the Biosphere program and the World Heritage Committee.(2) (a) The Commission last met in Canberra on 13-14 May 1999. (b) It will next meet on 19-20 August 1999 in Canberra.(3) Yes.(4) Yes.(5) At the 20th, 21st and 22nd meetings of the World Heritage Committee, Australia indicated its willingness to host the World Heritage Committee in Australia in the year 2000. A decision on the location of the meeting will be made at the 23rd meeting of the World Heritage Committee which will be held in December 1999.8328(Question No. 651)6518328Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, 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).8328McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauranXH4GippslandNPArts and the Centenary of Federation10—The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) The Networking the Nation (NTN) program, administered by the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, in November 1997 funded the Farmwide Regional Access Network (FRAN) project, managed by Farmwide Pty Ltd, a body associated with the NFF.(a) (i) The grant funded: the installation of Points of Presence, providing local call internet access for the first time, in 15 different communities; 400 rural families nationwide to trial satellite internet access; training and support for the above project participants; development of a modem specially tailored to Australian outback conditions; and devel opment of a range of content and service delivery of relevance to rural families.(a) (ii) The purpose of the grant was to develop and demonstrate a range of innovative approaches to providing economical and reliable internet access, content and services for residents of rural, regional and remote Australia.(b) The total sum of NTN funding provided for the FRAN project was $5,550,000.Telstra has advised that it has not provided any grants to the NFF or related bodies. Telstra has however been involved in a sponsorship arrangement whereby it provided $80,000 p.a. (total sponsorship $160,000) for 1998 and 1999 to Farmwide Pty Ltd for the promotion of awareness of electronic commerce opportunities to the rural community.(2) Mr Donald McGauchie was appointed to the Board of Telstra Corporation Limited on 8 September 1998 to fill a casual vacancy. The appointment was made by the Board in consultation with the Minister as provided for in Telstra's constitution. He was elected to serve a full term as a director by shareholders at Telstra's Annual General Meeting in November 1998.(3) The Commonwealth has not paid any sums for sitting fees, board fees, travel costs or related expenses in relation to the Telstra appointment.8329(Question No. 657)6578329Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Finance and Administration, 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).8329Fahey, John, MPMr FaheyHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) No. (2) (a) to (c) None.(3) N/A.8329(Question No. 662)6628329Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural 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 David 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 2.8329Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has no record of any grants being provided to the National Farmers' Federation (NFF) or bodies related to the NFF since 2 March 1996.(2) None.(3) Not applicable.8329(Question No. 665)6658329Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Veterans' 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).8330Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) No.(2) Nil.(3) Not applicable.8330(Question No. 670)6708330Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for the Arts and Centenary of Federation, 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).8330McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauranXH4GippslandNPArts and the Centenary of Federation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Networking the Nation (NTN) program, administered by the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, in November 1997 funded the Farmwide Regional Access Network (FRAN) project, managed by Farmwide Pty Ltd, a body associated with the NFF.(a) (i) The grant funded: the installation of Points of Presence, providing local call internet access for the first time, in 15 different communities; 400 rural families nationwide to trial satellite internet access; training and support for the above project participants; development of a modem specially tailored to Australian outback conditions; and development of a range of content and service delivery of relevance to rural families.(a) (ii) The purpose of the grant was to develop and demonstrate a range of innovative approaches to providing economical and reliable internet access, content and services for residents of rural, regional and remote Australia.(b) The total sum of NTN funding provided for the FRAN project was $5,550,000.Telstra has advised that it has not provided any grants to the NFF or related bodies. Telstra has however been involved in a sponsorship arrangement whereby it provided $80,000 p.a. (total sponsorship $160,000) for 1998 and 1999 to Farmwide Pty Ltd for the promotion of awareness of electronic commerce opportunities to the rural community.(2) Mr Donald McGauchie was appointed to the Board of Telstra Corporation Limited on 8 September 1998 to fill a casual vacancy. The appointment was made by the Board in consultation with the Minister as provided for in Telstra's constitution. He was elected to serve a full term as a director by shareholders at Telstra's Annual General Meeting in November 1998.(3) The Commonwealth has not paid any sums for sitting fees, board fees, travel costs or related expenses in relation to the Telstra appointment.8330(Question No. 685)6858330Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TannerYU5MelbourneALP00 asked the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 7 June 1999:(1) Did his office provide me with mock-ups of the new accrual accounting format for the Budget which included forward estimates on a function and subfunction basis.(2) Did his Department prepare similar forward estimates for inclusion in previous Budget papers.(3) Did his Department on or about 7 May 1999 decide it would not be able to comply with deadlines for the production of the 1999-2000 Budget papers.