1999-08-233914REPS876501999-08-23Mr SPEAKER(Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 12.30 p.m., and read prayers.Committees87658765876512:31:008765Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—On behalf of the Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration, I present the committee's report entitled, Review of the Reserve Bank of Australia's annual report for 1997-98 , together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the committee.Ordered that the report be printed.8H4Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER—I am pleased to table the latest report of the Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration into one of our most important financial institutions, the Reserve Bank of Australia. Again, this report is a unanimous one and is based on our public hearing with the bank in June, which was one of the committee's biannual meetings with the bank. These hearings are an integral part of the committee's work and the bank's public accountability strategy.The performance of the Australian economy over the past year has been impressive. Two years after the Asian crisis first broke and despite a global economic slowdown, the economy continues to show growth rates exceeding four per cent and exceptionally low inflation. Unemployment rates are coming down and seem likely to break the seven per cent barrier this year. The Reserve Bank's steady, deliberate approach to monetary policy coupled with the federal government's financial management deserve much credit for this success. Our report elaborates on this success and presents the bank's view on a number of issues, especially with regard to the role of monetary policy in the maintenance of the conditions for sustainable growth. The report contains information about the impact of tax reform, Australia's links with the US business cycle, business investment, the household savings ratio, employment, the current account deficit and Y2K and financial system stability.While the economic news contained in this report is generally very good, the committee has taken note of the bank's warning that the low level of household savings in Australia could jeopardise future economic growth and recommends that the government give appropriate attention to this matter. The bank's research has shown that Australia's household savings ratio has declined substantially over the past two decades. It is currently at 0.4 per cent, and it is well below the 12 per cent average that prevailed in the early 1980s. March ABS figures reveal that, over the past four years, the level of household debt in Australia has increased by nearly 50 per cent to average over $20,000 per person.I would now like to turn to another subject which received a fair amount of attention at our June meeting—bank fees and profits. When the committee met with the bank in December last year, we asked the bank to compile some trend data on bank fees and charges, as there was a perception in the community that these were being raised to offset some income reductions banks are experiencing due to an interest margin squeeze resulting from increased competition in the lending market. Prior to the committee's hearing with the bank in June, reports of the results of a KPMG survey lent credence to this perception, and the intense publicity which ensued guaranteed the bank's study on the subject—released two days before the public hearing—would be noticed and appreciated for being a worthy and timely contribution to the debate on the subject. I do not propose to go into the detail of the bank's study and the discussions which took place on this matter. These are detailed in the report. I will say, though, that the committee accepts the broad findings of the Reserve Bank that the average borrowing bank customer has more benefited from the decline in lending rates than suffered from increases in bank fees and charges.We have since been looking at recent revelations about the `cash for comments' publicity arrangements between a radio commentator and the Australian Bankers Association. These revelations have only strengthened the committee's determination to pursue its investigation into bank fees and charges. Despite the recent attempt at a public apology by the chairman of the ABA on behalf of the banking industry, the committee needs more to convince it that the industry has committed itself to any meaningful reforms. While the committee has deferred for the moment conducting a specific inquiry into this matter, it will be following with great interest the outcomes of the various inquiries into the Laws-ABA affair.Finally, I would like to thank the Reserve Bank, especially the governor, Mr Ian Macfarlane, and all members of the committee, particularly the deputy chairman, Mr Greg Wilton, and our secretariat staff, Bev Forbes and Shelley McInnes, for their contributions to the hearing and to this report. I commend the report to the House.12:36:008766Wilton, Greg, MPMr WILTONYK6IsaacsALP00—I too would like to commend the responsible and mature approach the Reserve Bank continues to adopt towards the management of monetary policy in this country. However, this bank legitimately and understandably continues to express concern at an issue of national significance that the member for Werriwa, others on this side of the House and I have canvassed over some time. That issue is the fall in the household savings ratio.While we have seen a rise in public savings, this has been at the expense of private savings. This government cannot continue to cut, for example, child-care funding of millions of dollars, on the one hand, while simultaneously forcing private citizens, on the other hand, to pay for their own savings without generating what the Governor of the Reserve Bank has referred to as a `possible ailment with the potential to bring Australia's economic growth to a halt'. People not only are saving less but are concomitantly spending more. Household debt in Australia has increased by over 13 per cent in the year to March. While this is not dissimilar to levels in other Western democracies, the RBA stated in its semi-annual statement in May of this year:. . . a continued period of rapid growth in household credit could generate concern, given that households will have to service their higher debt levels out of nominal incomes that are growing at a much slower rate than in . . . the 1970s and 1980s.As I cited at paragraph 2.36 of the review, the ABS March quarter financial accounts released on 28 June of this year demonstrated that Australian household debt grew by $10.8 billion during the March quarter. In June 1995, Australian households owned $258 billion or about $14,276 per person. By June 1998, households owed $357.5 billion or around $19,000 per person. By March this year, the total level of household debt had risen to $387 billion or an average of $20,500 per person.The governor cited three specific ways that the trend in household savings could jeopardise Australian growth. The first was the possibility of inadequate provision for retirement, which would place an excessive burden on future taxpayers. The bank cites a solution to this as lying primarily within improving retirement income policies. While the governor did not specifically agree that a new pre-retirement savings plan was needed, I would nevertheless urge him and the bank to reconsider this view and urge the government to countenance extending and enhancing the existing superannuation guarantee levy arrangements.The second problem relating to falling household savings ratios is that they could lead to an increase in the current account. A larger current account results from a decline in aggregate savings relative to aggregate investment. Australia is a small trading nation and, as the member for Werriwa has attested on many occasions, we cannot go on growing faster than our trading partners without simultaneously incurring a problem on our external account. The transfer from public to private savings—that is, from government to business savings—for the reasons outlined earlier, masks the underlying seriousness of this problem. The third possible problem cited by the bank is that increased indebtedness makes the housing sector more vulnerable when rates rise. While the bank cannot target monetary policy to individual borrowing patterns, the bank has acknowledged that increased indebtedness means that interest rates would not need to be raised as much as was formerly the case to achieve a given macro-economic effect. It may well be that Australians are not, by nature, great savers and that we are great spenders. This antisavings mind-set needs to be changed. The bank fees and charges issue raised by the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration, the member for Wannon, and the closure of regional rural banks does nothing to endear banks in the minds of Australians and encourage them to save. I thank the secretariat and the committee for their work on this report.12:41:008767Southcott, Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—It is a pleasure to speak on this report from the Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration. I thank the chairman, the member for Wannon, and deputy chairman, the member for Isaacs, for their work, and also the secretariat for all the work they have put in. I also thank the Governor and Deputy Governor of the Reserve Bank for their help. I would like to touch on a couple of topics that are dealt with in the report. The report is essentially based on our semi-annual meeting with the Reserve Bank governor. The first topic is that of tax reform. In both our December 1998 and June 1999 hearings, the governor responded that the long-term effects of tax reform would be good. Specifically, he recognised that shifting from taxation of income to taxation of sales would be beneficial; it would help to address the very high marginal tax rates that apply in Australia on quite moderate incomes.As to whether the income tax cuts from 1 July 2000 will come at a time when the economy may be overheating, the Reserve Bank—based on their economic forecast—expect a slowing of consumption and growth next year. So the fiscal stimulus of the income tax cuts will occur at a time when the Australian economy is in a good position to handle it. The inflationary impact of a GST gained some prominence in the newspapers just last week. In a recent speech, the governor said that the Reserve Bank had no way of knowing how businesses and individuals would react. I do not think we should overplay that, however. We should also remember that, in the last two hearings with the committee, the Governor of the Reserve Bank emphasised that the GST per se has no implications for monetary policy—that is, it is seen as a one-off price rise—and the important thing is that the price rise does not get embedded into people's expectations.Experience in OECD countries in the 1970s and 1980s with introducing a VAT or GST was that the price rise due to those consumption taxes was a one-off effect. The point to make is that most of those consumption taxes were introduced in high inflationary times and yet they did not lead to a building in of inflationary expectations. The important policy implication is that the one-off price rise does not become embedded in inflation expectations. It is important to emphasise—as the Leader of the Opposition did in a question to the Prime Minister earlier this year—that the Reserve Bank has said that, when Japan raised its consumption tax from three per cent to 10 per cent, the relation that it had to Japan's continuing economic slump was due to its being an inappropriate fiscal contraction rather than a consumption tax per se.The committee noted that business investment had declined dramatically in the December quarter. This issue having been raised, the bank's response was that they felt it was important not just to look at one quarter's figures but at business investment over the whole economic expansion since 1991. They felt that, over that period, business investment had been strong.Lastly, I would like to talk about savings and the committee's thoughts on it. The committee noted with concern that household savings were 0.4 per cent in the March quarter. I think more recently, since we have met with the Reserve Bank, in the June quarter it has been 0.2 per cent. That compares with a figure of 12 per cent in the early 1980s. The committee also noted with con cern the growth in household debt. As the Reserve Bank governor outlined, there are three problems with declining household savings: firstly, that you may have an inadequate provision for retirement; secondly, it may lead to an increase in the current account deficit; and, thirdly, it means that households are more vulnerable to an increase in interest rates. As highlighted in the latest edition of BRW in an article entitled `US savings—not drowning, waving', this is a complex issue, and you do have to look at national savings overall.Personal savings are just one part of the national income accounting framework, and what is ignored is the capital accumulation that is no doubt going on. The United States, for example, has very similar problems. In the last six months, it has had personal savings levels of minus 0.9 per cent of GDP. With the growth in personal debt, they noted that interest payments back in the eighties were nine per cent of after-tax household income; because of lower interest rates, they are now six per cent. So people are able to service this growth of debt—but that is because interest rates are low. This is an issue which is still controversial.12:46:008768Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—The Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration has played a useful role in scrutinising the performance of the Reserve Bank. This process, if you like, is something of a parliamentary report card on the work of the Reserve Bank of Australia, and that is a very healthy process indeed. On that report card, the bank would receive an A for the quality of its pre-emptive monetary policy settings. It would receive a B-plus for improving transparency in its work. There have been many changes to monetary policy in Australia in the past decade. The bank is playing a very useful role in explaining those changes to financial markets and the public at large. Its performance on transparency has certainly improved in recent years.The main focus of this committee report is its sole recommendation, which is worth recording in the Hansard of this debate. The recommendation reads:Whilst recognising that the majority of Government economic policy settings are sound, the Committee notes the concern about the level of household savings and recommends the Government give appropriate attention to this issue.This is a most timely recommendation. In the monetary statement of the Reserve Bank, a great deal of attention has been given to the decline in household savings in Australia. A sensible government would note that that sort of mention in the bank's report sends an alert signal to policy makers in this parliament—and that something needs to be done to improve the level of household savings in Australia.There are four pillars to a national savings policy. Three of those pillars are: government savings, and they have moved into a surplus position in recent years; retirement savings, which are headed in the right direction because of the Keating government's outstanding reforms on superannuation; and corporate savings, which have been steady in Australia in recent times. The fourth pillar, though, household savings, has a number of difficulties. Australian households have moved into a higher level of indebtedness. For every dollar of disposable income held by the average Australian household, 90c is now owed in debt. Earlier this decade, this amount was just 50c. So, in the space of a few years, Australians have almost doubled their exposure to debt. As debt has risen, household savings have gone through the floor. Ten years ago, Australians saved nine cents in every dollar of their disposable income. This has now fallen to less than half a cent.This is the great challenge for Australia: to lift its household savings, and thereby lift its national savings. Lifting our national savings is the best way to make Australia secure in the global economy—to lower our exposure to international financial turbulence and to lower our exposure to international financial markets. Indeed, a country which refuses to save can never be secure in the international economy.This government has failed to improve national savings, despite all its promises prior to the 1996 federal election. The trend generally has been to improve government savings but at a cost to household savings. If the government cuts back on education, health and child-care outlays, as this government has done, it will surely lift its own savings, but at a cost to household savings. Australians just will not go without education, health and child care. They will spend more of their own money on those basics of life, thereby having less money available for their household savings budget. That indeed has been the shift in recent years—that for every extra dollar of government savings there has been a dollar decline in household savings. The relationship is very plain and easy to understand.This government has no policy for household savings. The Reserve Bank has alerted its concern in its statement. The committee has alerted its concern with this recommendation. Development by the government of a household savings strategy is, indeed, overdue. Some of the options in this area are not easy: they require further changes to Australia's taxation policies and they require some structural reform of the welfare system. But we do need to become a nation of savers—not just a nation of healthy spenders but a nation of forward savers. That is the best security we can have in the global economy.The government has a lot of work to do on welfare policy and taxation policy to improve household savings. It needs to give Australians the incentives and the security they require in that regard. Hopefully, the government will respond to this recommendation with a household savings policy. I am sure that would be welcomed not just by the Reserve Bank of Australia but by everyone interested in stronger financial outcomes.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The time allotted for statements on this report has expired. Does the member for Wannon wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion?8769Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—I move:That the House take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—In accordance with standing order 102B, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Members will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.8769876912:53:008769Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSONFB6WentworthLP10—On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present the committee's report entitled, Report 23—Amendments proposed to the International Whaling Convention , together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the committee.Ordered that the report be printed.FB6Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSON—The report I have just tabled is the fourth examination of amendments proposed to the Schedule to the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling 1946 by the treaties committee since it was established some three years ago. Each year since 1949, the IWC—that is, the International Whaling Commission—has met to review this schedule, which has been amended to reflect the considerable changes in technology and other areas that have occurred since the convention was signed in 1946.The two sets of proposed amendments to this schedule that we reviewed arose from the 51st meeting of the IWC held in the Caribbean island of Grenada in May this year. The first set, which are uncontroversial, proposes to alter dates in the schedule to the convention to renew the moratorium on commercial whaling, which was introduced 13 years ago in 1986. As on the three past occasions, these proposed changes were supported by the committee.The other set of proposed amendments was more controversial. It dealt with the renewal of a quota for aboriginal subsistence whaling. In spite of a moratorium on commercial whaling, in some circumstances the IWC allows the taking of whales, notably under its aboriginal subsistence whaling provisions. There are records of this sort of whaling occurring as early as 1500 BC. It has been recognised by international treaties for some 60 years as being in some way different from, and having a distinctive character and thus susceptible to other controls for, commercial whaling. Since the early 1970s, the IWC has strengthened its conservation policy by putting new management procedures in place. Agreed definitions, management principles and guidelines were adopted in the early 1980s for this category of whaling, aboriginal subsistence whaling, and broad management objectives were also adopted. While there is a range of definitions in this convention and in the schedule, it is not complete.The agreed definitions of `aboriginal subsistence whaling', `local aboriginal consumption', `subsistence catches' and `subsistence use of whale products' do not form part of either document. Nor are terms such as `aboriginal', `culture' or `subsistence' defined—it is all really rather vague. Finally, there are no formal, defined links between this sort of whaling and traditional methods of killing whales.This is a difficult area that demands a sensitive approach. For example, the Alaskan Eskimos or Inuit people clearly fall within the IWC's guidelines and have one of the five quotas currently allowed for aboriginal subsistence whaling. Without allocating quotas to particular groups of aboriginal people, paragraph 13(b) of the schedule allows yearly catch limits from particular stocks of whales.Now we come to the controversial part: since 1987 the Bequian people of St Vincent and the Grenadines have been allocated a quota of three and then two humpback whales, provided that the meat and products of such whales are used exclusively for local consumption. The schedule forbids taking or killing suckling calves or female whales accompanied by calves. The committee does not believe that the quota for the Bequian people has ever been sufficiently justified.Demonstration of cultural and nutritional needs is at the heart of aboriginal subsistence whaling. The Bequians have produced what was essentially merely a history of whaling in their area as a justification for their quota. They do not have the history of whaling for cultural and traditional reasons that other peoples can and have provided in the past. For some time, evidently, there was support for this quota for the Bequians, because all their whaling was done by one old man and it was said that the practice would die out with him. It now appears that he has been succeeded by his nephew.The