(4) Who decided that the forward estimates information would not be provided in the 1999-2000 Budget.(5) Will forward estimates information be provided in future years.(6) Did he or his office become aware that the information his senior adviser had informed me would be included was not to be included; if so, (a) when and (b) who made the decision not to inform me and why.(7) Have any departments prepared forward estimates on an output and outcome basis for 1999-2000; if so, (a) which departments and (b) which departments have released them publicly.(8) Have any departments failed to prepare forward estimates on an output and outcome basis for 1999-2000; if so, (a) which departments and (b) why.(9) Have any departments prepared forward estimates on an output and outcome basis for 1999-2000 and not released them publicly; if not, why not.8331Fahey, John, MPMr FaheyHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes—mock-ups were provided(2) Yes(3) No. The Budget Papers were available when the Budget was brought down on 11 May 1999.(4) The decision not to include functional tables for 1999-00 was made by the Department of Finance and Administration in consultation with the Department of the Treasury, the office of the Minister for Finance and Administration and the office of the Treasurer.(5) Yes(6) Following discussions in early May between the Department of Finance and Administration, the Department of the Treasury, the office of the Minister for Finance and Administration and the office of the Treasurer, it was agreed that the deadline for the production of the forward estimates on a function and sub-function basis would not be met.(7) Yes. All General Government Sector Agencies (including the seventeen Portfolio Departments) have publicly released estimates on an outcome and output basis.(8) No.(9) No.8331(Question No. 700)7008331Bevis, Arch, MPMr BevisET4BrisbaneALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 7 June 1999:Has a Department or agency for which the Minister has portfolio responsibility entered a contract with or made a grant or payment to an organisation registered under subparagraph (a) 188(1)(a) or (b) 188(1)(b) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996; if so, in each case, (i) which organisation, (ii) what sum was received and (iii) in what State or Territory is the organisation located.8331Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPDefence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Yes.(i) Organisation(ii) Sum Received by Organisation From Department of Defence Between 31 June 1996 and 7 June 1999(iii) State or Territory where Organisation is LocatedMedia Entertainment and Arts Alliance$21.25NSWAustralian Hotels' Associations$270.00ACTMaster Builders' Association of Victoria$420.00VICAustralian Higher Education Industrial Association$520.00VICUnited Firefighters' Union of Australia$600.00SAThe Pharmacy Guild of Australia$875.00ACTNational Union of Workers$1,063.00VICSouth Australian Farmers' Federation Industrial Association$1,570.00SACPSU National Executive$2,896.45NSWTerritory Construction Association$5,216.35NTVictorian Employers' Chamber of Commerce and Industry$6,000.00VICAustralian Industry Group$15,325.04ACT8332(Question No. 716)7168332Bevis, Arch, MPMr BevisET4BrisbaneALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 7 June 1999:(1) Did he or his representative write to the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation or his representatives in relation to funding of the Federation Square project in Melbourne; if so, (a) did the letter threaten to withdraw federal funds from the project and (b) will he present the letter to the House.(2) Did he or his representative seek legal advice (a) before or (b) after sending the letter; if so (i) from whom was the advice sought, (ii) what sum did the advice cost and (iii) why was such advice sought; if not, why not.(3) Did he or his representative have any communication with the Office of the Employment Advocate in relation to the project referred to in part (1); if so, what was the nature of the communications.8332Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes(a) No(b) No(2) It is not the practice of the government to disclose legal advice or the circumstances pertaining to the receipt or non-receipt of legal advice. It is however a matter of public record that I obtained legal representation to defend an application by building unions to join me as a respondent to Federal Court proceedings about the Federation Square project. Obtaining legal representation is a routine course when an applicant seeks to make a Minister respondent to a Court proceeding. The legal representation was provided by the Australian Government Solicitor and the firm of Dunhill Madden Butler. The cost has not yet been determined. Within days of making the application against me, the applicant withdrew the application by consent.(3) It is not the practice of the Government to disclose policy discussions which may or may not occur within or between government agencies or authorities. In any event, the Employment Advocate is the respondent in litigation in the Federal Court of Australia regarding the Federation Square construction project in Melbourne (CFMEU v Hamberger). It is not appropriate to answer questions about matters that may be in issue in litigation. 8332(Question No. 727)7278332Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 9 June 1999:Is it proposed that the service of civil marriage celebrants will be subject to the goods and services tax; if so, will (a) marriage certificates attract the tax and (b) compensation be paid for the increased administration entailed.8332Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Civil marriage celebrants, who are registered or required to be registered for GST, will charge GST when they supply goods or services to a consumer or another registered entity.(a) This is a matter to be addressed in consultation with the States and Territories.(b) The Government will provide financial support of up to $500 million to assist small and medium businesses with the transition to the GST.8332(Question No. 740)7408332Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 21 June 1999:Further to the answer to question No. 34 (Hansard , 9 March 1999, page 3514), (a) what specific measures has his Department undertaken that facilitate the equitable participation of migrants, both citizens and non-citizens, in Australian society and (b) what are the details and funding commitments in each case.8332Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(a) Measures taken by the Department are set out, under Program 4, in the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs 1997-98 Annual Report. The specific measures undertaken include:. The Adult Migrant English Program (AMEP), giving migrants access to English language education soon after arrival to help develop the language and literacy skills they need to enable them to participate in Australian society.. Grants to community organisations through the Community Settlement Services Scheme and Migrant Resource Centre and Migrant Service Agency Network to provide settlement services to migrants.. The Translating and Interpreting Service (TIS), helping migrants with limited English skills access services provided by government and community agencies.. The delivery of settlement services to meet the special needs of refugees and eligible humanitarian program entrants within the framework of the Integrated Humanitarian Settlement Strategy (IHSS).(b) Details of these measures are set out in the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs 1997-1998 Annual Report and Supplementary Information. 1999-2000 Budget funding commitments for these measures are:. AMEP—$85.9 million.. Grants to community organisations—$22.8 million. TIS—$19.7 million. Humanitarian Settlement Services—$12.6 million.8333(Question No. 741)7418333Edwards, Graham, MPMr Edwards83RCowanALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, upon notice, on 21 June 1999:(1) Are there plans for further development of the Telstra site at Landsdale, WA; if not, is it intended to develop plans for further development.(2) Will Telstra require expansion of the land it holds at the site; if so, what are its plans for land acquisition.8333McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauranXH4GippslandNPArts and the Centenary of Federation10—The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) In order to maintain and improve the telecommunications and satellite support services provided out of its site at Landsdale W.A. Telstra carries out continuing works on the site. These works may include such things as maintenance or extension of buildings, construction of new buildings, addition or extension of antennas, and the construction of new antennas. Other than these works, Telstra has no current plans for further development.(2) Telstra has no current need for expansion of the land it holds at Lansdale and has no current plans for land acquisition in the area. 8333(Question No. 749)7498333Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio7T4ProspectALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community 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) I 998-99 and (b) will the Minister provide a list of the title and author of each book purchased by departmental libraries in 1998-99.8333Anthony, Larry, MPMr AnthonyXJ6RichmondNPCommunity Services10—The Minister for Family and Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:Yes, the Department of Family and Community Services operates a library.(a) (i) The sum spent on purchasing new books for the Departmental library in 1996-97 was $34,804.69.(a) (ii) The sum spent on purchasing new books for the Departmental library in 1997-98 was $44,339.94.(a) (iii) The sum spent on purchasing new books for the Departmental library in 1998-99 was $29,925.12.(b) A list of the titles and authors of each book purchased by the Departmental library in 1998-99 has been forwarded to the honourable member.8333(Question No. 755)7558333Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio7T4ProspectALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, 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 1998-99.8333Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPDefence10—The Minister for Industry, Science and Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The Department of Industry, Science and Resources does operate a central library.(a) The following sums were spent purchasing new books for the library. The sums include only those books purchased on a once-off basis, ie not publications updated regularly.(i) 1996-97 $3,818.43(ii) 1997-98 $3,704.96(iii) 1998-99 $12,998.97(b) The following is a list of the title and author of each book purchased by the Department of Industry, Science and Resources during 1998-99:Books purchased by and for the library of the Department of Industry, Science & Resources during financial year 1998/99The three Rs of performance : core concepts for planning, measurement, and management/Steve MontagueRecords and archives competency standards/Australian Council of Archives and the National Finance Industry Training Advisory BodyNeal-Schuman complete Internet companion for librarians/by Allen C. Benson.Concise Blackwell Encyclopedia of Management/Cooper, C.Digital money : the new era of Internet commerce/Daniel C. Lynch, Leslie LundquistInternational Business Rankings/Business Information Unit, State Library of VictoriaInformation for innovation : managing change from an information perspective/Stuart MacdonaldTravel in the digital age/Linsey McNeillSecure electronic transactions : introduction and technical reference/by Larry LoebBusiness law of Australia/R.B. Vermeesch, K.E. LindgrenCritical financial accounting problems : issues and solutions/Ahmed Riahi-BelkaouiThe balanced scorecard : translating strategy into action/Robert S. Kaplan, David P. NortonAlternative innovation indicators and determinants of innovation/Erik Brouwer & Alfred KleinknechtNext : the flow for the future/Ira Matathia and Marian SalzmanOxford pocket Greek/English English/Greek dictionaryThe smart organization : creating value through strategic R&D/David Matheson and Jim MathesonIssues and developments in public management : survey 1996-1997/OECD Information seeking and subject representation : an activity-theoretical approach to information science/Birger HjrlandKnowledge societies : information technology for sustainable development/Robin Mansell and Uta When Future makers, future takers : life in Australia, 2050/Doug Cocks.