Bequians have not been able to provide the sort of detailed statement of their needs that should be required for the allocation of this sort of quota, the aboriginal subsistence whaling quota. We see this as a deficiency in the IWC's approach. Other peoples with a history of whaling could use the Bequian precedent—to coin a phrase—to seek status as aboriginal subsistence whalers, and in such a way the moratorium on commercial whaling could be weakened. (Time expired)12:58:008770Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—I rise to speak on report 23, entitled Amendments proposed to the International Whaling Convention , of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. Whaling has been a controversial issue and has been the subject of a number of reports from the treaties committee. The International Whaling Commission was set up under the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling in 1946, and its purpose was `to provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry'.Among its other activities, the IWC promotes studies into such matters as the humaneness of the killing operation, as well as collecting information and passing it on to other groups to ensure the survival of many species of whales—a very admirable approach. Although there have been zero catch limits in place since 1986, some nations continue to catch whales in accordance with the convention. This can be done in three ways: through scientific whaling, by a party objecting to the provisions and by aboriginal subsistence. The latter is permitted by quota and amended from time to time.The treaties committee held an inquiry to report on matters arising from the existing treaties, which included looking at any material that had been supplied to parliament and any other matters that the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade suggested that we should look at. The review was a result of a number of concerns that have been raised about the whaling that is still being carried out in certain parts of the world.Australia itself does not currently conduct any whaling and also undertakes to protect the whales in Australian waters and those in the outer limits of the exclusive economic zone. But we do understand that there are various aboriginal communities around the world that rely on fishing for whales in their economies and their culture has grown around this activity. Whales have come back into the Derwent River where there was heavy whaling during the early development of Hobart and the colony of Tasmania.I have told parliament before of a Tasmanian friend of mine who spent a year at Barrow in Alaska right on the north coast in an Inuit reserve. She described the feeling of watching the locals race down to the beach as the whale was beached and the excitement and skill required to carve up the carcass and distribute it fairly among the community. It was a whole new experience and certainly gave her an understanding of the need to keep access to hunting for indigenous people as a part of their life and their culture.However, with the Bequian people it was a different situation because of their custom of taking whale calves and the accompanying females as this was against the international convention. There needs to be a statement of needs from these people seeking further information and also suggesting that hunting methods should be improved to reduce the suffering of the whales. The government of St Vincent and the Grenadines should ensure that hunts are effectively regulated. That should be laid down and put before the commission. The recommendation is also that no formal objection be made at this time, but that concerns should be expressed.The feeling was that the quotas presently allocated should remain, but that a range of factors should be taken into account, such as the ability of the target species to cope with a quota without survival being endangered. I believe that the committee has looked very openly into this matter. This report has taken a responsible position and should be given the full support of the parliament.13:03:008771Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—The Alaskan Eskimos have been whaling for many years, since about 1500 BC, and most quotas allocated by the International Whaling Commission do not seem to cause any major problems, although I suspect that many of us in this place and many of our constituents do not understand the need for any whales to be taken anywhere in the world these days.After all, Australia has been a good international citizen and has walked away from the whaling industry. We do not have any aboriginal demands on whales as some other cultures do. So it is from those sorts of positions, I suspect, that we are quite generous in tolerating some cultures having a different way of doing things. The Alaskan Eskimos, the Inuits and the traditional tribes in those areas—as the member for Lyons and the member for Wentworth have outlined—have a legitimate demand.However, when it comes to the circumstances of the Bequian people of St Vincent and the Grenadines, the committee had some concerns. In essence what we are actually talking about is one old whaler who was running a practice of taking at one stage three whales a year, then more recently under this new quota, two whales a year, a practice that was destined to die out essentially when he died out, but his nephew has now taken up the cause.The treaty matters that we have before us in this report, Report 23—Amendments proposed to the International Whaling Convention, are not going to be protested in a formal sense by the committee, but we think through the course of this debate, and also in the report, we have at least placed on notice the importance of having another look at this whole matter. Of course, Australia is well placed to play a lead role in a review of these matters because the 52nd annual meeting of the International Whaling Commission is taking place in Australia in Adelaide next year. It is certainly an opportunity that will be used to begin the process of revising the convention and its schedule and, more importantly in the context of the quota for the Bequians, we have also recommended in our report that this quota should be reconsidered at that meeting. It would have been easy to recommend lodging an objection to this proposed amendment to the schedule for the convention, but we believe that that essentially would have had little effect and have recommended an expression of concern be lodged about the renewal of this quota.Most Australians would support the committee on this matter. The renewing of the quota for the Bequians could have a very undesirable effect in that other less scrupulous groups could be emboldened by this unfortunate precedent to make claims for their own traditional whaling. Such moves could be used as a means of getting around the moratorium on commercial whaling introduced in 1986. The moratorium is supported by many nations and peoples and seems to have assisted in the recovery of the numbers of some stocks of whales. We believe that many Australians are revolted by whale hunts and are in favour of reducing them as much as possible.We do not as a committee—and I suspect the parliament and the people of Australia would agree with the committee's views—want an extension of whaling by using aboriginal subsistence or other loopholes in the convention to actually see the light of day. The whole matter is very distressing and is certainly one of the key reasons why we have moved for a review of the schedule of the convention, particularly in relation to the Bequian people.We are very concerned that the aboriginal subsistence definition adopted by the Whaling Commission in the 1980s is going to be used and could be used by others around the world. The particular definitions have not been incorporated into the convention or the schedule and have no real application in international law. I suspect on first brush, when one sees the words `aboriginal subsistence whaling', one may feel a bit of pressure to not dare question another culture's rights to continue to do the things that that particular culture has always done. I think that is fair enough in one sense, but it is also important in the democracy that we have in this nation that we at least debate the issue and raise our concern based on our standards and our approach to this particular industry.The Bequian people, the people of St Vincent and the Grenadines—essentially one old whaler and now his nephew—are using that loophole to take just two whales a year. It is not that quota, it is not the numbers of whales that have been taken over the years; it is the principle and the precedent that we believe are important and are at stake. I commend the 23rd report of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties to the House.13:07:008772Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—As a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I certainly commend the chairman's dealing with this particular treaty on amendments made in Grenada in May 1999 to the schedule to the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling. It is of great importance, particularly to us in Australia—where, of course, there is no destruction of whales and where in many areas we in fact have large whale protection zones—that we take a responsible lead in the world as regards whale protection. As we have found in our area of the Whitsundays, whale watching is in fact a much bigger industry than could ever be generated through the use of whale products—and a far more lucrative one.Of the amendments which were made, the first arises from a decision taken by the 51st annual meeting of the commission and relates to renewing the annual quota for the Bequian people of St Vincent and the Grenadines to allow them to take two humpback whales per year for the three years to the year 2002. The second relates to a number of technical changes but maintains the moratorium on commercial whaling, essentially—which moratorium, of course, Australia absolutely supports.We would all support the need for indigenous peoples who rely upon whales as part of their culture or subsistence nutritional needs. Plainly, if such hunting is integral to their community life, it is not something that we should override. But a number of concerns were raised by those who gave submissions to the committee about the Bequian people and their supposed need to extend this quota for a further few years and to take only two whales per year.The basis for an indigenous claim generally relates to cultural and nutritional aspects. St Vincent, though, does not have a long tradition of whaling. Some indigenous communities have an 8,000-year tradition, and certainly that should be recognised and respected. But apparently St Vincent in the 1980s applied for a quota, under the claim of subsistence. The quota and the need for it were somewhat contentious and there has been, to date, no satisfactory needs statement given. In fact, one of those who gave a submission to the committee said that they believed that one of the arguments given in the statement that was submitted was that eating the whale generates excitement. That may well be so, but that would be a far cry from being a cultural basis for the taking of whales or being a nutritional need. As my learned colleague said, there was one whaler who was to give up whaling, and his nephew has now assumed that practice.The other thing that concerns members of the committee is the fact that calves and their mothers are often targeted—something that is banned under the international treaties. The other concern is that, while it may perhaps be a worthy request to extend the quota for the Bequian people, if there are loopholes allowed for particular indigenous groups, others will seek to exploit that: we only have to see the exploitation that has taken place under some of the scientific exemptions by those who, perhaps, should be more thoughtful.The groups that gave submissions to the committee did not believe that the Bequian should receive a quota—because, as I have said, there is not the cultural tradition, there was not a satisfactory needs statement and two whales can hardly be seen as important nutritionally. However, there was one question to which I must say I did not receive a satisfactory answer and that was: how many people were dependent upon the whales that were caught for their livelihood? That could not be quantified and, I must say in fairness, it is probably difficult from way across the world to estimate the impact on a community of perhaps even a small change such as taking away their right to kill two whales per year. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The time allotted for statements on this report has expired. Does the member for Wentworth wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion?8773Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSONFB6WentworthLP10—I move:That the House take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks.Leave granted.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—In accordance with standing order 102B, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.Private Members' Business8773877313:13:008773Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—I move:That this 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.One of the truisms about this job is that each of us in this house, on either side of politics, encounters constituents with problems that are the same, whatever parts of Australia we represent. For example, we have constituents with problems regarding immigration or associated with social security payments. Each of us encounters constituents with these problems, almost on a daily basis. Another prob lem area that I know we all come across regards the financial plight of many self-funded retirees. Time and time again, self-funded retirees have contacted my office, seeking my assistance and raising their concerns because of the serious financial difficulties that they are experiencing.We all know that, even in these so-called economic boom times, many self-funded retirees are struggling to make ends meet. It is not a new problem. It is not a problem that gets headlines, but it is a very serious problem that successive governments have wrestled with—that we as members of parliament have all wrestled with—and that I believe has never been adequately addressed. It is my belief that it is also about to get a whole lot worse with the introduction of the Howard government's GST.I know that the speaker on the government side will invariably disagree with me and will talk about what the coalition government has done to supposedly help our self-funded retirees and how its taxation reforms are the Holy Grail for this section of the Australian population. I know that is his prerogative, but I do hope—probably in vain—that the member might display a little more open thinking than that and address this problem in its full context. I am the first to admit that self-funded retirees did not begin struggling financially under the current government. I am not saying that the previous Labor administration had all the answers to solving this problem; quite obviously it did not.However, looking at the government's plans for the new tax system, not only is this problem set to continue but it will only be exacerbated by these badly prepared and ill-conceived reforms. We need to come up with a taxation solution for self-funded retirees that is tailor-made to their requirements, their problems, their needs and their future. We need to offer self-funded retirees a taxation solution that recognises the outstanding contribution that they have made to our society throughout their working lives, that recognises their never having called on the government for financial assistance and that recognises that they have paid their fair share of taxes over the years while still managing to save for their future.Unfortunately, it needs to be said that the GST and the inadequate compensation that is being offered to them in the government's tax package does none of these things and will not improve the lot of self-funded retirees—not by a long shot. The fundamental problem facing many self-funded retirees—and ironically even more so with the low interest rate climate currently in Australia—is the difficulty they have in stretching their savings to maintain the quality and standard of life that they enjoyed when they were in the work force.As it is at the moment, many self-funded retirees are eating into their hard-earned savings in order to keep their noses above water. This is not only a deplorable state of affairs for them and for our communities but also bad news for the country. Australia has a shocking recent track record when it comes to the level of household savings maintained by its population. We need people saving more, not less. Subsequently, governments need to create an environment for self-funded retirees where saving money is easier and not where it is impossible.Unfortunately, the GST will make the savings of self-funded retirees disappear even more quickly. To watch this ominous tax grow larger and larger on the horizon every day must be absolutely terrifying for self-funded retirees around Australia. Despite the Prime Minister's repeated assertions about the GST not leaving any Australians worse off, many self-funded retirees will quite obviously be left hurting by the tax package, despite the levels of compensation the government has offered them to make up for the effects of the new tax system.The maximum level of $3,000 worth of compensation will not protect most self-funded retirees anywhere near enough from the very real pain the GST will bring to them. Take single self-funded retirees who are earning private incomes of $10,000 a year, for example. Under the government's tax package they will lose $1.37 a week. A self-funded retiree couple on $20,000 a year loses 84c a week. For self-funded retirees struggling to make ends meet these are important figures, and they are very distressed by them.The advent of the GST will immediately devalue the savings of self-funded retirees because, as we all know, savings—especially for this section of our society—are future consumption. With a GST the price of the necessities of life will go up. Most self-funded retirees use their hard-earned savings on buying just that—the necessities of life.Self-funded retirees will not be out there buying all of those computers, TVs, videos and capital goods that the government likes to talk about dropping in price when the GST kicks in. These people are at the latter stages of their lives. They have already set themselves up in their homes for their retirement. Their furniture, cars and all of their other consumer goods have already been purchased. The purchases they will be making will be far more mundane. They will be buying bus and train tickets. They will be buying food. They will be paying utility bills. They will be perhaps purchasing a few of the little luxuries that they have worked so hard in their lives to enjoy—that is, a ticket to the movies or maybe a round of golf—and who would deny them that?But these goods and services are not currently taxed under the wholesale sales tax system, and this is something that the Howard government's GST reforms completely ignore—or at least appear to ignore, judging by the amount of compensation that has been offered to self-funded retirees. With this in mind, the government's blanket argument that the GST will increase prices by only 1.9 per cent is absolutely false. For self-funded retirees the story is more likely to be in the area of seven to eight per cent for many of the goods and services that they use and purchase day in and day out.The stinging unfairness about the Howard government's GST is that it changes the tax goalposts for self-funded retirees after they have worked all their lives to reach and enjoy a certain standard of living in their retirement. Mr Raymond Bricknell, National President of the Australian Investors Association, made a similar point at the Senate hearings into the new tax system. I quote what Mr Bricknell said at that Senate inquiry:I think it is unfair. Where is the case for suddenly taxing those people again? It really is irrelevant whether they retired before or after the nominated pensionable age, because the reality is that a person who gets to retire at 55 or 60 years has not got to that stage by having an easy life. They work extraordinarily hard and extraordinarily long hours. I have never met anybody who has been able to retire at 55 who has not really earned that retirement.He went on to say:Now, having earned the right to retire earlier, they have effectively said, `We'll compress our working lives into a shorter period and retire earlier, and then hopefully get some rewards for that. You know, the time that we didn't have with our children, et cetera, we might have with our grandchildren,' and then they expect a certain standard of living because they make the decision to retire at a certain level of savings.Once they have retired with that level of savings and left their businesses, sold their businesses, left their employment—whatever—there is no way in the world they can go and top it up again if someone comes along and says, `We're going to take seven or eight per cent off the top of your savings.'So, if the government is going to introduce a taxation system that really does have the effect of taking seven or eight per cent off the top of the savings of people in that category—to which I have referred—then it ought to compensate them to the full amount so that they can just stay where they are now. No-one is asking for a better deal; just leave them where they are now.Mr Bricknell has hit the nail on the head with these observations. Self-funded retirees are not asking for a better deal than any other Australian with regard to the taxation system. They are not asking for preferential treatment; they are asking for fair treatment, but the Howard government's GST will not treat them fairly. It will leave their finances unequivocally battered and bruised. As I said, I think we need to go back to the drawing board and design a taxation system that fits the needs of self-funded retirees and gives them equity with regard to their financial situation.Indeed, as the third point in my motion indicates, for those self-funded retirees who are doing it tough financially, I would argue it is time we investigated other ways and means of offering financial incentives and assistance to them at this time in their lives, and that does not include lumbering them with a goods and services tax. To quote Mr Bricknell again:Why should people have their entire standard of living that they have worked and saved for all their lives reduced simply because a GST is introduced after they retire, or just before they retire. What have they done to deserve retrospective retribution?Indeed, it is time that we collectively put our heads together and truly offered self-funded retirees, especially those within our communities who are struggling financially, a fair go.