—Sydney : UNSW PressWorking for the future/Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and EngineeringHow to write to selection criteria : improving your chances of being shortlisted for a job/Ann D. VilliersState of the regions : a report to the Australian Local Government Association 1998 Regional Cooperation and Development Forum/National Institute of Economic and Industry ResearchSociety, the endless frontier : a European vision of research and innovation policies for the 21st century / Paraskevas Caracostas & Ugur MuldurRenewable energy applications to industries : proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Renewable Energy Application to Plantation and Other Industries (REAPOI- 97)Standards and APEC : an action agenda/John Sullivan WilsonOne thousand and one more humorous illustrations for public speaking/[collected by] Michael HodginThe search conference : a powerful method for planning organizational change and community action/Merrelyn Emery, Ronald E. PurserCustomer-centered supply chain management : a link-by-link guide/Fred A. KuglinThe new Australian and New Zealand public relations manual/Candy Tymson, Bill ShermanManaging the supply chain : a strategic perspective/J.L. Gattorna and D.W. WaltersThe death of economics/Paul OrmerodAustralia : benefiting from economic reform/Anoop SinghThe age of spiritual machines/Ray KurzweilThe competitive advantage of nations/Michael E. PorterInformation ecology : mastering the information and knowledge environment/Thomas H. DavenportIntroduction to tourism : development, dimensions and issues/Colin Michael HallElectronic sources of information for business in Australia/Tom Denison2 + 2 = 5 : innovative ways of organising people in the Australian Public Service / N.A.Butterfly economics : a new general theory of social and economic behaviour/Paul Ormerod Understanding company law/by P. Lipton and A. HerzbergThe return of scarcity : strategies for an economic future/H.C. CoombsWorld class manufacturing : the next decade : building power, strength, and value/Richard J. SchonbergerGlobalization and regionalization : strategies, policies, and economic environments/Jean-Louis Mucchielli et. Al.Statistical indicators for Asia and the Pacific. Vol. XXVIII, no. 3/Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific / United NationsWhat color is your parachute? : a practical manual for job-hunters & career-changers / by Richard Nelson BollesReducing project risk / Ralph L. Kliem, Irwin S. LudinTechnology, productivity, and job creation : best policy practices/Organisation for Economic Co-operation and DevelopmentFostering entrepreneurship / Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.—Paris : Organisation for Economic Co-operation and DevelopmentThe management of Innovation/Tom Burns and G. M. StalkerInnovation and firm performance in Australian manufacturing/Robert PhillipsInstitutional economics : social order and public policy/Wolfgang Kasper, Manfred E. StreitQuality management and quality assurance standards. Part 2, Generic guidelines for the application of ISO 9001, ISO 9002 and ISO 9003Australian energy : market developments and projections to 2014-15/authors, Shane BushOutlook 99 : proceedings of the National Agricultural and Resource Outlook Conference, Canberra, 17-18 March 1999/ABAREOutlook 98 : proceedings of the National Agricultural and Resource Outlook Conference, 1998/ ABAREOutlook 97 : proceedings of the National Agricultural and Resource Outlook Conference, 1997/ ABAREBerlitz 1998 complete guide to cruising and cruise ships/by Douglas WardBusiness sponsorship, Australia, 1996/97/ABSNew Zealand research and experimental development statistics/N.Z. Ministry of Research, Science and TechnologyTransition from Education to work/ABSLabour force status and educational attainment/ABS Passenger vehicle yearbook : Glass's GuideEmployer Training expenditure, Australia/ABSCommonwealth Budget papers 1999/2000Handbook of the economics of innovation and technological change/edited by Paul StonemanSustainable regional development : final report : an Australia-wide study of regionalism highlighting efforts to improve the community, economy and environment/John Dore and Jim WoodhillKnowledge and special libraries/edited by James M. Matarazzo, Suzanne D. ConnollyOpenness and growth : proceedings of the Bank of England academic conference on the relationship between openness and growth in the United Kingdom, September 15th, 1997 / edited by James Proudman, Stephen ReddingThe economies of Southeast Asia : the growth and development of ASEAN economies/Jose L. TongzonCountry economic briefs (Sri Lanka, Thailand, Russia, Sth Africa, New Zealand) 1998/DFATWorking knowledge : how organizations manage what they know/Thomas H. Davenport, Laurence PrusakNational Accounts Vols 1 & 2/OECDThe new challenge to America's prosperity : findings from the innovation index / Michel Porter, Scott SternWorking for the future/Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and EngineeringAustralia and the knowledge economy / Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and EngineeringThe rebirth of Australian industry : Australian trade in elaborately transformed manufactures, 1979-1993/P.J. Sheehan, Nick Pappas, Enjiang ChengAchieving the perfect fit : how to win with the right people in the right jobs/edited by Nick Boulter, Murray Dalziel, and Jackie HillAntidumping laws and the U.S. economy/Greg MastelEntrepreneurial intensity : sustainable advantages for individuals, organizations, and societies/Michael H. MorrisGlobal development the human factor way/Senyo B-S. K. AdjibolosooGovernment in the digital age/Paul GoslingThe power of 360 degree feedback/D. A. WaldmanTechnological competition, employment and innovation policies in OECD countries/Paul J.J. Welfens . . . [et al.]Technology management 1998/Robert Szakonyi Governments and geographic information/Ian MasserIncome distribution Australia 1996-97/ABSLabour mobility, Australia/ABSBalance of payments and international investment position, Australia/ABSPopulation projections 1997-2051/ABSCensus of population and housing 1996/ABSEmissions trading : proceedings of the International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Emissions TradingPension funds and small firm financing : models of successful small business investment programs/Mariana A. McNeill, Richard F. FullenbaumEurope, East Asia and APEC : a shared global agenda?