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Is the motion seconded?QI4PRICEMr Price—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.13:23:008776Somlyay, Alex, MPMr SOMLYAYZT4FairfaxLP10—I do not think anybody on this side of the House would argue that the member for Prospect is not a good local member. The member for Prospect uses every opportunity to raise issues on behalf of her constituents, and I accept that she rises in this place on those issues in good faith. I also acknowledge that the member for Prospect was a parliamentary secretary on the front bench of the Labor Party when Mr Keating was Prime Minister and therefore knows full well that no government has done more for independent retirees, self-funded retirees, than the Howard government since 1996.The independent retiree movement started on the Sunshine Coast in 1990 and, at that time, my electorate took in the whole of the Sunshine Coast. It is a growth area, a retirement area, where 1,400 people a month are being added to my electoral rolls. The majority of those are retirees, so it is little wonder that the independent retiree movement started in that area. It was at about the same time that Grey Power was becoming a movement. The independent retiree movement has continued on, and grown from strength to strength as a movement—and, I might say, an apolitical movement. They speak to people on both sides of the House. When the member for Prospect was in government—she is now in opposition, of course—Maureen Kingston, who was in my electorate at the time, was the national president for the Association of Independent Retirees. She achieved many benefits for the independent retirees of Australia.This motion is about compensation for independent retirees for the introduction of the GST. I remind the House that the introduction of a GST is also a replacement tax for many other taxes. The introduction of the GST will enable the government to have a radical reduction in income taxes. Let us go back to 1993 when, with the election of the Keating government with Keating as Prime Minister, we were promised tax cuts. We all know about the l-a-w law tax cuts that Mr Keating promised but which were never delivered. Instead, the Keating government delivered a two per cent increase in the wholesale sales tax—the 10 per cent rate went to 12 per cent, the 20 per cent rate went to 22 per cent and the 30 per cent rate went to 32 per cent. I ask: what compensation was offered to Australia's independent retirees?EM6STONEDr Stone—None.ZT4Somlyay, Alex, MPMr SOMLYAY—None. What compensation was offered to pensioners, anybody on fixed incomes? None. As I said, no government has done more for independent retirees than the Howard government. Independent retirees are the nation's savers. They have saved for their own retirement, and this government respects that they have so done. One of the first actions of this government for independent retirees was in the 1998-99 budget when the Treasurer announced that the pensioner tax rebate would be made fully available to self-funded retirees so that they would pay no more in tax than a pensioner on the same income. That was a measure that the independent retirees sought from the inception of their organisation. It was the Howard government that delivered on that commitment. Why shouldn't a person who provides income for their own retirement not get the same tax advantage as a pensioner who receives the same amount of income, and receives it tax free?We took very seriously the concerns about the adequacy of compensation. Treasury estimated that the increase in the consumer price index would be 1.9 per cent as a result of the introduction of a 10 per cent GST. We were particularly concerned about people on fixed incomes. The Howard government has also addressed these concerns for self-funded retirees. Self-funded retirees, who are taxpayers, will benefit from reduced income tax under our new tax system. As the member for Prospect said, the savings of a self-funded retiree will be diminished because of the inflationary effect of the GST by 1.9 per cent. So there was a need for the government to top up that level of savings for retirees so that they could use that top-up to generate income that they had lost because of the devaluation of their savings.To protect their value of savings, older Australians aged 60 and over will benefit from the aged persons saving bonus worth up to $2,000. This bonus, together with the self-funded retiree supplementary bonus, can be worth as much as $3,000, tax free, to a self-funded retiree. As I said, the purpose of this bonus was to top up their savings.In respect of the supplementary bonus, the government will match dollar for dollar the income received from savings and investments. The bonus will also be extended to self-funded retirees who are aged 55 and over. This extension will assist people who have taken early self-funded retirement, and Treasury estimates that up to 210,000 self-funded retirees will benefit from this measure. The benefit will phase out when incomes reach $30,000 per year, but at that level self-funded retirees will benefit from the significant income tax cuts that I mentioned earlier in a package worth more than $12 billion.Under the new tax system, the pension income test will be eased to allow more self-funded retirees to qualify for a part pension. Couples on incomes of up to $48,000 will be able to receive a part pension from 1 July 2000. About 45,000 extra self-funded retirees will qualify under this measure.The government has also taken steps to assist self-funded retirees in the area of refundable imputation credits. Distributed profits will be taxed at the marginal rates of individual taxpayers, and this will certainly help low income taxpayers. It is also significant to note that, since the government expanded the Commonwealth seniors health card scheme in January this year, more than 163,000 self-funded retirees of age pension age have become cardholders. The card enables access to cheaper medicines under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, which is of valuable benefit in dollar terms to older Australians who have additional health care needs as they get older.There has been also a very real benefit from the 30 per cent private health insurance rebate and the new health fund premium concessions for longstanding members, of whom many are self-funded retirees. I said earlier on that no government has done more to specifically help self-funded retirees, independent retirees, who are the savers of this nation, than the Howard government since 1996.13:33:008777Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—In seconding this motion, I would like to begin also by acknowledging the good work also of the honourable member for Prospect in bringing forward this motion about self-funded retirees to the House. In particular, item 3 of the motion states:. . . investigates other means of offering financial assistance and incentive to struggling self-funded retirees distinct from a Goods and Services Tax.The issues for self-funded retirees are not new, and I noticed the honourable member for Fairfax said, `The Howard government has been the best. We've done the most for self-funded retirees.' I would like to acknowledge some of the things that the Howard government has done, but I do not think we can rest on our laurels, and that is the whole point.It is no good saying to self-funded retirees, `Look at what we are doing by way of compensation for the GST,' because these are the people who do not have an opportunity now, by definition, to go back to work. In other words, a young person starting work at age 20 will benefit from the so-called tax cuts that are associated with the GST for the rest of their working life. As the honourable member for Prospect has said, the goalposts have been shifted for self-funded retirees.In not wanting to deprecate in any way what the honourable member for Fairfax has said, let me give you a couple of examples. Is extra money the highest thing on the agenda of self-funded retirees? Sure, they want to have a reasonable standard of living in their retirement and, having been good savers during their working life, I am sure that they would want and have worked towards a reasonable standard of living. But I would say that, of all the people I meet, whether they are pensioners or self-funded retirees, the one thing they do not want to be is a burden on their kids or anyone else.I say to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and to other honourable members that I have raised in this parliament, admittedly some time ago, the idea that pensioners and self-funded retirees should be allowed to have burn money—that is, they should be able to set aside their funeral expenses and not have it count in any asset test by this federal government or any other state or local government. That is not a big ask, and it follows through on what I consider to be one of their primary concerns—that is, not to be a burden.Just as the honourable member for Fairfax perhaps strayed and was a little partisan, I hardly think that the imposition of fees on nursing homes was the best thing for self-funded retirees. This is the only category of people in Australia who are going to be hit for six when they need to have care. It is not when a baby is born, not for kids in the children's hospital, not for teenagers in hospital, not for parents in hospital, but our self-funded retirees—our senior citizens—who are somehow, because of their age, discriminated against, in my view, and have to disproportionately provide for their own level of care. I think that is unfortunate. I know it costs big dollars, but I am saying, in the same spirit as the honourable member for Prospect when she made her point, that we need to investigate other things.The government, particularly the Prime Minister, are often fond of saying that our health care system is first class. Well, it is in crisis. It is a good system, but it is in crisis. I would say that self-funded retirees would be concerned that there be no gaps in their private health insurance and that some of that $1.5 billion that has gone to maintain the current level of subscription to private health insurance should go to the hospital side of it because these people are going to be the acute hospital care users in our system. They want a first-class service, they want to make sure they have got provision for it and they want to be sure that, when they need the service, they will get the service.So that is why I think the third point of the honourable member for Prospect's motion is most appropriate. Is mere money the best way of trying to compensate them? All she said—and I seconded the motion so I support it—is that we ought to investigate other options. I would hope that the next government speaker should be able to embrace that proposition.13:38:008778May, Margaret, MPMs MAY83BMcPhersonLP10—As someone who represents more than 25,000 people aged 65 years and over, many of whom are self-funded retirees, I rise to take issue with this motion by the member for Prospect. It is founded on exactly the same sort of scare tactic that Labor rolled out at the last election and that the people of Australia so clearly rejected. The fact is, Mr Deputy Speaker, this motion is based on the completely false premise that one section of our community—namely, self-funded retirees—will be worse off under the new tax system. This is not the case at all.The Senate's own independent inquiry into the new tax system, with all the evidence brought before it by the community and other interest groups, could not identify any section of the community that would be worse off. It found that perhaps some people could benefit more than others—families with young children, for example—but our ironclad election commitment that no-one will be worse off stood the immense scrutiny of that Senate inquiry. And, Mr Deputy Speaker, I remind the House that this was before the revised plan, which now sees all basic food exempt, but it delivers exactly the same tax cuts for people on incomes below $50,000 and even better compensation for those on fixed incomes.Perhaps the member for Prospect is not aware that many self-funded retirees pay tax, and they will join all other Australians in benefiting from the biggest income tax cuts in our nation's history. Of course, Australia's self-funded retirees already pay less tax under the Howard government than they did under Labor, because one of the first things we did was to ensure that self-funded retirees on comparable incomes have the same tax-free threshold as pensioners. We have also extended the Commonwealth seniors health card to more than 220,000 self-funded retirees, so they now have the same access to low cost prescription medicines as pensioners. These were two of the major concerns expressed by the self-funded retirees of McPherson when I worked closely with them while Labor was still in government, and it is a reflection of our commitment to support and encourage self-funded retirees that the Howard government moved swiftly to address these inequities.There simply is not enough time to list all the policies of the Hawke-Keating years that caused hardship for self-funded retirees and pensioners. The deeming fiasco quickly springs to mind. The uncertainty of the recession took its toll, as did Labor's failure to address inequities in the tax and health systems. And of course, there are the massive increases in indirect taxes that Labor forced on all Australians after the 1993 election campaign when they had actually promised not to increase taxes at all. Over the three years from 1993 to 1996, Labor increased the wholesale sales tax and petrol excise by a massive $10 billion—$10,000 million—and exactly how much compensation did Labor provide for self-funded retirees, or any other Australians for that matter? Not one cent.Despite window-dressing motions like this one, today's Labor hold self-funded retirees in just as little regard as they did in government. In fact, while I was researching this speech, I tried to find their current policies on self-funded retirees. Their Internet site cautions us that all policies are under consideration, confirming that they really do not have any policies.With the very wording of this motion, Labor are trying to deny the many problems with the current tax system. They try to pretend that the confusing and ridiculous wholesale sales tax system does not tax many of the essentials of life. The member for Prospect might like to explain how toilet paper, soap and shampoo are not essentials. They are all taxed at the moment under Labor's system, and these essentials will actually be cheaper under the new system. Labor know that but it will not stop them running a nasty scare campaign.I am a very strong supporter of encouraging and rewarding our self-funded retirees who have worked hard and provided for their own retirement. The Howard government has a track record of doing just that, and our responsible approach to economic management means that we will be in an even better position to do more to assist self-funded retirees in the future.Instead of running a dishonest scare campaign, the Labor members opposite should stop and think how older Australians feel. How do you think they feel after they worked hard for Australia during the war years only to have Labor leave the nation in massive debt? How do you think they felt when you ran up unemployment to record levels and their grandchildren had little hope of finding work? Like most Australians, self-funded retirees know that we must put Australia first—whether it is a newer, fairer tax system or it is making other decisions in our national interest. That is why the coalition was re-elected last year, and Labor's failure to recognise this is why they remain so completely out of touch almost 12 months later.13:43:008779Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNEUU5PatersonALP00—Currently, Australia has only 12 per cent of its population aged 65 or above, and only 340,000 of those are independent retirees with no pension benefit. Over the next 50 years that will rise to 26 per cent, with the greatest effect being in the next two decades while the baby boomers reach maturity. What happens in 50 years will not be a worry to most of us here today, but the policies we implement today will be a worry to many retirees in 50 years. To quote Phillipa Smith, the CEO of the Association of Superannuation Funds:Australia has the unenviable record of `leading' the world in taxing super, being the only country that taxes superannuation at each stage of its life cycle—contributions, earnings and benefits—and for many there is an additional super surcharge. A key objective in any tax reform exercise should be to reduce this complexity and to move towards a system where only benefits are taxed—not contributions or fund earnings.What we are talking about today is how the government of the day perceives the independent retirees—as a group that save the government money because they have provided for their own retirement or as a resource that will pay tax to the government. Independent retirees have paid taxes all their lives on what they have earned, and now they find under John Howard's `never ever GST' that they will be paying taxes on what they spend.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 1.45 p.m. and the debate having been interrupted in accordance with standing order 101, the time allotted for the debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The member for Paterson will have leave to continue his remarks when the debate is resumed.Statements by Members878087808780Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTONLN6BlaxlandALP00—A short time ago the environmental impact statement on Sydney's second international airport came down. That environmental impact statement put virtually nothing in the way of Badgerys Creek proceeding as Sydney's second airport. Since then, outside process, the Sydney Airport Corporation and the Tourism Task Force have put up a proposal to use Bankstown airport as a dedicated regional service. The people in the regions of New South Wales do not want it. The people of Bankstown in my electorate do not want it. This proposal says that up to $500 million will be spent converting Bankstown. It would actually cost about $50 million. That money is not the Tourism Task Force's money; it would have to be spent by a federal government.It is not an effective proposal. Up to 35 per cent of aircraft running regional services might be moved to Bankstown—in effect, 25 per cent. This is no long-term solution to the need for a second airport for Sydney. The people of Bankstown have a general aviation airport employing more than 3,500 people which is crucial to the economy of Bankstown. It is also crucial that this federal government makes a decision to go ahead with Sydney's second airport and does not attempt to load on to the people of Bankstown 25 per cent more of jet aircraft out of Kingsford Smith. This proposal is about embedding Kingsford Smith and expanding it. (Time expired)87808780Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—I rise today to pay tribute to a wonderful individual, Jack Growcott. Sadly, Jack passed away last week in Brisbane's Holy Spirit Hospital. He was a gentle and honest man who always worked to the highest possible standards and integrity. His quiet, easygoing demeanour endeared him to many. I, like many members of the Queensland division of the Liberal Party, would like to recognise and pay tribute to Jack's many years of dedicated service to the Liberal Party and its philosophies. He was a tireless worker on many local, state and federal campaigns. Despite the death of his wife, Joyce, several years ago, he continued to approach life with characteristic energy and enthusiasm. My deepest sympathies and thoughts are with his family today. Jack, you will be sadly missed. It was my very great pleasure to have known you.87808780Zahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA84HMcMillanALP00—Today I want to talk about unemployment. There has been a lot of talk in this place about jobs and a lot of it tends to be very shrill and without any real meaning. Any analysis of the employment statistics for the Gippsland region would demonstrate that under this government unemployment has risen, and it has risen at a very alarming rate. Unemployment in March 1996 for the Gippsland region was 9.2 per cent. It is now 11.1 per cent. Whilst the rest of Australia has gone down in unemployment, the region of Gippsland has gone up and has gone up considerably. Instead of the government talking shrilly about how unemployment has gone down and that we should all be feeling enthusiastic and wonderful about it, they should allocate some resources to regions such as Gippsland and the Hunter in New South Wales and get fair dinkum about tackling some of these areas which are going to have significant social problems in the future unless we start facing up to these responsibilities now.There are a lot of good things we can do. An example is the Hunter Advantage Fund which is generating jobs in the Hunter region. That is what we need in Gippsland now. We need a Gippsland Advantage Fund and we need some of the resources which have been allocated by the government to some other worthless projects put into investing in our region and investing in our region's potential. Last year I asked the Prime Minister if he would come to Gippsland with me and face this problem face to face with the people of that community. He said that he would. That was some seven months ago. I ask the Prime Minister: when will he come to Gippsland to face this problem? (Time expired)87818781McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHURVH4CorangamiteLP10—I welcome the government's decision announced today to commit $120 million to the Princess Freeway upgrade between Melbourne and Geelong. I am delighted that the voice of the people of Geelong that I vigorously relayed to the federal government has been heard. The government has made a significant alteration to the application of the national road funding rules to accommodate the vital economic interests in the Geelong region. It is excellent news for the people of the Geelong region in terms of road safety and for economic advancement in the region.Under the national road funding system, the freeway was entirely a state responsibility. Changing the road into a federally funded road of national importance took a lot of time plus a lot of thought and hard work. It is tremendously positive that the hard work has paid off and the road will now be safer and more efficient for the Geelong people. I arranged for Minister Anderson to inspect the freeway in November 1998. I have tried to avoid grandstanding on this issue, relying instead on passing on the facts to the minister and the Prime Minister to ensure that any policy change had a rational basis. This decision has been thought out carefully, always taking into account the delicate balance between the need for both state and federal involvement in road funding. A better road is a big boost for Geelong and a sign that the federal government clearly hears the voice of the people of the Geelong region.87818781Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—I rise today because of my deep concern about the lack of federal government leadership on illegal drug treatment. Some state premiers are showing leadership and a willingness to try new approaches in an attempt to stem the tide of overdose deaths and the harm caused by illicit drugs. It is two years since the Prime Minister vetoed the ACT heroin trial, an uninformed reaction to certain elements of the media with despicable treatment of the federal health minister in a Daily Telegraph cartoon I can well remember.It was a trial developed over four years with expert community input which would have provided evidence for future policies. The Swiss government had the courage to implement such a trial. It has seen improvements in health and social wellbeing for severely heroin addicted people and a significant reduction in crime, whatever questions the World Health Organisation might ask in its call for further assessments of the trial. It saved lives and improved the health and social wellbeing for the whole community and there were results within six months.The Prime Minister, reacting to the void his veto caused, announced his Tough on Drugs strategy. While I welcome the additional funds provided for treatment, I note that almost two years have passed and there is little positive news to report on the strategy. Overdose deaths have continued to increase. The devastation for families continues unabated. Drug use is increasing. First-time users are getting younger. I question whether the Tough on Drugs strategy is the right one, or would it be better for the Prime Minister to seek expert advice not only from the USA as he plans but also from those countries where overdose deaths are declining and not increasing? (Time expired)87828782Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—I wish to relate the experiences of two residents of Logan City—Mrs Fran Burton and Mr David MacIlwraith—who unfortunately had to visit Logan Hospital in the last couple of weeks. Their experience was very similar. Mrs Burton visited the hospital because she had a real heart scare and Mr McIlwraith thought he might be suffering from a stroke. In both cases, they spoke very highly of the staff, of the commitment, dedication and professionalism of the staff, but they were very critical of the lack of facilities at Logan Hospital. In fact, because there simply was not a bed for her, Mrs Burton had to be transferred by ambulance to another hospital, St Andrews, where she was placed in intensive care. What this points to is that the government, instead of putting all its eggs in one basket and providing $1.5 billion to subsidise private health insurance, should really be concentrating on providing additional resources for public hospitals such as Logan Hospital so that it can provide much needed essential services.87828782Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr RONALDSONXT4BallaratLP10—Those opposite would do well to listen to this. Outside Aussie's cafe this week, Australian Hearing Services is running testing for members and staff during Hearing Awareness Week. Hearing is a significant problem for one in five Australians and for one in two Australians over 60. I urge all members and senators and, indeed, their staff—and that is a responsibility that members should take up—to go down there. It is between Aussie's and the nurses station. They will test your ears, which I am sure would be of enormous benefit to many of us on both sides of the House.87828782Livermore, Kirsten, MPMs LIVERMORE83ACapricorniaALP00—It was very interesting over the weekend to see the reports of the announcement by the federal and state consumer affairs ministers that the ACCC will be conducting an investigation into the disgraceful situation of petrol prices in this country and, in particular, the disparity that exists between city and country petrol prices. It is interesting because it seems to have come about as a result of the reaction to high petrol prices in the city. We also have those reactions to high petrol prices in the country, but no-one seems to take as much notice of us. At the moment in Rockhampton, we are paying 75.9c a litre for unleaded petrol. I filled up in Middlemount the other day at a cost of 83.9c a litre for fuel.It is interesting that this investigation is taking place at the same time as the government is persisting on its course of deregulation in the fuel industry. When I talk to retailers around my area, they say that the problem lies in the lack of competition at the wholesale level. The retailers are not able to cut their prices any further. They are existing on very low margins. If consumers in regional areas, such as my electorate in Central Queensland, are going to see any benefits from either the ACCC's intervention or any other measures, it will rely on the introduction of competition at the wholesale level, which we need so that we can have competition in the bush, just as people in the city can benefit from petrol price discounting that we miss out on.87828782Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—I rise on a very serious matter. Last Thursday night, I was arrested at Tea Tree Plaza shopping centre at Modbury. I was handcuffed and thrown into gaol. Fortunately, this occasion was Bluey Day and it was all for a worthy cause—namely, to raise funds to assist children with cancer. I was arrested on charges of loitering with intent for the purpose of raising funds for Bluey Day and refusing to have my head shaved. I immediately got on the phone to my parliamentary colleagues in order to raise bail money. I must say that my Liberal and National Party colleagues have been very generous so far, although I am still waiting on cheques from some of them.I would like to pay particular tribute to Mr Peter Rogers from the 42nd Street Cafe in my electorate of Makin. Mr Rogers is renowned in this area for his hard work for many causes, and he has made an outstanding contribution to Bluey Day. Peter consented to have not only his head but also his moustache shaved by a lovely local girl called Renee, who has been suffering from cancer herself and is currently waiting to receive confirmation that she is in remission. We are all keeping our fingers crossed for our little Renee. Mr Speaker, you might be interested to know that, in the name of charity and for children with cancer, Mr Rogers also consented to having his legs waxed, which was excruciating, but we raised nearly $8,000 for his efforts. Renee reminds us of what these events are all about. They are about helping our kids, kids who have been dealt a difficult hand but who do not complain, kids who are very brave and deserve our support. (Time expired)87838783Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—During the winter recess, I was invited to attend the 128th commemoration service of St Paul's Anglican Church, Burwood. The invitation was extended by the popular local rector, the Reverend Father John Kohler, whose company is always a pleasure to be in. The preacher on this wonderful occasion was the Reverend Father Richard Hurford, the Rector of St James Anglican Church, King Street, Sydney. Father Hurford gave a very inspiring homily, which I felt had a lot of relevance to the work of this House and which I immediately wanted to convey to all members in the very short time I have available to me today.Father Hurford told the congregation to concentrate on the word `now'—that is, `no longer' and `not yet'. He said that we were called to be faithful. He said that on this 128th anniversary St Paul's should be a centre for proclamation, reconciliation, the underprivileged and celebration and fun.Father Hurford said it was important to address the problems of today and that `it has to come from communities like St Paul's'. I am sure that if we keep Father Hurford's words in the forefront of our minds, we will do a better job in this centre—this House—for our community, the people of Australia, now.87838783Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH2K6LongmanLP10—Today I would like to draw to the attention of the House the plight of the Hear and Say Centre in Brisbane, a centre set up to provide training in the skills necessary for the care of young children who have had cochlear implants to allow them to hear again. This centre receives absolutely no funding from the Beattie Labor government in Queensland, and it is the only mainland state in Queensland that does not have a cochlear implant training centre. The federal government has provided $270,000 to assist with the building that they are now housed in. I call on the Beattie Labor government to show some compassion to those deaf young children in Queensland. Give them a chance and support the Hear and Say Centre and the good work of Dimity Dornan and the people in that centre.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—It being 2 p.m., the time for statements by members has concluded, as allocated under standing order 106A.Miscellaneous878314:00:008783Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Mr Speaker, I seek the indulgence of the House to briefly mention on behalf of the government and all the Australian people the sense of sympathy and stress that so many Australians feel about the catastrophic earthquake in Turkey.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Indulgence is extended.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—Thank you. So far, the indications are that some 12,000 people have died. It could be up to three times that number when the final toll is clear. One Australian has been confirmed as dead, and our embassy is still looking for relatives of a small number of Australian families. This is one of the great human tragedies of recent times. Australia committed $1 million, divided between the Red Cross and the Red Crescent societies and the United Nations coordinating office for humanitarian affairs, the day after the tragedy. A further $500,000 has been disbursed already to help meet urgent needs for the homeless. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has sent an AusAID official to liaise with local authorities in international agencies to advise on what more we can usefully provide.In the course of legitimate exchange there will inevitably be debates about appropriate responses, but all members of the House would agree in an expression of our profound sympathy for the people of Turkey and our particular thoughts for those of Turkish origin within the Australian community, who number some 60,000 to 70,000 Australians, who are particularly touched by this tragedy. It would be appropriate that the House convey our thoughts to those and express our very profound sorrow at the enormous tragedy which has overtaken that nation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I extend a similar indulgence to the Leader of the Opposition.14:02:008784Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—Can I join the Prime Minister in expressing on behalf of the opposition our support for those remarks in relation to both the people of Turkey and the Turkish Australian community. This is an immense tragedy. As it has unfolded, it has portrayed a ruination of a nation and a destruction of a society on a scale beyond the experience of any of us confronting the consequences of natural disasters. The problems have clearly overwhelmed the capacity of the Turkish government to handle them on their own. A human tragedy of such scale reaches beyond those immediately responsible for any group in humanity and extends to us all as part of the total human society. I particularly want to praise the quick responses of the Turkish Australian community to pleas for charity and, in their support of one another, in seeking information as to the fate of not only relatives of Australian Turkish origin but also relatives who have perhaps not contemplated migration here. Our deepest sympathies go to all of them.The government has responded with some resources. Could I urge the government to look at the fact that it has budgeted some $105 million for emergency humanitarian aid. There is unlikely to be this year a situation as heart rending or as needful as that which has been created in Turkey and there ought to be a capacity from this much more substantial budget to draw down considerably for the people affected in that nation. In responding to the advice that comes forward from the AusAID officials and those who are there in the embassy, could I also urge a preparedness to look across the whole range of capacities that would probably be required by the Turkish government now in the areas of construction, housing and public health. I am now sure, given the Prime Minister's words, there will be an inclination on the part of the government to respond positively to that. Should the government choose to do so, I am sure they would carry with them the support of all Australians.8784Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—On behalf of the parliament, could I briefly join the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in these sentiments. Just over a month ago, it was my honour to lead a parliamentary delegation to Turkey. The delegation was made up of members of both sides of the House. We were very generously treated by Turkish parliamentarians and were granted a great deal of time to meet with their President, Prime Minister and Speaker. On behalf of the delegation, and on behalf of all members, I have written to the Speaker of the Turkish parliament expressing our concern for the plight of the Turkish people. I join the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, as the parliament does, in this note of sympathy to all suffering Turkish families.UNKNOWNHonourable membersHonourable members—Hear, hear!Questions Without Notice878487848784Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—My question is to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, do you recall telling the AM program last Wednesday that you would like to get in place a national scheme to protect workers entitlements `sooner rather than later'? If you are serious about this, why do you now, at the eleventh hour, propose to link this scheme with your controversial second wave of industrial relations changes?8784Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The government is genuinely concerned about the plight of employees who, through no fault of their own, find themselves out of a job and without their entitlements being paid. It is interesting that, whilst the government has announced its policy intentions in this regard, that statement was never able to be made by any minister in the previous Labor government. There were eight accords with the trade union movement over 13 years and on no occasion—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. The question was specifically about why the linkage was drawn between his legislation on industrial relations changes and this proposition. There was nothing else. If he wants to debate—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The comments of the workplace relations minister have been entirely relevant to the question, and I call him.WI4Mr REITH—On no occasion did the Labor Party, in the eight accords that they had with the trade union movement, commit themselves to a national scheme to look after workers. This demonstrates, as clearly as it ever could be demonstrated, that the one government in recent times that has been prepared to look after workers, whether through higher real wages or more jobs, is on this side of the House.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—Mr Speaker, on a point of order on relevance: the question specifically asked why the minister was linking this proposal to his controversial second wave. He has yet to refer to the second wave and he should be asked to come to the question.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Brisbane will resume his seat. I was conscious of the question, I was listening to the minister's response and I had no doubt that he would be coming to that point.WI4Mr REITH—I am very happy to come to that point, Mr Speaker, but it needs to be put in context. Even in the last desperate accord between the ACTU and the ALP back in 1995, they said that, while they were prepared to examine the issue, that was provided that it was desirable and practicable. So they were not even prepared to acknowledge the actual need of workers in this situation. At the last election, the government had a policy in respect of workplace relations known as `More Jobs, Better Pay' and we were committed to introducing that package of reforms. In response, the two things that have happened since we have been in government have been more jobs and better pay, particularly for low income people. We said that we would introduce a policy and we have been undertaking a process of consultation, including with the ACTU, on that policy. That policy provides further protection for employees as well as more job opportunities. Given that that bill is currently before the parliament, it is not unreasonable that we would want to add to it a further protection for workers, namely, a national scheme to provide protection in respect of entitlements.I said to the Democrats about three weeks ago—as we said during the election and have been saying since—that we would like to have that package of reforms through by the end of this year, with a commencement on 1 January. That is a reasonable and sensible timetable. It also provides the opportunity, as I hope will be provided, for any scheme that we do put up to be the subject of inquiry by the Senate committee. It is looking at workplace relations and this is a workplace relations matter. For heaven's sake, we want to get on with this and this is an appropriate means of doing so. Unlike the Labor Party, we acknowledge that there is an issue here to be dealt with and we are prepared to do something about it.87858785Barresi, Phil, MPMr BARRESIZJ6DeakinLP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Could the Prime Minister advise the House of progress made by the government in reducing unemployment?8785Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I do not know what the precise source of this question might be. Maybe the member for Deakin, like the Prime Minister and others who care about the long-term job prospects of Australia, was browsing through a few press reports on 20 August and came across this very interesting comment by somebody which read, `The Howard government has had some major successes on the economic front and they ought to be acknowledged.' The learned commentator on this issue went on to say, `If one thing flourished under the Labor government, it was unemployment and I do not think anyone could possibly deny that.' I looked for the author under Costello—no—and I looked under Reith, Moore and a number of other names. To my great surprise, I finally came to the letter R in the alphabet and found that it was Graham Richardson who was making these very erudite, accurate and home-grown remarks about the remarkable achievements of the Howard government.The Labor Party sitting opposite scoffed and sneered when the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business talked about more jobs and better pay, but that is exactly the double that this government has delivered to the workers of Australia. The workers of Australia are not only more numerous now than when we came to power but also immensely better off. There are now almost 500,000 more Australians in work now than there were in March 1996. Their real wages have risen and their disposable income has also risen quite dramatically because, as a result of the economic policies of the government, their mortgage interest has fallen by an average of $320 a month. With the triple effect of 500,000 more jobs, $320 a month off people's mortgage bill and increases in real wages, you have a trifecta of improvement which no government in this country has been able to deliver since World War II. It is an achievement of which the government is legitimately proud.I might say in relation to the member for Deakin, who asked me this question, that as a metaphor for the great success we have had the unemployment rate in the outer east Melbourne district in June was a bare 4.7 per cent. I am delighted that I can go around the country and find areas like that. However, I acknowledge immediately that there are still significant areas of high regional unemployment. That is why the stance being taken by the federal government in relation to the timber industry in Western Australia is so absolutely correct. We are standing up for the workers of Western Australia and for the timber workers. Where else do people like that get jobs if they find their employment taken away from them?Of all the unemployment figures that have come out in the last few weeks, none is a source of greater pride to the government than the fact that, since we came to office, the number of young unemployed people in this country has declined by 5.8 percentage points. We now have the lowest number of young people looking for full-time work that we have had for more than 20 years. Everyone knows that we still have a long way to go. We still need to get the unemployment rate down further. Those sitting opposite would help a lot if they passed our unfair dismissal laws and our youth wages laws. You would help a lot if you would spare a thought for those young people who still cannot get work. But, despite the incredible opposition and obstruction of the Labor Party, we have been able to get unemployment down to a ten-year low; we have given new hope to the young; we have created half a million jobs; and we have increased the real disposable income of millions of Australian workers. All that has been achieved in just under 3½ years.87868786Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—It is amazing what you can do, Mr Speaker, when you lower the participation rate.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will come to his question.