/edited by Peter Drysdale and David VinesTourism planning and policy in Australia and New Zealand : cases, issues and practice/edited by C. Michael Hall et al.Future revolutions : a comprehensive guide to the third millennium/David MercerTrade liberalisation : opportunities for Australia/Department of Foreign Affairs and TradeAustralia at the crossroads : radical free market or a progressive liberalism?/Fred ArgyImproving nature? : the science and ethics of genetic engineering/Michael J. Reiss and Roger StraughanEntrepreneurship and SME research : on its way to the next millennium /edited by Rik Donckels, Asko MiettinenMeeting manager's information needs/Helen ButcherBenchmarking tool kit/prepared by the CHLA/ ABSC Benchmarking Task Force.—Toronto : Canadian Health Libraries AssociationInternational tourism : a global perspective/editor, Chuck Y. GeeHarvard Business Review on knowledge management/N.A.Australia's federal record : a review of Archives Act 1983/Australian Law Reform CommissionThe state of business incubators/NBIAThe complete guide to Federal and State support/NBIAAS 4269 (Complaints handling); AS3904.2 (Quality guidelines for services); AS3904.4 (Quality management guidelines)ISO 9004.2 ISO 9004.4 Quality assurance standardsQA standards guide ISO 9001/3Innovation and firm performance in Australian manufacturing/Robert PhillipsTrade in services/DFAT Composition of Trade/DFATDriving forces on the new silk road/DFATCreating a clearway on the new silk road/DFATAustralian Business law 18th ed/CCHResearch & experimental development, Business enterprises/ABSRemuneration Tribunal Decisions & reports 1997Australian demographic trends/ABSNew Palgrave dictionary of economics/N.A.World economic and social survey, 1998 : trends and policies in the world economy/Department of Economic and Social Affairs U.N.Technology directory of Australia : the definitive source of Australian technology, research & development/N.A.The green travel guide/Greg NealeManufacturing, Australia/ABSAccommodation industry, Australia/ABSHousing occupancy & costs/ABSInvolvement in sport, Australia/ABSWeekly earnings of employees (distribution) Australia/ABSAustralian and New Zealand wine industry directory/N.A.Marine tourism : development, impacts and management/Mark OramsThe new Australian and New Zealand public relations manual/Candy Tymson, Bill ShermanProject leadership/Wendy Briner, Colin Hastings, and Michael GeddesOn competition/by Michael E. PorterThe team handbook/Peter R. Scholtes, Brian L. Joiner, Barbara J. StreibelEffective resume writing : a guide to successful employment/[by James E. Neal, JrThe future of shopping : traditional patterns and net effects/Julian E. MarkhamLeadership in government : study of the Australian public service/Andrew Korac-Kakabadse and Nada Korac-KakabadseJust about everything a manager needs to know/Neil Flanagan & Jarvis FingerAsia meltdown : the end of the miracle?/Leo GoughThe economics of tourism/M. Thea Sinclair and Mike StablerBenchmarking for best practice : continuous learning through sustainable innovation/Mohamed ZairiMaking strategy work : building sustainable growth capability/Timothy J. Galpin International organizations : a dictionary/Giuseppe SchiavoneThe tax reform debate : the economics of the options/edited by Peter AbelsonTechnology, productivity, and job creation : best policy practices/OECDBuilding a safe climate, sound business future/World Resources InstituteInnovation in East Asia : the challenge to Japan/Michael HobdayAutomation in automotive industries : recent developments/Anna Comacchio, Giuseppe Volpato, Arnaldo CamuffoEcotourism and sustainable development : who owns paradise?/Martha HoneyTourism and development : economic, social, political and environmental issues/edited by Clement A. Tisdell, Kartik C. RoyTourism and cultural conflicts/edited by Mike Robinson and Priscilla BonifaceTourism policy and international tourism/OECDHuman capital investment : an international comparison/OECDEducation policy analysis/OECDRedefining tertiary education/OECDCorporate governance : improving competitiveness and access to capital in global markets : a report to the OECD/by the Business Sector Advisory Group on Corporate Governance ; [Ira M. MillsteinTimber in context : a guide to sustainable use/Anne-Marie Willis, Cameron TonkinSelected APEC documents, 1996/APEC SecretariatSelected APEC documents, 1995/APEC SecretariatSelected APEC documents, 1997/APEC SecretariatGlobal nation? : Australia and the politics of globalisation/John WisemanShrinking the state : the political underpinnings of privatization/Harvey Feigenbaum, Chris Hamnett, Jeffrey HenigTime series models for business and economic forecasting/Philip Hans FransesTourism and economic development in Asia and Australasia/edited by Frank M. Go and Carson L. JenkinsOECD economic surveys : HungaryOECD economic surveys : CanadaOECD economic surveys : New ZealandOECD economic surveys : NorwayOECD economic surveys : JapanOECD economic surveys : BulgariaOECD economic surveys : Mexico OECD economic surveys : ItalyOECD economic surveys : FranceOECD economic surveys : PolandOECD economic surveys : The Slovak RepublicOECD economic surveys : GreeceOECD economic surveys : Belgium-Luxembourg.OECD economic surveys : AustraliaFuture libraries : dreams, madness & reality/Walt Crawford & Michael GormanManaging information services : an integrated approach/Jo BrysonUsing Microsoft Access : a how-to-do-it manual for librarians/by E. Sonny ButlerFinding common ground : creating the library of the future without diminishing the library of the past/edited by Cheryl LaGuardia and Barbara A. MitchellGenetic imaginations : ethical, legal, and social issues in human genome research/edited by Peter Glasner, Harry RothmanCompetency-based recruitment and selection/Robert Wood and Tim PayneCritical financial accounting problems : issues and solutions/Ahmed Riahi-BelkaouiGovernment in the digital age/Paul GoslingIndustry studies/Larry L. DuetschThe state of the cybernation : cultural, political and economic implications of the Internet/Neil BarrettTechnology management 1998/Robert SzakonyiWood in Australia : types, properties and uses/Keith R. BootleA survival guide for project managers/James TaylorTowards sustainable development : essays on system analysis of national policy/Khalid SaeedIssues and developments in public management : survey 1996-1997/OECDPerformance auditing and the modernisation of government/OECDStatistical indicators for Asia and the Pacific/N.A.Alternative innovation indicators and determinants of innovation/Reik Brouwer and Alfred KleinknechtElectronic commerce and the role of the WTO/Marc Bacchetta et.al.8337(Question No. 762)7628337Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 21 June 1999:(1) Has the Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO) tendered for contracts in the field of applied dynamics since 1989; if so, in each case, (a) what was the contract for, (b) who were the successful tenderers and (c) what sum was involved.