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—My question is to the Prime Minister. It refers to part of what he was talking about a moment ago. Isn't it a fact that the coalition environment minister in Western Australia, Ms Cheryl Edwardes, has accused your forestry minister of inflaming the forestry issue and inciting a group of masked men to destroy a camp in a forest outside Perth over the weekend, as testified to here in this article in the West Australian ? Didn't Ms Edwardes yesterday tell Mr Tuckey, after his actions, to `grow up and shut up'? Prime Minister, when are you going to get your minister back under control and tell him to behave in a responsible fashion and stop inciting the sort of action we saw over the weekend?8787Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—In answering this question, I just ask the parliament to contemplate what we are being asked to accept. What we see here is an attack by the Leader of the Australian Labor Party on the workers of Western Australia. This is a very interesting development. What my colleague the minister has done is defend an agreement that was signed by the Prime Minister of Australia and the Premier of Western Australia. I think it is a matter of great regret that the Western Australian government has walked away from that agreement. In saying what he has said, my colleague the minister has defended the interests of workers.It ill becomes somebody who associated himself with a riot outside this building in 1996 to start getting up in this parliament and delivering lectures to a man who is seen throughout the blue-collar movement in this country in the forestry industry as being a better friend of the workers of Western Australia than any member of the Australian Labor Party. Wilson Tuckey is sticking up for the rights of the timber workers of regional Australia. What we had with that agreement was a balanced outcome. We had an outcome that represented an attempt, on my part, in the discussions I had with the Premier of Western Australia to accommodate his desire then to get a balanced outcome. What I am saying now is precisely in line with what I privately communicated to the Premier when he indicated to me a few weeks ago that he wanted to walk away from aspects of the regional forest agreement. These issues are difficult, but the cause of employment in this country is not served by any government caving in to a noisy interest group. The cause of balanced development in this country is served by supporting the regional forest process. And in the long run, the cause of balanced development in this country is served by governments honouring agreements.I am interested in this reference to `inciting people'. I listened, as I normally do, with great interest this morning to AM. There was a report of some remarks made by Ms Edwardes concerning Mr Tuckey. As I heard the grab, the objectionable remark apparently was—and this is how it was presented to me by the ABC—that Mr Tuckey said there would be no RFA2. I did not think that was a particularly provocative remark. He was merely making the observation that, if you sign an agreement in good faith with the national government, you cannot expect, if you walk away from it, that you can automatically pick up another regional forest agreement. Our position is very simple. We signed an agreement with the Western Australian government. It was a good agreement. It was a fair agreement. It was an agreement that protected environmental values. It was also an agreement that gave a great deal of help to the workers of the regional and rural areas of Western Australia.But we now have a clear situation in which not only is the state Labor Party in Western Australia, led by Gallop, against the interests of workers in Western Australia but also the Western Australian born Leader of the Australian Labor Party is against the interests of workers in Western Australia. The more that he attacks the minister for forests, the member for O'Connor, who also comes from Western Australia, the more he dishonours his credentials as a claimed champion of the working men and women of Australia—because on this issue, as on so many others, the Leader of the Opposition is a country mile away from the interests of the workers of Australia.87878787Nugent, Peter, MPMr NUGENTUT4AstonLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Would the minister inform the House how the government is meeting its commitment to protect the entitlements of workers in instances where companies are unable to make those payments. Minister, can you also inform the House what steps have been taken previously to address this national issue, given that some 200,000 workers have lost their entitlements in the past?8787Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for Aston for his question. I appreciate that the Labor Party asked one question on the issue today but, as usual, it takes the coalition to follow it up. I thank him for his genuine interest.Opposition members interjecting—WI4Mr REITH—It is typical of you people—you talk about these issues but you never do anything about it. Mr Speaker, they have been out saying that the interjector from Prospect has had a piece of legislation that would have fixed this problem ages ago. That is what they have all been saying. But, for the Oakdale mine people, $4 million of the $6 million would never have been paid under her bill because it did not cover redundancies—something which I have said on the public record but you have had no follow-up. No sufficient interest in this issue other than to try to score a few cheap political points but not to actually do anything for the workers.I am very pleased to inform the House that the government will have legislation in the parliament this week to make available to those Oakdale employees funds from the long service leave fund to ensure that they are paid out their due entitlements. That is a good outcome for the employees at Oakdale. But it is also part of the broader package which the government has developed. We will also be putting out a discussion paper on that issue. This will be a significant extension—a quality extension—of the safety net for workers, something which we on this side of the House are proud to be associated with. We are proud of the fact that we are prepared to tackle difficult issues in the interests of not only those workers but also workers more generally.I am asked about the policy developments on this issue in the past. We had the Hancock commission in 1985—no mention of employee entitlements and certainly no reaction from Labor. We had a Law Reform Commission report in 1988. It took Labor nearly five years to respond to that report, which was simply to give preference to workers over the Australian Taxation Office. It took you five years to do that. In respect of the Crosio proposition, the Labor government said this back in 1992:The report, namely the Law Reform Commission, recommended the establishment of a fund to pay employees back wages where a company's assets were insufficient on winding up. Overseas precedents are funded by a levy on solvent companies. This recommendation is not implemented as the fund would be a further imposition on existing successful businesses, and it would be better to retain and develop, where possible, existing employee priority provisions.So you looked at the issue and you rejected it. We saw off the back of a truck not so long ago some advice to the Leader of the Opposition from John Angley who said of the Crosio bill:The downside of the levy is that it is another cost on jobs. If it is a state-wide fund like workers comp, the cost per worker in the form of premiums inevitably grows. It also reduces the responsibility of employers/owners to fix their own affairs rather than fall back on the fund.The fact is that for the 13 years the Labor Party were in office and for the period that they have been in opposition—until this year—they have basically been opposed to doing anything. The hypocrisy of these people knows no bounds.87888788Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—We are the only one with a bill in the parliament at the moment.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will come to his question.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—My question is to the Prime Minister. Do you recall being asked by Neil Mitchell last Friday why you were so keen to fire Mr Barratt when it was you who had hired him? You will recall that your response was: `Well, the sequence of events was that he indicated a willingness to return to the Public Service and he was offered a job by my government.' That was a sequence of events which was somewhat different from the emphasis that has been placed in the newspapers. Prime Minister, isn't it true that the first approach was made by you, not by Mr Barratt, on 7 March 1996 when you phoned him personally?8788Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—My recollection is precisely in line with what I said on the Mitchell program.87888788Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer advise the House of the steps that the government is taking to help business prepare for the new tax system? In particular, can the Treasurer detail what is being done to assist small and medium sized businesses?8789Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Macquarie for his question because, as he knows, Australia is building up to the introduction of a new tax system on 1 July 2000. It will be a new tax system which will sweep away the old Labor wholesale sales taxes and which will provide large income tax cuts, new Commonwealth-state relations and new family allowance. In implementing this scheme, the government has set up an advisory board called the New Tax System Advisory Board. It is chaired by Chris Jordan, a well-known accountant of KPMG, and private sector representatives make up the board. It is going to ensure that business is fully informed about the importance of the new tax system. In fact, the board has already released its first booklet for Australian business, called The New Tax System: here is how it will affect your business .In addition to that, a GST Start-Up Assistance Office has been established to disburse $500 million in assistance to small and medium sized businesses, charities and educational bodies. It will begin disbursing up to $130 million immediately to key industry and professional associations to deliver information and assistance to their members. It will also be administering a train the trainer program, which will allocate $7 million to increase the number of people able to train others in the implementation of GST. In addition to the $500 million of start-up assistance, late last week the government announced new taxation arrangements for small and medium sized businesses, which were very warmly received by small and medium sized businesses. The government's announcement was that small and medium sized businesses—those with a turnover of not more than $10 million—will, under new legislation, be able to get immediate deductibility of the following:Expenditure incurred on acquiring new plant or new software . . . associated with gearing-up for the GST, provided the expenditure is occurred before 1 July 2000.That is immediate expensing in relation to plant and software for small and medium sized businesses. It is expected that the tax deductibility of that decision will deplete the revenue by about $175 million in 2000-01; that is, provide an additional extra tax help of $175 million to small and medium sized businesses. In addition to that, the Australian Taxation Office has announced that businesses with an annual turnover greater than $500,000 who already lodge income tax returns on a cash basis will be able to account on a cash basis for GST and there will be no need to separately seek permission to do that. In relation to businesses of $500,000 or less, they are already able to account for GST on a cash basis if they choose.Mr Speaker, for small businesses there are now direct tax incentives to go out and buy the new plant or new software required to gear up for GST. Provided they do it by 1 July 2000, it will be totally tax deductible; another $175 million to the small and medium sized businesses of Australia to help them gear up for a new tax system which will carry this country through the next century, promoting savings, incomes and, best of all, a stronger economy with more jobs.87898789Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister seen the transcript of or heard the Defence Secretary, Paul Barratt, on the ABC national radio World Today program on 20 August? Does he recollect Mr Barratt saying this:On the morning of Thursday, 7 March 1996, I received a phone call from the Prime Minister asking me would I be prepared to come back to Canberra to be head of DPIE, and I said, `Well, that's probably going to cost me a lot of money, but I'll think about it.'Does he further recollect Mr Barratt saying:And I rang back at the end of the day and said, `Well, John, as far as I can figure this out, it is going to cost me $70,000 a year, but I'll do it anyway.Does he further recollect him saying:And he said, `Well, you're a champion, and I really appreciate that.' That seems to have been overlooked in recent weeks, but I guess that's just what you'd expect. Prime Minister, doesn't that account completely contradict yours given shortly before that to Mr Neil Mitchell, and why are you misleading people on it?8790Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I have asked for a transcript of the Neil Mitchell interview. I have not got it yet, but I will in a minute. As I said in answer to the earlier question from the Leader of the Opposition, my recollection of the train of events was that, shortly after the change of government, I received an indication that Mr Barratt could be interested in returning to the Public Service. I certainly recollect having discussions with him. I certainly recollect his indicating that there were differences in the money that he was receiving from the BCA at the time and the money he might receive as a departmental secretary. I did not hear his interview on TheWorld Today and the reference made to that interview by the Leader of the Opposition today is the first I have been made aware of that interview. But that is of no particular moment to me, Mr Speaker, because what he is saying is not necessarily inconsistent with what I put on the Neil Mitchell program and what I am putting to the House today.87908790McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHURVH4CorangamiteLP10—My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Can the minister advise the House what the government's decision to jointly fund the upgrade of the Geelong Road means for Victoria?8790Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for his question and note his very real interest in this matter. In fact, he invited me down to have a look at the road very shortly after I became the responsible minister and we drove up and down.WU5O'CONNORMr O'Connor—Did you get out of the car? It was raining on the day.4K4Mr ANDERSON—I hear an interjection over there to the effect, did we get out? In fact, we did. We had a very close look at the road. We looked at it with considerable interest.Opposition members interjecting—4K4Mr ANDERSON—The benefits from the government's decision to commit $120 million to upgrade Geelong Road under its Roads of National Importance Program really ought to be self-evident even to those opposite. This is a program they did not have. This is being done under the Roads of National Importance Program. They did not have such a thing. They signed off on a deal in 1992 that precluded such worthy objectives.Under this program there will be a very worthwhile improvement in the efficiency and competitiveness of industry. According to an estimate by the National Institute of Economic and Industry Research, up to 4,500 jobs will be created under this package, both during the development and building of the road and subsequently with the improved economic performance that will flow from it.The federal government's funding, when combined with the Victorian government's contribution, means that a total now of $240 million is available to ensure that the road is fully upgraded by 2003. I believe that our commitment to this reflects the important role that the road plays in linking two of Australia's busiest ports, Melbourne and Geelong, and their commercial and manufacturing industries. It will help such manufacturers as Ford, for example, a very major outfit in the Australian context. Ford will benefit a lot from improved traffic flows and reliabilities between these two cities. High quality exporters will also have improved access to Avalon and Tullamarine airports, which is a very worthy and important consideration.I believe that today's announcement reflects well upon the Howard government's commitment to economic growth and employment and it is further evidence of this government's ongoing commitment to upgrade Victoria's road system.87908790Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Can he assure the House that neither he nor any member of his government made the approach to Mr Barratt? If not, how can he stand by his claims on the Neil Mitchell program that Mr Barratt approached the government?8791Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Mr Speaker, this is the statement I made on the Neil Mitchell program: `Well, the sequence of events was that he indicated a willingness to return to the Public Service and he was offered a job by my government.' That was what I had recollected having said and—having checked the transcript—that is what I did say. I do not deny having rung him; I have never denied having rung him. But I make the point that he had indicated a willingness to return to the Public Service and, 3½ years on, my recollection is precisely to that effect. I make no apology for having said what I said on the Neil Mitchell program.MG4LEEMr Lee—Who made the first approach?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Dobell!ZD4Mr HOWARD—It was a proper recollection of the sequence of events. I stand by what I said on the Neil Mitchell program.MG4LEEMr Lee—Who made the first approach?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Dobell is warned.87918791Bailey, Fran, MPMs BAILEYJT4McEwanLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Forestry and Conservation. Can the minister advise the House of progress in implementing the government's policy to provide security for both forestry and conservation interests through the regional forest agreement process? What are the impediments to providing a secure investment climate for the forestry industry and, importantly, for those workers and their families in the forestry industry?8791Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLPForestry and Conservation; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—I thank the member for her question. I wish to report to the House that the government has now further progressed its commitment to the National Forest Policy statement by the signing of a further regional forest agreement, the North-East RFA in Victoria, with the government. That, I think, would answer the interjection about what Marie Tehan would say.In making this announcement, I want to thank the member for McEwen, the member for Indi, the member for Corangamite, the member for Ballarat and Mr Michael O'Connor of the CFMEU for putting the case for their constituents and their members as we progressed these negotiations. Their particular advice has been taken to full account and, as a consequence, in an area of the member for Indi's electorate, for the sawmill at Mount Beauty, the government has been able to make special offers to ensure that, in the environment of an increased reserve system—an increase of some 50 per cent—and in an environment of a change in their available timber supply, they will have the necessary equipment within their sawmill to maintain the employment of their full work force, in a town which has suffered considerably through other issues in the loss of jobs.There are other matters that we need to consider in answering the member's question, because we have introduced regional forest agreements on the basis of the National Forest Policy Statement, which was written in 1992 and endorsed by the cabinet—of which a prominent member was the Leader of the Opposition, who has said on radio today that he urges the Australian Democrats to support amendments to a component of that policy that they endorsed, which set out to gut the regional forest agreement legislation.We have further advice received from the Australian Government Solicitor that these particular amendments are very damaging to the reasons for the regional forest agreement legislation, one of which is to guarantee the security that is necessary to encourage either domestic or foreign investors to invest in this great industry, to turn woodchips into paper and to turn sawn timber away from the low value markets of green-sawn timber into the high value markets available to us throughout the world. That investment requires the security of government legislation backing the written agreements. I put it to you, Mr Speaker: if you were proposing a billion dollar investment and you had a piece of legislation that in fact made the agreement that guaranteed you that security subject to continuous litigation and subject to review by a Senate whose record of logic on these issues is already in question, would you invest your money here when other parts of the world were prepared to give you legislative backing?The best advice I have for the opposition is that their members of the Senate committee that inquired into this legislation received a submission from the Labor Deputy Premier of Tasmania that it was the view of their government—who have already passed this sort of legislation without the sorts of amendments that are proposed by the Labor Party—that they wanted this legislation passed without amendment. I have previously drawn the House's attention to the letters that the Leader of the Opposition has received—and, no doubt, other members have received—from the AWU and the CFMEU, who claim that the regional forest agreement, as we have presented it to the parliament, was the deal they did with this government and this Leader of the Opposition, and they want it delivered without any amendment. The government has been advised that, what is more, the amendments are not constitutional and that the amendments furthermore—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Who paid for the advice?SJ4Mr TUCKEY—I think we have already publicised it, Mr Speaker. The government has the advice. I have seen it. Of course the government is, I think, quite willing to produce that advice. But let me put it to you that that advice goes further. It is an interesting aspect of these amendments that in fact you have a situation where three regional forest agreements are not to be included and—surprise, surprise!