(2) What total sum has DSTO spent on procuring library material concerning applied dynamics since 1989.8338Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPDefence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) No.This response has to be qualified to the extent that the area covered by the question is very broad (it has been interpreted here as referring to non-linear dynamic finite- element analysis) and because some records might have been destroyed. Under the Commonwealth Archives Act 1983, DSTO, as part of a Commonwealth Agency, is not obliged to keep records of routine tenders for more than six years after the tender action is completed, in this case from before 1993. Nevertheless, DSTO has no recollection of such tenders having been placed in the period 1989-92.(2) $191,421.00 (estimated; figure includes cost of monographs, reports and serials which could be expected to include reference to, or papers on, applied dynamics).8338(Question No. 764)7648338Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 22 June 1999:Has he received an expert report by Professor John Kaldor reviewing the methodology used by the Scotland-based Australian researcher Sue Rabbitt Roff on the health of British and New Zealand nuclear veterans and their families; if so, (a) on what date, (b) has Ms Rabbitt Roff been provided with a copy and given a chance to respond; if not, why not, (c) what was the cost of the report, (d) are copies available to the public; if not, why not, and (e) has he accepted Professor Kaldor's recommendations; if so, will he provide details of further action to be taken to address the situation of Australian military and civilian personnel who participated in British nuclear tests in Australia.8338Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Yes.(a) Thursday 15 July 1999.(b) Professor Kaldor had discussions with Ms Rabbitt Roff during the preparation of his report. A copy of his report will be provided to Ms Rabbitt Roff. She may choose to comment. (c) Professor Kaldor is still to submit his account.(d) Yes.(e) I have announced the compilation of a nominal roll of ex-service personnel involved in the testing and also civilians, aborigines and pastoralists, for whom information is available. This nominal roll will be used to conduct mortality and cancer incidence studies of Australians involved in the UK nuclear tests. This will enable the Government to determine if current compensation and assessment arrangements are sufficient.8338(Question No. 774)7748338Plibersek, Tanya, MPMs Plibersek83MSydneyALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 23 June 1999:(1) Does Australia support microfinance institutions such as the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh, CARD in the Philippines and SEWA in India.(2) What sum in foreign aid has Australia channelled to microcredit programs in each year since 1990 (a) in total and (b) to each country receiving this form of aid.(3) Has Australia adopted a strategy to maximise aid in the microcredit sector; if so, does the strategy include (a) formal linkages with official initiatives such as the ERAP Trust Fund in the Philippines and (b) supporting South-South technical cooperation in this area.8338Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Australian overseas aid program supports a number of microfinance organisations in developing countries. Australia has supported the work of the Center for Agriculture and Rural Development (CARD) through the Philippines Australia Community Assistance Program (PACAP), which is administered by the Australian Embassy in Manila. Since 1988 assistance provided to CARD through this scheme amounts to approximately $345,000. In 1998-99 Australia provided approximately $145,000 through PLAN International Australia to assist CARD to expand its Landless People's Development Fund in Marinduque and Mindoro Oriental.Australia has funded the Self Employed Women's Association Cooperative Bank (SEWA) in India over the last three financial years for a project involving salt workers. Approximately $164,000 has been provided through the Small Activities Scheme managed by the Australian High Commission in New Delhi.The Australian aid program has not provided direct support to the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh. However, AusAID provided $6,337 for travel costs for Professor Muhummad Yunus, founder and managing director of the Grameen Bank, to visit Australia from 16 to 24 March 1997.(2) Amounts provided by Australia in support of microfinance for the period 1990-91 to 1998-99, by recipient country and in total, are set out in the attachment.(3) The Government is committed to doubling expenditure on microfinance through the overseas aid program within the life of the current Parliament, consistent with ensuring a high quality portfolio of activities. In line with this commitment, the 1999-2000 budget includes a three-year $3 million microfinance initiative to serve as a catalyst for further microfinance activities in the aid program. Funds under the initiative will be used to identify and strengthen the capacity and outreach of microfinance organisations which demonstrate the potential to become long-term providers of financial services to the poor on a significant scale. Following initial identification and/or support through the seed fund, it is anticipated that further assistance to selected microfinance organisations will be provided through normal bilateral programming channels.(a) At this stage no formal linkages are envisaged with initiatives such as the ERAP Trust Fund in the Philippines. Evidence from around the world suggests that specialist microfinance programs have on the whole been more effective in meeting the twin goals of sustainability and outreach to the poor.