—one of them is Tasmania, where of course the state government demands this legislation.The interesting thing is that, apparently, if these particular amendments were to pass and become law, Tasmania would be excluded from the protection of a regional forest agreement. That is an issue for Senator Murphy, Senator Sherry and others to convince their own constituents of, but the fundamentals are that all we need is security and certainty to keep workers in jobs.The regional forest agreement that this government concluded in Western Australia guaranteed and delivered the highest ecological reserves of any regional forest agreement and met the criteria set down by the opposi tion when they were in government. Further, it gained voluntary agreement from the sawmilling industry to accept cuts in their particular sawlog entitlements four years ahead of when they needed to do so. It was endorsed by the Western Australian Environmental Protection Authority's representative on the issue of sustainable yield, and—this is why they want me to sit down—it resulted in not one job loss. If anybody says that that is not a good agreement, I would put it to them that it is.There has been no change in our policy commitment that we gave prior to the last election, but I remind the House in closing that there has been a change in the policy commitment of the Labor opposition which they did not tell the voters of McMillan, they did not tell the voters of Braddon, they did not tell the voters of Paterson and they did not tell the voters of Bendigo about. When they find out, I predict they will take the revenge they are entitled to.Mr Zahra interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for McMillan!87928792Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Defence. Minister, I refer to your media release headed `Australian Defence Force Housing exempt from FBT reporting' of Thursday, 19 August 1999, in which you state:This decision by the Federal Government recognises the unique circumstances of ADF service in Australia . . . Minister, is it the intention of your government to support any further changes to the FBT reporting regime to recognise these `unique circumstances'?8792Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will resume his seat.8I4MARTINMr Martin—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. As I did I think in the last sitting week, I specifically have addressed my question to the Minister for Defence, as the cabinet minister, based on a media release that the Minister for Defence put out—not the junior; the Minister for Defence—and I require him to answer the question.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Minister for Defence and the member for Kingsford-Smith will stop their cross-parliamentary exchange. As the member for Cunningham knows better than almost anyone else in this room, it is entirely appropriate for the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence to answer this question, and I call him.YT4Mr BRUCE SCOTT—Mr Speaker, can I first advise the opposition that indeed it was a joint press release, and I certainly have policy responsibilities in this area. As the minister said last week, we will be totally exempting Defence personnel housing from reporting on individuals' group certificates. That is very good news for defence families, and it has been welcomed by this side of the House. I would also like to quote the Chief of the Defence Force, Admiral Barrie, who said that the decision:. . . will address the primary concerns of ADF families about the effect on take-home pay due to loss of Government benefits and increased payments such as child support.As for other allowances, I agree with Admiral Barrie:. . . like all Australian taxpayers, ADF personnel should have allowances that are consistent with the rest of the community reported on their Group Certificates.The opposition pretends that they would have exempted all ADF allowances from being reported. If this is true, it is totally irresponsible, and it is certainly bad public policy. I very much doubt whether anyone could justify exempting a general's car that he has for private use as part of his salary package from being reported as a fringe benefit. If that is what you are saying, I do not think the public are on-side with you there. I do not intend to go through the detail of the large number of defence allowances and benefits in the House.Mr Zahra interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for McMillan is warned.YT4Mr BRUCE SCOTT—But I do want the House to be aware that there are allowances—like car parking, airconditioning in remote areas and entertainment—not reported on individuals' group certificates now. Others that are clear personal benefits, like cheap home loans and private use of Commonwealth cars, quite properly should be included in an individual's total remuneration package and be part of the assessment for other government benefits.This is a complex area, and I have certainly asked the CDF to provide comprehensive information to ADF personnel shortly. By exempting what is around two-thirds of Defence's domestic fringe benefits tax bill from being reported as a fringe benefit against ADF members' group certificates, we on this side of the House have put defence personnel in a uniquely advantageous position.87938793Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELINHV5GreyLP10—My question is to the Minister for Employment Services. What type of work experience has been provided for young people through the government's Work for the Dole program? What evidence is available to support the value of this work experience? Are there any alternative views?8793Abbott, Tony MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPEmployment Services10—I thank the member for Grey for his question and also for his support for Work for the Dole in Whyalla, particularly a recent project sponsored by the University of South Australia that involves community research to produce data for planning social services and business promotion in the Whyalla area. This is one of the many Work for the Dole projects which completely gives the lie to persistent claims from members opposite, including the shadow minister, that Work for the Dole does not give people work related experience.Last week, I happened to be in the electorate of McEwen and I had the pleasure and privilege of launching the Healesville heritage guide. I challenge anyone who might say that Work for the Dole is mickey mouse to have a look at this guide which is a credit to the professionalism of its participants who learned skills in researching, interviewing, writing, layout and marketing. I am advised that my department has just signed the 1,000th Work for the Dole contract with, in this case, Wollongong City Employment Training for a project for the Lake Illawarra Police Citizens Youth Club. This project will give participants training and experience in painting, plastering, carpentry, rendering, basic welding and tiling. This is not training for training sake, this is not the inappropriate and demoralising training referred to by the member for Melbourne, but it is work experience in extremely valuable and marketable skills. Training is important but attitude is everything, and Work for the Dole is giving young Australians the right stuff for getting a job.Mr Adams interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Lyons!Mr Adams interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Lyons is warned.EZ5Mr ABBOTT—A survey of Work for the Dole participants showed that 70 per cent thought that their involvement had improved their work skills. Eighty-five per cent thought that their involvement had increased their determination to get work. A recent Morgan and Banks survey showed that 57 per cent of employers were more likely to employ Work for the Dole participants; 83 per cent of employers said that Work for the Dole increased a participant's chance of getting permanent work. This is a great program. It is one of the signature programs of the Howard government. It is part of the government's mutual obligation principle, which is gaining increasing support from across the community. I noticed the other week that the member for Werriwa said that `unconditional welfare is a crime against the poor'. The member for Werriwa is absolutely right. If the Leader of the Opposition had any concern for policy development he would immediately put the member for Werriwa back on his front bench.87948794Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Defence, and it relates to the answer given by his junior a moment ago. Has the minister's attention been drawn to the Defence Personnel Chief Executive Instructions, part 5 annex A to chapter 5, which lists all the ADF benefits that will be subject to the government's new FBT reporting regime? Can the minister explain why the government has taken a half-baked decision by only exempting housing assistance for ADF personnel when the Chief Executive Instructions list at least another 40 items that will have their value grossed up and reported on ADF personnel group certificates? Minister, why do you think that items such as child supplement allowance, spouse emergency travel, child education allowance, family and service reunion travel or even the removal costs for spouses on the breakdown of a marriage should be subject to the new tax system's FBT reporting regime, the system under which the Prime Minister promised no-one would be worse off?8794Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—I am certainly aware of the comments from the Chief of the Defence Force in relation to our announcement, and I repeat them for the benefit of the opposition. He said that the decision `will address the primary concerns of ADF families about the effect on take-home pay due to loss of government benefits and increased payments such as child support'. That is from the Chief of the Defence Force. I also remind the opposition that it was the opposition that introduced FBT, and when they introduced it they specifically exempted the Defence Force from the payment of FBT as part of those arrangements. That was when you were in government but, apparently, in opposition, you have different priorities.8I4MARTINMr Martin—Mr Speaker, I seek leave to table for the minister's benefit Chief Executive Instructions, part 5 annex A to chapter 5, relevant to fringe benefits tax reporting in the ADF.Leave not granted.87948794Washer, Mal, MPDr WASHER84FMooreLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Sport and Tourism and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Sydney 2000 Games. Minister, what are the benefits for the government's Tough on Drugs in Sport policy from the IOC announcement that athlete blood samples will be collected during the games?8795Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss JACKIE KELLYGK6LindsayLPSport and Tourism; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Sydney 2000 Games10—I thank the member for his interest in our Tough on Drugs policy and the encouragement we are giving to athletes not only in Australia but right around the world to set a good standard and be good role models for others in our society. In that respect, I welcomed the IOC's recent announcement that blood samples will be collected at the 2000 Games. They are also funding validation studies for the detection of human growth hormone. Both of these measures are consistent with the measures the government has been taking in this area and has been calling for for sometime. The introduction of blood testing sends a clear message to all athletes that drug testing at the Sydney Games will be more thorough than ever. So, if you intend to cheat, Sydney 2000 is not the occasion on which to do it. ASDA will be increasing their tests—there will be up to 6,000 tests next year. In 1998-99, they completed 4,800 tests, which was about 500 more than in the previous financial year.ASDA are also receiving additional funding. In 1998-99, they received an additional $784,000, and they will be receiving an additional $1.1 million in the year 1999-2000 to cover drug testing and education programs in the lead-up to the Sydney 2000 Games. We are also making some very good progress in the detection of EPO, and we are hoping to move this project as well to the validation stage. Our discussions with the IOC at this stage have revealed that it is interested in cooperating with Australia on this project. So we look forward to seeing the last two substances which are options for cheats being closed down in a very tough, thorough and effective drug testing scheme for our Sydney Games in the year 2000.87958795Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, do you recall telling the House on 12 August that you would `follow the right and correct practices in relation to the tabling of documents' on the Federation Fund? Didn't you also tell the House on 12 August that you would `get some advice' on the Auditor-General's requirements on grants programs? Now that you have had over one week to remind yourself of the provisions of the Auditor-General's `Administration of grants better practice guide', especially section 138, which states that all stages of the grants approval process `should be documented with reasons for decisions . . . accessible under freedom of information provisions', will you now release the reasons for decisions made under the Federation Cultural and Heritage Projects Program?8795Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I checked this, as the Leader of the Opposition anticipated, in the time that the House has been up. The advice that I have is that, subject to any view that may be expressed by the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, it is quite open to the Auditor-General to have a look at all of this, and I am perfectly happy for him to do so. As far as I am concerned, that is it, and that indicates the transparent attitude of the government.I have also taken the opportunity of refreshing my memory on the advice that I received when I was presented with these recommendations by the two ministers. The advice I received from my department was that it would be appropriate to approve the projects. Furthermore, my department said that approving the projects would greatly enhance the heritage and other assets of the Commonwealth, and that is why I approved them. The Auditor-General is the independent auditor. It is open to him to have a look. He is free to have a look. If it is his judgment, and if the joint parliamentary committee adjudges that it ought to be given a priority look at, he will. That is the beginning and end of the matter.87958795Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY4K6PageNP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation. Can the minister inform the House of the outcome of last Friday's meeting of the Ministerial Council on Consumer Affairs?8795Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—I would like to thank my colleague the member for Page for his question. The Ministerial Council on Consumer Affairs met last Friday in Hobart and a number of items were placed on the agenda. The council is made up of the fair trading and consumer affairs ministers of all the states and territories, together with the fair trading minister of New Zealand and me in my capacity as minister for consumer affairs.The New South Wales representative, Mr John Watkins, asked that two items be specifically addressed on the agenda. The first one was to deal with minimum standards in banking and discussions about an AAPR, an average annual percentage rate—an apple by apple comparison of interest rates—which is in place in the United States, the United Kingdom and New Zealand. In the discussions, it became patently clear that the New South Wales Minister for Fair Trading was both ill informed and improperly researched. He obviously came to the meeting trying to use the ministerial council as a political forum rather than trying to find real outcomes in relation to minimum banking standards and petrol pricing. When the Minister for Fair Trading in New South Wales came into the meeting with a so-called 10-point plan on petrol pricing, it was pointed out to him that in fact he had failed three of the 10 points that he was putting forward.In the first place, he talked about mandatory boards outside petrol stations. Why did it take New South Wales three years to implement the recommendation of the ACCC report about the proper display of petrol prices? He was running around the country talking about this great initiative from New South Wales that had taken them only three years to implement, and he was lecturing other states about proper display of pricing in relation to petrol! Why is it that the zoning laws and proper opening hours laws in New South Wales at times lag behind those of other states? Why did Woolworths have to open up a petrol station for Albury 100 kilometres away in Tarcutta? Because they could not get proper zoning in Albury. Here we have the New South Wales Labor minister, John Watkins, coming into a federal council meeting lecturing his Labor Party colleagues from across Australia and lecturing me about proper petrol price disclosure when he in fact failed his own test. It got to the stage where the Labor chairman of the meeting called Mr Watkins petulant. They were embarrassed. He and the Queensland minister were clearly embarrassed with the behaviour of the representative of the New South Wales Right. Clearly he had not gone to the member for Watson's academy on caucus behaviour.87968796Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister, and it goes to further embarrassment on his part. Can the Prime Minister explain why his Ministers Hill and Alston chose to ignore nine of the 17 projects which were rated by their two departments as very high—that is, with a score of 19 to 24 out of a maximum of 24 points—and 70 of the 114 projects which were rated above the proposed 15-point cut-off in order to favour 16 projects which were rated below the 15-point cut-off?8796Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The answer to the Leader of the Opposition is that there is no embarrassment for the government on this issue. The only person who is talking embarrassment is the Leader of the Opposition. The projects were approved by me on advice. The projects were recommended to me by the two ministers after taking the advice of the departments and also quite properly, as they had indicated, taking the advice of the National Council for the Centenary of Federation, which is chaired by Mr Dick Smith.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—How many of them did it recommend?ZD4Mr HOWARD—The deputy chairman of the council is a former eminent member of the New South Wales moderate left, Mr Rodney Cavalier, who was an education minister in the New South Wales government.Mr McMullan interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Fraser!5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—He is lying.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Fraser is warned.ZD4Mr HOWARD—The executive director of that council is a very well-respected former Federal Director of the Liberal Party of Australia, Mr Tony Eggleton, and the council has on it representatives nominated not only by the Commonwealth but by the various state governments. Unless one takes the view that when you become a minister you cease to have any capacity to apply your own judgment and you must always accept rote-like everything that is put in front of you—I do not accept that view and no self-respecting government ever will: when the Labor Party was in government, it did not take that view—unless you take the view that you can never ever have a judgment of your own which is separate and different from the judgment that may be put forward, you would have followed the attitude taken by the two ministers.I repeat: the Auditor-General has a capacity to investigate. The Auditor-General is the keeper of the ring as far as the rules are concerned. I have indicated that, if it is the desire of the Auditor-General to investigate these projects, investigate them he will. If he decides to do that, speaking for myself and on all the information available to me, I have no concern about that whatever. If that is his judgment, that will occur and we will just see what he produces.87978797Southcott, Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Can the minister inform the House of the government's response to the international earthquake relief operation in Turkey?8797Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for Boothby for his question and indeed his interest in this great tragedy. The Prime Minister has already made some comments about this and I do not really want to add much more to that, suffice it to say that within some brief period of hearing of the disaster we provided $1 million worth of assistance through the International Red Cross and the Red Crescent societies as well as the United Nations, and yesterday we announced that we would provide 1,000 tents, thirty 10,000-litre water tanks and 500 mobile toilets in response to a specific request from the Turkish government to our ambassador. I asked our ambassador at the end of last week if he would speak to the Turkish government and see whether there was still more we could do over and above what we were doing, obviously taking into consideration the constraints of logistics for Australia, and that was the response.5T4BRERETONMr Brereton—Stop being mean and miserly.4G4Mr DOWNER—Over the weekend, I despatched a senior official from Australia's aid agency, AusAID, to assist the embassy in Ankara and to talk to the Turkish authorities about what more we can do.5T4BRERETONMr Brereton—A whole lot more; that is what you can do.4G4Mr DOWNER—We obviously will be prepared to provide assistance wherever we can usefully.5T4BRERETONMr Brereton—This is a pathetic effort so far. Just pathetic.4G4Mr DOWNER—Can I just say in conclusion that I do regret that the opposition spokesman on foreign affairs thinks this is a party political issue and an opportunity to have a shot at the government.5T4BRERETONMr Brereton—No, it is a question of aid; that is what it is. You should be ashamed of yourself.4G4Mr DOWNER—The fact that we cautiously look at ways of helping and do not wish to provide assistance in areas that are not wanted is clearly commonsense and commonsense on behalf of the Australian public.5T4BRERETONMr Brereton—You will end up paying Mr Barratt more than you are paying to Turkey.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Kingsford-Smith! The minister has the call. It seems a most inappropriate question on which to have interjections.4G4Mr DOWNER—You really are bad, aren't you? You really are low. You are just about as low as a politician gets.5T4BRERETONMr Brereton—More money for Barratt than for Turkey.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will resume his seat. I call on the Minister for Foreign Affairs to wind up his response.4G4Mr DOWNER—I was only going to say that we look forward to a further report from the AusAID officer from Turkey. On the basis of any further recommendations he may make in consultations with the Turkish government, obviously the government will consider a constructive response. We want to do all we usefully can to help the people of Turkey at this difficult time, and I think it would be appropriate if as a nation we supported this cause not only through the government itself but also through private donations. If people make cash donations in particular, that is an appropriate way of providing support at the community level.87988798Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Why did Ministers Hill and Alston intervene in the assessment process to ensure that 16 projects which had not met the recommended points benchmark were bumped up the list for your approval, ahead of numerous other proposals which had scored higher? Isn't it a fact that, according to the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts ministerial submission of 14 August 1998, the projects you approved did not compare well relative to the highest ranked projects in terms of significance or community benefit, were subject to concerns about the ability of the proposing organisation to deliver the project, and/or had ongoing viability problems? Didn't you just rort this process for political advantage?8798Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—No.87988798Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRNOK6Eden-MonaroLP10—My question is to the Minister for Trade. Can the minister inform the House of developments on Australia's export front that are diversifying our export base?8798Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTrade10—I thank the honourable member for his question and recognise his great interest in supporting Australia's exporters as they look for new and different marketplaces across the world in times of economic difficulty. Along with Australia's large traditional exports of coal, meat, wheat and dairy products, we are seeing new manufacturers such as the car industry breaking through the $1 billion barrier in terms of exports. The wine industry has also broken through the $1 billion barrier in exports. The member asked about diversity of Australia's exports. Our government has an Asia Plus strategy for our exports. We are looking beyond the region and beyond Asia to expand our new markets. Interestingly enough, we are now exceeding $4 billion worth of exports into the Middle East market, and it is growing.All these good news stories appear in a new publication put out by Austrade called Trademark in which they identify some of the smaller exporters making headlines and inroads in the international marketplace. Companies like the Sydney based Bluefire Gas Ltd Co. are establishing a very lucrative LPG market in Indonesia. Companies like the Perth based Dome Coffee Shop Co. are establishing a network of shops right across South-East Asia and the Middle East, employing 500 staff worldwide. Interestingly, honey, which is an important commodity in the Middle East, is coming out of Western Australia. All these companies are doing their bit in developing and growing Australia's export marketplace. Our government is going to consistently support and facilitate those operations and work with them to expand our presence in the international marketplace.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Miscellaneous8798879815:17:008798Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—Mr Speaker, I want to make it quite clear to the House that when the FBT policy was introduced by the Labor Party they did not exempt the defence department from the payment of FBT.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—That is not adding to an answer— 10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.879910001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate ministers:87998OT4Charles Bob MPTo the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled.Whereas the 1998 Synod of the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne carried without dissent the following Motion:`That this Synod regrets the Government's adoption of procedures for certain people seeking political asylum in Australia which exclude them from all public income support while withholding permission to work, thereby creating a group of beggars dependent on the Churches and charities for food and the necessities of life;and calls upon the Federal government to review such procedures immediately and remove all practices which are manifestly inhumane and in some cases in contravention of our national obligations as a signatory of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.'We, therefore, the individual undersigned Members of St Martin's Anglican Church, Belgrave Heights, Victoria 3160, petition the House of Representatives in support of the abovementioned Motion.And we, as in duty bound, will ever pray.Mr CharlesOT4Mr Charles(from eight citizens)87994OT4Charles Bob MPTo the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled.Whereas the 1998 Synod of the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne carried without dissent the following Motion`That this Synod regrets the Government's adoption of procedures for certain people seeking political asylum in Australia which exclude them from all public income support while withholding permission to work, thereby creating a group of beggars dependent on the Churches and charities for food and the necessities of life;and calls upon the Federal government to review such procedures immediately and remove all practices which are manifestly inhumane and in some cases in contravention of our national obligations as a signatory of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.'We, therefore, the individual undersigned Members of All Saints' Anglican Church, Selby, Vic toria 3159, petition the House of Representatives in support of the abovementioned Motion.And we, as in duty bound, will ever pray.Mr CharlesOT4Mr Charles(from four citizens)879911CT4Costello Peter MPTo the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled.Whereas the 1998 Synod of the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne carried without dissent the following Motion`That this Synod regrets the Government's adoption of procedures for certain people seeking political asylum in Australia which exclude them from all public income support while withholding permission to work, thereby creating a group of beggars dependent on the Churches and charities for food and the necessities of life;and calls upon the Federal government to review such procedures immediately and remove all practices which are manifestly inhumane and in some cases in contravention of our national obligations as a signatory of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.'We, therefore, the individual undersigned Members of St Matthew's Anglican Church, Ashburton, Victoria 3147, petition the House of Representatives in support of the abovementioned Motion.And we, as in duty bound, will ever pray.Mr CostelloCT4Mr Costello(from 11 citizens)879911583REdwards Graham MPTo the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of electors of Cowan points out to the House our desire to see community pharmacists retain their unique position in Australia's health system.We trust and respect our local pharmacists and are opposed to any moves to allow supermarkets to compete against them. We believe that the community benefits from pharmacies being owned by pharmacists.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House heeds our wishes and allows our local pharmacy to continue to play a vital role in our health care.Mr Edwards83RMr Edwards(from 115 citizens)8799139LS4Ferguson Martin MPTo the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of electors of Batman points out to the House our desire to see community pharmacists retain their unique position in Australia's health system. We trust and respect our local pharmacists and are opposed to any moves to allow supermarkets to compete against them. We believe that the community benefits from pharmacies being owned by pharmacists.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House heeds our wishes and allows our local pharmacy to continue to play a vital role in our health care.Mr Martin FergusonLS4Mr Martin Ferguson(from 139 citizens)880017787T4Crosio Janice MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of certain residents of Sydney draw the attention of the House to the fact that an additional airport in the Sydney airshed will greatly increase air, noise and water pollution causing an increase in health problems and compromising our children's educational standards. Your petitioners therefore ask the House to immediately abandon all plans to construct a Second Sydney Airport at Badgerys Creek.Mrs Crosio7T4Mrs Crosio(from 1,778 citizens)8800273HQ5Fahey John MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of concerned citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House:. Australia is one of the 19 country signatories in the 1991 Paris Peace Agreement for Cambodia calling for an international respect for the Cambodian territorial integrity.. According to a map reference to the code of law of International Court of Justice report in 1962, page 6, Cambodia occupies an area of 181,035 km2, not 176,500 km2 as proposed by ASEAN statement issued under a manipulation by the Government of Vietnam.. Anecdote evidence of border encroachments are numerous and widespread. SBS Radio broadcast on 27 May 1999 indicates that at certain locations Vietnam has shifted her border into Cambodia by about 1,400 metres. A local newspaper, Raksmey Kampuchea reports on 22 June that Vietnamese authorities has taken 6 hectares of farm land from Cambodian farmers in an eastern province of Svay Rieng. Similar encroachment can also be noted on the Cambodian Thai border.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House:(1) in conjunction with the Government insist that the international community including Vietnam, Thailand and Laos who are also signatories to the Paris Peace Agreement genuinely respect the Cambodian territorial integrity within the 1962 border line;(2) consult with Government of the day in view of taking a leading role to ensure that Cambodia can preserve her 181,035 km2 territory in accordance to the Paris Peace Agreement; and(3) on behalf of Australia issue a statement of her moral and legal commitment to help protect the Cambodian territory with the 1962 border line.Mr FaheyHQ5Mr Fahey(from 273 citizens)880050VU5Griffin Alan MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The undersigned citizens and residents of Australia call on you to:. Label all Genetically Engineered foods that may be approved for sale;. Ensure pies contain meat and jam contains fruit;. Make food labels reflect the true nature of the contents;. Ensure that the Australia New Zealand Food Authority (ANZFA)—the food safety watchdog—is adequately resourced to protect our food.And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.Mr GriffinVU5Mr Griffin(from 50 citizens)8800658YU5Tanner Lindsay MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The undersigned citizens and residents of Australia call on you to:. Clearly label all Genetically Engineered foods that may be approved for sale;. Make food labels reflect the true nature of the contents;. Make sure the Australia New Zealand Food Authority is adequately resourced to protect food standards;. Maintain our democratic right to make informed choices on what we feed ourselves and our families.And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.Mr TannerYU5Mr Tanner(from 658 citizens)880048183OHull Kay MPTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled.This petition of members of the university community points out the detrimental effects that the Higher Education Amendment Act 1999 will have on students in Australia.This petition draws the attention of the House of Representatives to the effects the passage of this legislation will have, including:. to undermine the ability of student organisations to provide support and services to students, as determined by students (including childcare, subsidised food and financial assistance);. to undermine the ability of student organisations to provide support and services to disadvantaged students (including mature aged and part time students, women, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students, international students and students from regional Australia);. to limit funding to cultural and art events, sport and student media;. to undermine the ability of students to represent themselves to the university and government.National VSU follows three years of attacks by the Howard Government on the Higher Education Sector, including 6 per cent cuts to public funding to universities, an increase in HECS payments and damaging changes to ABSTUDY and other income support measures. It is a politically motivated attack on student organisations intended to limit and silence a vocal critic of the Government. Students have the right to run and operate their own affairs.Your petitioners therefore ask that the House of Representatives categorically reject the Higher Education Amendment Act 1999.Mrs Hull83OMrs Hull(from 481 citizens)8801199483CMcFarlane Jann MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled.The petition of we the undersigned citizens/residents of Australia draws attention to the House that there is widespread community support for the Australian Parliament to help ensure a safe and fair consultation in East Timor in August 1999 by:. supporting a UN sponsored peace enforcement mission to be sent to East Timor. urging Indonesia to immediately disarm and disband paramilitary groups in East Timor. urging the Indonesian Armed Forces to conduct a staged withdrawal from East Timor.We also ask the house to:. withdraw recognition of Indonesian sovereignty over East Timor pending the completion of a free and fair UN supervised act of self determination. suspend military aid and training to the Indonesian Armed Forces . suspend Australian aid, and lobby against further IMF funding to the Indonesian government, until it stops its military violence in East Timor.Your petitioners humbly pray that you will give this matter earnest consideration and your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.Ms Jann McFarlane83CMs Jann McFarlane(from 1,994 citizens)88011080KV5Neville Paul MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in parliament.The petition of certain electors of the Division of Hinkler, draws to the attention of the House.Our concerns in Bundaberg that many General Practitioners (GPs) have closed their books to new patients, and the situation whereby bulk billing is practically impossible to access.With a high level of financial disadvantage in this district, and the closure of the public general outpatients at Bundaberg Base Hospital, it is essential that citizens have access to a GP, when required, regardless of their capacity to pay.Your petitioners therefore pray that the house investigates this matter and takes the necessary action to rectify this outrageous discriminatory situation (e.g. increase Medicare rebate to rural/regional areas or provide other incentives to encourage bulk billing etc).Mr NevilleKV5Mr Neville(from 1,080 citizens)88013058V5Worth Trish MPTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.Considering that:(1) the Government has proposed a Goods and Services Tax (GST) and, relying on the outcome of the recent elections, intends to introduce legislation for such a Tax.(2) the Government's proposals, as published, discriminate between the providers of orthodox and complementary medicines and services by making the former GST-free and the latter subject to a 10 per cent GST; and(3) many Australians desire freedom of choice as to what medicines and services they use.Therefore, your Petitioners request that, in the design of a GST, the House ensures that complementary and orthodox medicines and practitioners are treated equally, so that:(1) all therapeutic goods on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods, and all herbal remedies prepared extemporaneously by herbalists and other natural therapists from raw materials, are GST-free; and(2) all services provided by herbalists and other natural therapists are GST-free.Ms Worth8V5Ms Worth(from 305 citizens)Petitions received.Private Members' Business8802880215:20:008802Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—I 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.Today I speak on a topic paramount to the quality of life desired by many of my constituents in Gilmore. These people are the selfless carers of relatives or friends who have disabilities. As advances in medicine and health care practices increase the lifespan of people who once died young, the need for carers grows. In my lifetime people who were born with different abilities were quickly institutionalised or their families were ostracised for wanting to enjoy them at home. Now we are a more humane society. We recognise people's abilities and their right to life, not just life but quality of life. This government has also recognised the change in thinking and has implemented long-term plans to provide the infrastructure to address future needs.Firstly, there has been the regime to ensure a buoyant economy, one that is sustainable and one that will produce sufficient funding to embark on a project. This project is to identify and develop appropriate accommodation and services to provide respite to all parties, carers and their charges and to offer choices in accommodation for people with disabilities. However, as this program rolls forward in the planning stage, there are carers and people with disabilities who have needs that right now are unmet.At a recent meeting in my office with parents, friends and carers of people with a wide range of disabilities, the following issues were highlighted: lack of respite beds for children and adults in Shoalhaven in particular and Gilmore as a whole; no permanent beds available for children or adults; no funding for accessing mainstream vacation care; anomalies such as a physically disabled child with normal intelligence is not eligible for any state assistance from DoCS; and children whose disabilities are not classed as severe often miss out on services.One of the major reasons for most of Gilmore, especially the Southern Highlands and the Shoalhaven, missing out on these services is the regional nature of the funding packages. These areas are lumped in with the Illawarra. On a town by town basis, there are many places crying for services but, if you average the need across the whole of the Illawarra, the figures do not seem too bad. Funding is directed to supposed peak organisations in Wollongong, and there the money stays. This is not to say that there is no need in Wollongong—there is. However, it is logistically difficult to walk out a door in Wollongong past the line of needy people and lose precious time driving up to 3½ hours south to see someone else and then driving all the way back. The result is that the outlying areas simply do not see the services at all.I welcome the federal government's commitment of considerable funds to the Commonwealth-State Disability Agreement. It is imperative that the three levels of government work together to provide services that are appropriate and flexible to meet the need. It is only through cooperation and innovation that together we will improve the quality of life for both the people with disabilities and their carers. At the meeting in April this year between Senator Newman and the state and territory disability ministers, this process began. All parties openly and vigo rously discussed the longstanding severe shortage of services. They agreed that addressing the unmet needs in accommodation and other related services is a shared responsibility and have begun to work together to find solutions.At the local level, my Labor state colleague and I have agreed to work together to ensure that Shoalhaven, Wingecarribee and the Kiama districts do not miss out on their slice of the services. This cooperative approach with local councils, communities and businesses will provide the launch pad for successful, suitable, flexible and quality services. To those who took the time to fill my office to tell my state colleague and me of the unmet needs in Gilmore, I thank you. You have unleashed the process of change in our area. With your forebearance, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will name those people for their concern: Mr and Mrs Yatras, Mrs Makila, Mr and Mrs Byerley, Ms Walker, Ms Barry, Ms Dowling, Mrs Ashby, Mr and Mrs Griffiths, Mr and Mrs Vassallo-Knapp, Mrs Martin, Mr and Mrs Marsh, Mrs Starr, Mr and Mrs Lester, Mrs Denny and Mr and Mrs Bird. I thank you all for caring about this most important need in the Gilmore electorate.