(b) Technical cooperation is central to Australia's support for microfinance. The aid program will continue to draw on Australia's expertise and experience in management and banking, which can be of great value to microfinance organisations as they seek to expand their operations and improve their financial performance. At the same time, the Government recognises there is a substantial pool of microfinance experience in the developing world. We will consider ways of making use of this experience where appropriate, consistent with maintaining the Australian identity of the overseas aid program.Total Australian Aid Expenditure on Microfinance, 1990-1991 to 1998-1999 by Country/Region ($A `000) aCountry/Region1990-91b1991-921992-931993-941994-951995-961996-971997-981998-99cTotalBangladesh d5886445501,782Botswana491807050349Cambodia21065144185243544707Chad1010China5001321851,1135646103,104Eritrea8080Ethiopia1,0001,000Fiji55Ghana3737India62332375769Indonesia40220380223863Jordan6969Laos456174200434Malaysia202747Mongolia7133104Mozambique11772189Pakistan1541130Palestinian Territory27396423Papua New Guinea97133105300635Peru6565Philippines9781,0601,3101,0801,3115,739Solomon Islands0138212100100362South Africa53512500285001,593Sri Lanka40384587001,236Tanzania2961083501096137961Thailand2501253471112671501,250Tonga2501012124191001001,181Uganda7979Vietnam691582883972001984081,718Zimbabwe352003954804634272,000Asia/Pacific4747Cross Regional500350850Regional—Middle East354354Regional—SE Asia254166South America4848South Pacific Unallocated47271001009010374World Unallocated221240250711 Total aid expenditure on microfinance2501501,5151,3322,7373,7966,8276,4106,25329,271Notes:a Data prior to 1994-95 does not distinguish in all instances between microfinance and non-financial support to microenterprises.b No discernible expenditure on microfinance activities is evident prior to the 1990-91 financial year.c 1998-99 figures are estimates.d The figures for Bangladesh include a component of the Bangladesh Vulnerable Groups Development Program, through which food aid is provided to enable poor women to participate in microenterprise activities. The World Food Program advised that US$1.8 mill8340(Question No. 775)7758340Plibersek, Tanya, MPMs Plibersek83MSydneyALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 23 June 1999:Has the number of staff employed at the RAN's Garden Island facility at Cowper Wharf Road and Macleay Street, Woolloomooloo decreased in recent years; if so, will the RAN allow public use of its Woolloomooloo car park; if not, why not.8340Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPDefence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:In recent years, there has been an increase of the number of Defence personnel at Garden Island. This has resulted from the rationalisation of a number of owned and leased properties in the Sydney metropolitan area, the upgrading of office accommodation on the Island and the contraction of ADI's ship maintenance and support activities. Depending on how many ships are in port, the number of Defence staff at Garden Island can exceed one thousand. ADI currently employee in excess of 400 personnel on the site.The car park provides parking for Defence fleet vehicles in central Sydney; parking for Defence staff in the Potts Point precinct; secure parking for Navy personnel manning ships at sea; and parking for ADI employees. The car park is required for Defence and ADI purposes, and there is no potential for public use.8340(Question No. 777)7778340Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr TheophanousQJ4CalwellALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 23 June 1999:(1) Did his Department advise the Joint Committee on Migration in 1995 that there were approximately 78,000 names on the Person Alert List (PAL). (2) How many names are currently included on the PAL.(3) How many visitor visa applications have been rejected since June 1998 because the applicant was listed on the PAL.(4) How many visitor visa applications have been rejected in total since June 1998.(5) What is the estimated cost of maintaining the PAL.8340Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes, the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration on Australia's Visa System for Visitors, of January 1996, states at 5.33 that "DIEA indicated that the Person Alert List presently contains approximately 78,000 names".(2) As at 29 June 1999, there were 99,208 names included on the PAL. The PAL is part of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (DIMA) Movement Alert List (MAL).(3) Visitor visa applications are rejected on the basis of adverse information held on an applicant. The PAL, and more broadly the MAL, of which it is a part, are the key tools for alerting departmental decision-makers to this adverse information. In short, an entry on the PAL does not in itself lead to a rejection.(4) Between 1 June 1998 and 30 June 1999, a total of 87,824 visitor visa applications were rejected.(5) The estimated total costs of maintaining the PAL in the 1998/99 financial year was $880,100, with accrued liabilities of $11,300 and accrued assets of $848,300. This estimate is made under the assumption that 85% of all MAL work is done on the PAL. "Maintenance" has been taken to include communication with overseas posts and data entry, hardware/software maintenance, as well as policy and quality assurance. This estimated sum incorporates the work of the MAL subsection of the Law Enforcement Liaison and Movement Alerts section, the Entry Operations Centre and Business Solutions Group in DIMA, as well as Computer Sciences Corporation Australia Pty Ltd, which provides computer services to DIMA.8341(Question No. 781)7818341Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin ThomsonUK6WillsALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 29 June 1999:(1) What security and confidentiality measures are in effect to protect the identity, assets and information provided by applicants for business migration.(2) Has his attention been drawn to an advertisement by a private company called Business Match at page 3 of the issue of Business Forum for June 1999 claiming that it can provide customers with an international network of business migration applicants of high net worth; if so, is he able to say on what basis the company can make that claim.8341Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The security and confidentiality measures in place to protect information collected by my Department relating to the identity, assets and other particulars of applicants for business migration are consistent with the requirements of the Privacy Act 1988 (the Act). The Act is the key law designed to prevent misuse of personal information collected by government agencies and it prevents the Department from passing personal information to others except where:. the applicant is reasonably likely to have been aware of the Department's disclosure practices; or. the applicant consents to it; or. the Department believes it is reasonable to disclose information to prevent or lessen a serious or imminent threat to the applicant's life or health or to that of another person; or. disclosure is authorised or required by law; or disclosure is necessary to enforce the criminal law, law imposing a financial penalty, or to protect public revenue.The Department has produced an information form entitled Safeguarding your personal information—Form 993i which explains its authority to collect personal information, how it can be used and how it is protected.(2) I am aware of the advertisement placed by a company called Business Match in the June issue of Business Forum. My Department has contacted the company and the company has advised that: . it has developed, independently of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, a network of business migration applicants through direct promotion of the company in business migration markets as well as referrals from various lawyers, accountants and industry associations; and. applicants have given their consent to their details being included in the database.8341(Question No. 785)7858341Horne, Bob, MPMr HorneUU5PatersonALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice on 30 June 1999:(1) Is it a fact that (a) the Steggles company has applied to his Department to bring two Korean chicken sexers to Australia and (b) all chicken sexers employed by Steggles are working part-time.(2) Will he ensure that overseas chicken sexers are not allowed into Australia simply to force wages down.8341Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (a) Yes. Steggles Limited has lodged nominations for two chick sexer positions with my department's Parramatta Business Centre. A particular consideration in determining these nominations is whether Australian chick sexers are available to undertake this work. My department is consulting with both Steggles and the Australian Chick Sexers Association on sponsorship related matters.(b) Chick sexing is a demanding occupation and I understand it is normal for sexers to work between 20—25 hours per week in sexing chickens. Ex-contract Australian staff currently employed by Steggles to undertake chick sexing have been offered full time employment with the requisite weekly hours taken up with general hatchery duties on non-hatching days. No Australian chick sexer has accepted that offer to date.Steggles Limited has negotiated an industrial agreement with the Australian Workers' Union (AWU) in regard to employed chick sexing staff. The agreement is currently with the NSW Industrial Relations Commission. In the agreement Steggles and the AWU acknowledge the difficult nature of the work and decided that "should the hours worked in the hatchery exceed an average of 28 hours per week over a reasonable period of time, the company and the union will meet to discuss the matter . . .to review manning levels".(2) No further applications to recruit Korean chick sexers will be approved without first satisfying employer sponsorship and related labour market testing requirements. In order to gain approval as a business sponsor, Steggles was required to demonstrate a benefit to Australia in recruiting from overseas and to give formal undertakings that they will, among other things, comply with Australian industrial relations laws and conditions of employment.The company needs to demonstrate as part of its current nomination of overseas skilled workers that they are unable to recruit suitably qualified Australian sexers. Steggles has been asked by the department to provide this information.The Government's sponsorship arrangements and employer undertakings are designed to ensure that the employment and training opportunities of Australian citizens and permanent residents are not compromised.8342(Question No. 789)7898342McFarlane, Jann, MPMs Jann McFarlane83CStirlingALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice on 30 June 1999:Did Passports Australia cease sending mailed passports by either registered or certified mail; if so, (a) when did it cease to do so, (b) how many passports sent by ordinary mail have had to be replaced because of loss or theft in the mailing process since the decision to cease sending passports by registered or certified mail took effect, (c) how many passports sent by mail were replaced because of loss or theft in the mailing process in each of the 5 financial years before the decision took effect and (d) was the decision made on cost considerations; if so, what are the details of cost savings in each financial year since the decision took effect.8343Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows;Yes. Passports Australia ceased sending mailed passports by receipted mail on 31 December 1997 in order to reduce expenditure and to provide a more convenient delivery system to its clients. The previous system required a person to be at home at the time of passport delivery. This did not prevent the passport falling into the wrong hands, as the person signing receipt did not have to be the person to whom the item was addressed.1,343 passports have been reported as missing in the mail in the 18 months since the new system was introduced. 355 of these have been recovered and returned for normal use. The remainder are still missing and have been replaced.The Passport Information and Control System has only recorded passports reported as missing in the mail since April 1996, and records are based on calendar years. Between April and December 1996, 1,075 passports were reported as missing in the mail.During the 1997 calendar year, 302 passports were reported missing in the mail.Use of ordinary mail has cut the operating costs of the Passports Service by approximately $1m per year without affect.