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Is the motion seconded?0K6BARTLETTMr Bartlett—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.15:24:008803Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLISDH4ThrosbyALP00—I am pleased to support this motion moved by the honourable member for Gilmore. I previously supported a similar motion when it was moved by the honourable member for Murray back in 1996. For many years I have had a deep concern for people with disabilities, especially the ageing carers of ageing children with disabilities and the lack of respite and long-term future care. This problem is not confined to a few electorates; it is a national problem. I understand that the Time to Care campaign is being conducted by the National Council on Intellectual Disability. It is organising a national day of protest in Canberra on 1 September, where groups will travel from all states to participate. The NCID's campaign focuses on the huge unmet need for disability services throughout the country and the failure of governments to provide adequate resources.In a report by the National Council on Intellectual Disability entitled Who Cares, More or Less released this year, it was revealed that 9,700 parents over the age of 65 years are still caring for their sons and daughters with a disability at home. These parents provide constant care for their children and have done so since they were born. They need to be assured that this care will continue throughout their children's lives. These parents save governments millions of dollars per year by caring for their children at home. These people, many aged, need to be assured that their children will receive similar care when they are no longer able to provide it. They need to know that their children will be given every opportunity to gain as much independence as they can cope with while, at the same time, receiving all the care and guidance they require.I must pay tribute to a group in the Illawarra, the Lobby Group for Aged Parents and their Intellectually Disabled Adult Children, who have worked and lobbied for years to have the critical lack of permanent accommodation for adults with an intellectual disability living with ageing parents recognised and addressed. This need still exists. I must also pay tribute to the Illawarra Disability Trust and the many other disability service providers in the Illawarra region who work tirelessly for the disabled in the region. As well as for the ageing disabled children, the need for increased assistance for the younger disabled children is at crisis point.Whilst I welcome the government's announcement of an extra $150 million towards the needs of people with disabilities, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare recommends that an additional $294 million is needed now to resolve the national disability crisis which exists. In spite of the level of unmet need over many years, government funding has fallen well short of the growth in the numbers of disabled people needing help. There is also deep concern in New South Wales at the moment because the government plans to tender out 190 group homes run by the Department of Community Services for people with a disability. At a time when there is a severe shortage of funds in the disability area, this change also places additional pressure on the parents, because they do not know how these new arrangements will affect their children.Another group I wish to acknowledge from the far South Coast is the Nardy House Committee in Bega. This group has been trying unsuccessfully for five years to establish a home to accommodate people with severe disabilities within that region. They have been given land, they have had their plans approved by council and they are continually raising funds to help with the building costs. They require capital funding for the building and recurrent funding, but still the government have refused to fund this urgently needed facility. The critical need for permanent care, accommodation and support services for disabled people cannot be overemphasised, and their plight cannot be ignored any longer. I support the motion before the House and call on governments to address the critical need that exists in the area of disability.Not wishing to enter into an argument with my colleague and friend the honourable member for Gilmore, I want to say that it is logical that there will be more need in the centre of Wollongong because the population is greater. I support what the honourable member for Gilmore is doing in her area, but there is also a continuing need in the Illawarra and the Shellharbour area. We must all work together across the political sides and between state and federal government to solve this great need. The ageing parents of ageing children with disabilities have faced a dreadful plight over many years. They feel that they have been neglected by governments of all persuasions. (Time expired)15:29:008804Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—One of the measures of a civilised and caring society is the way in which it provides for the vulnerable, the disadvantaged and those with disabilities. Assistance for people with disabilities has come from a combination of sources: state and federal governments, large charitable organisations, local community based charities, church groups and a large army of volunteers—carers, relatives and friends—who selflessly give so much in the way of care to those in need. In my electorate of Macquarie in the Blue Mountains and Hawkesbury, according to the latest ABS figures, we have 3,800 recipients of the disability support pension, yet this figure does not in any way adequately reflect the real level of need. It does nothing to indicate the level of profoundness of the need or the degree of disability of those suffering. It does nothing to indicate their dependence on the carers and the burden and strain that carers suffer. It does nothing to indicate particular local problems—and we have a number of those in the electorate of Macquarie.Problems resulting from the isolation of scattered villages that need services are duplicated many times. Our more urban and metropolitan areas have services which are often not available in outlying areas. We have pockets of low income, low socioeconomic areas where the burden is particularly great on parents trying to access services for their children. We have a higher than average growth rate of people with disabilities in my electorate, yet we have also a large number of community based organisations doing their best to work to help these people, often in the face of extreme disadvantage. I would like to commend groups such as the Bridges Disability Service, Westworks, the Santa Maria Centre, Mountains Community Transport and Hawkesbury Community Transport, just to name a few—but there are many others—who do their best.There are still many areas of unmet need for our people with disabilities. I would like to highlight a few of these. Firstly, there is the quantity and the range of accommodation needed. There is a need for long-term supported accommodation, emergency accommodation and planned accommodation for respite. There is a need for appropriate transition accommodation and a range of services from residential care right through to community housing and assisted individual accommodation. There is a need for fully staffed crisis accommodation for people with psychiatric disabilities. Secondly, there is a great need for people, particularly those with physical disabilities, to have access to appropriate transport services. This is a real problem in the Blue Mountains and in some of the outlying areas of the Hawkesbury. There is a need for support services for community transport. There is a need for more access to public transport and greater assistance with individual private transport. There are also significant barriers to proper access to streets and public buildings. I know this is an area that both the Hawkesbury City Council and the Blue Mountains City Council are working on, but much more needs to be done.Thirdly, in the area of day care options, there is a need for a much greater increase in services, especially for post-school age young people. There is a need for meaningful day care activities, recognising that many of these people will never gain independence or employment. There is a gap in developing skills in social interaction, leisure activities and independent living for many of these people. I know organisations such as Bridges are doing valuable work, but there is a need for so much more. There is a need for employment services to assist those with milder physical and intellectual disabilities back into the work force, into paid employment.There is a need for greater help with aids and appliances for people with physical disabilities, including, for instance, greater help with the incontinence aids scheme and access to assistance such as wheelchairs. There is a need for greater respite care for carers—both in crisis situations and in ongoing planning for carers of people with disabilities. I was very pleased that this government recently announced an extra $150 million in addition to increases in the last two budgets to take the burden off the carers of these people. There is a need to continue to help ageing carers of ageing children with disabilities. Much more needs to be done to assist these people. (Time expired)15:34:008805Cox, David, MPMr COX83UKingstonALP00—Disability services are another manifestation of the crisis currently being experienced in health service provision in Australia. The government needs to address the current unmet need and improve the lives of Australians with disabilities and their carers. That will require the government formulating a disability services policy with goals and strategies that do more than contain costs. Part of the problem in disability services is structural. The Commonwealth-State Disability Agreement gave the most costly services—accommodation and respite care—to the states. The Commonwealth has the much less financially onerous responsibility for employment services, training and placement. A major part of the responsibility for disability services was given to the states, which could not or would not fund them. Minister Newman's own press release of 4 August announcing $150 million in funding admits that she agreed with the states in April that disability support must be a shared responsibility.The member for Gilmore has mentioned in her motion the federal government's specific commitment of over $1.7 billion to the Commonwealth-State Disability Agreement. This is somewhat misleading. The funding figures for 1997-98 show that the major contribution to the CSDA comes not from the Commonwealth but from the states. Of that $1.7 billion, the Commonwealth contributes only $555.4 million. The states and territories contribute the other $1,171.6 billion of a total of $1,727 billion. The Commonwealth government contributes less than 20 per cent of the total pool of disability funding while the state and territory governments are contributing more than 80 per cent. The amount allocated to meet the needs of 654,600 Australians with disabilities in 1998 equates to $7.47 per person per day, with the Commonwealth contributing the equivalent of $1.56 per person per day of this total.There are substantial differences between the states in the way that they provide for people with disabilities. For example, state funding for people with a profound intellectual disability ranges from a little over $1,000 per head in Queensland to more than $3,000 in Victoria. In South Australia, it is a little over $1,800. Nor has disability service funding been increasing to meet the unmet demand, a demand which is growing. For example, in South Australia it is fairly flat. The 1998 schedule A to the CSDA shows Commonwealth funding in 1997-98 of $40.382 million, in 1998-99 of $42.172 million, in 1999-2000 of $43.081 million, in 2000-01 of $44.020 million and in 2001-02 of $44.991 million.The schedule shows that state funding held constant for all of these years at $93.93 million, except in 1998-99 when it was $96.27 million. These amounts are in 1997-98 dollars for 1997-98, and in 1998-99 constant dollar terms for all other years. The greatest unmet demand for disability support services is for long-term supported accommodation and respite care services. The federal government's funding announcement on 4 August of $150 million followed a meeting of all ministers responsible for disability services. The Commonwealth is in fact offering only $75 million a year for two years. This is far short of what is needed.In 1997, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare estimated, on a conservative basis, that at least $294 million is required to fund unmet needs. More than 400,000 Australians with a profound or severe disability are not getting any help or not getting enough help to meet their basic living needs. More than 110,000 primary carers—that is, 43 per cent of those who say that they need help—are not getting enough help to support their caring role. Further, 72,000 primary carers who need respite do not get any respite or do not get enough. When the Commonwealth-State Disability Agreement was drawn up, it was recognised that there were significant unmet needs and substantial differences in the way that the states provide disability services.That is why clause 8(9)(a)(b) was inserted in the Commonwealth-State Disability Agreement. It relates to unmet demand and projected demand in population growth. It provides for ministers to subsequently agree on the contribution of additional funds. This motion calls on governments at all levels to cooperate with one another to identify, fund and maintain services and facilities for respite care. With the CSDA due to end in two years, this is the time for the government to start developing a better and more comprehensive approach to providing disability services. That will require identifying the extent of unmet needs and developing a realistic program for meeting them. It is time for both the states and the Commonwealth to work out a clear set of responsibilities and obligations in the principal areas of need. (Time expired)15:39:008806Hull, Kay, MPMrs HULL83ORiverinaNP10—I rise in the House to eagerly support my colleague the member for Gilmore on this critical issue. During October we will celebrate Carers Week and applaud the amazing contribution that over 1.6 million Australian carers make to the community every day of every week of every year. It is estimated that carers save the Australian economy a staggering $16 billion per year by providing care in the home to relatives and friends who are ill, frail and aged, or disabled. It is extremely hard work bathing, dressing, lifting, feeding, medicating and toileting a person 24 hours of the day. Many carers experience social isolation and emotional and physical exhaustion, not to mention the severe financial drain on their living expenses. In rural, regional and remote areas, respite is almost non-existent. One of the many carers in my electorate is Mrs Anne Napoli. Anne wrote to me:When Patrick was born my husband and I were so happy to be blessed with a beautiful, healthy baby, but soon after he received a triple-antigen our joy turned into heartache and a nightmare and it has been that way ever since.We have taken Patrick to many major cities in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia and had to purchase special aides and equipment to assist him, all of this has been a huge financial drain on myself and my family. I also cared for my aged parents with no financial help from the government. I went into business for myself employing up to 12 people, but the pressure of dealing with my son's disability and my parents' fragile health meant that I had to sell my business to care for them full time.I have lost the opportunity to secure a financial future for myself, I will not retire on a generous super fund. When Patrick turned 17 I was told that I could apply for a carer's pension and I did, but because of our assets I now receive only $52.30 per fortnight.Since my father passed away I now care for two people, if I was not able or willing to care for my son and my mother then they would both need to go to a nursing home and that would further burden the taxpayers of this country.Could you please tell me of anyone doing nursing care 24 hours per day seven days per week for $52.30 per fortnight. Do you think that I and other carers like myself are asking too much to be given increased financial assistance. Is it worth paying a full-time carer's allowance that is not means tested?I feel totally out of control when I read in newsletters or brochures, how the government is giving millions of dollars for respite for carers, I and other carers personally see none of that!I know that unless you are in the same situation you cannot possibly understand what it means to deal with the never ending demands, the heartache, the loss of sleep and the tension that builds up in your family. We the carers have to always be in control to keep some harmony and stability in order to hold our families together.My husband works very hard to provide for us, I have been fortunate that my marriage is still intact after 25 years, but many other marriages break up due to all of the financial and emotional pressures of being a carer.This letter is representative of the emotions of our many carers. Many from our farming sector are even further alienated, with their entire land and home being asset tested in order to qualify for carers' assistance or access to nursing home facilities. The sheer isolation of these people prohibits them from gaining access to valuable respite or day care. Surely they are entitled to a quality of life that others take for granted and we must see them as warranting special considerations.This private member's motion could go even further. It could investigate the cost to governments at all levels in paying a non-means tested allowance to all carers. In addition, we could also determine if the New South Wales state Labor government is guilty of short-changing our home and community care funding for frail elderly people with a disability and their carers. We could also ascertain where the respite is being provided and whether rural, regional and remote areas are receiving an equity in funding for respite. Carers are saving this country billions of dollars annually. They deserve to be fully compensated, regardless of their assets. Being a full-time carer erodes one's ability to provide for one's future. This government has put in place many great initiatives for carers. (Time expired)15:44:008807Wilkie, Kim, MPMr WILKIE84GSwanALP00—I am particularly pleased to accept the opportunity to address the House today about a matter that affects the lives of many Australians. I must say that this is one of the very rare occasions where I agree with a member of this government on an issue. Providing for carers and the disabled is not a complicated concept; it is simply a matter of decency. It is about compassion from a society in which many of us enjoy life and its rewards every day in simple and tangible ways, but we must remember that some do not. Protecting and nurturing those who cannot enjoy those pleasures to the same extent as many of us while providing for their needs is the measure of a truly mature society. Let us not forget the lives of those who silently care and nurture people with disabilities. The dedication and attention exercised by some means giving up everything so that they can care and provide for those less fortunate.But it is here that I differ in my opinions from those of the government member. Let us not deceive ourselves. The needs of these people and their carers require both a moral and a financial consideration. As a matter of research, my office contacted support agencies in Western Australia to verify the sorts of obligations carers of those with disabilities have to cater for. To start with, domestic modifications of the home often begin at around $20,000. Then we include transport modifications at some $3,500. This may entail a special purpose vehicle—try $25,000-plus. Personal modifications generally entail expenditure on beds, bathrooms, chairs and hoists. These can add a further burden of well over $8,000. These are obviously expensive items, and we have not even considered daily living expenses and medications.It is all too easy to say, `Look, I empathise,' that is all well and good, but let us look at some of the other issues that are involved. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare's report, which documents the extent of the needs of people with disabilities and those working in this field, has been noted by this House. It indicates that over 13,000 people aged between five and 64 have not had their assistance needs fulfilled in self-care, mobility and verbal communication. Furthermore, almost 39,000 require some form of employment services to be provided as a priority. The report continues by highlighting the plight of those not currently receiving day programs. There were 12,000 people aged 18 to 64 in this category that fell through the Commonwealth-State Disability Agreement net.Members of the House might have listened to my speech the other night about the Gotti family of Victoria Park. The family has a disabled son, Ben. As Ben gets older and heavier, the Gottis get older. What will happen to the family in 20 years time? The situation currently is that an estimated 7,700 people with a severe or profound handicap have principal carers who are over 65 years of age, not to mention those with mild disabilities. Whilst not over 65, this will be a future problem for the Gotti family. For many others, it is also a problem dawning on the horizon.We must make a firm and unified decision to say to these people, `We will help.' I fear, however, that the current government's policy, if continued, will be a portent of future hardship. I say this because no clear and firm decisions are being made to fully satisfy the needs of carers. As recently as 12 May, Senator Chris Evans asked the question:Isn't it true that the government's offer of just $20 million for respite care assistance means that only 900 of the 13,400 families you have identified as currently in desperate need of respite care for their child with a disability will receive any assistance at all? How will the government decide which families are to receive this paltry assistance provided in the budget?I could not be satisfied with the reply of Senator Newman. The government says that they need $300 million now. The government's own report, which it has had for two years, has identified $300 million of unmet need. As Senator Evans illustrated, next year it will all be okay. The government is saying, `Here are some crumbs; here are some programs that will address some of the concerns that will be introduced on 1 July 2000.' What happens until then to those people doing it tough? They will have to wait. If they have child-care needs, if they have a disabled child who needs assistance, they will just have to wait.We have had two budgets in which the minister could have provided assistance to address these problems. But what has been allocated? Just $20 million to meet a $300 million need. The people who care for people with disabilities say that it is paltry and pathetic—and, frankly, I agree. I conclude by reiterating that I am happy to cooperate in any way with the government to assist those with disabilities and their carers.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.880815:50:008808Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—I 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.The People's Republic of China is some 1.23 billion citizens, 22 per cent of the world's population and a population 70 times the size of our own wonderful nation's population. Between Australia and the People's Republic of China, some $9.61 billion a year is currently being traded—a strong two-way trade arrangement. In fact, with Hong Kong now being part of the People's Republic of China, China represents the third largest trading partner for Australia, and we are in fact China's 11th largest trading partner. So, statistically, there are a lot of reasons why our relationship is important. Domestically, it represents jobs; it represents the fortunes of average Australians.It is against this background and an understanding that we have different cultural values and we have different history, we need to get to know each other more and more. The more we deal with the people of the People's Republic of China, the more we get to know them and the more they get to know us, the better it will be for the future of both nations. It is a relationship which, as I said, creates jobs. It is a strategically important relationship as well for our general area and the responsible role which Australia and the People's Republic of China, amongst a number of other nations, play in the western Pacific cannot be discounted.I was recently part of a delegation to China that was under the auspices of the Australia-China Parliamentary Friendship Group and was led by the member for Aston and co-chaired by the member for Prospect. On this particular trip—there were 10 of us in all—we were able to see a wide cross-section of activity in the People's Republic of China. I came back with a great sense of fulfilment and optimism about just where the relationship between our two countries will take us in the years ahead.China is on the dawn of a huge future. It has already had a substantial history and a substantial past. But, as it is trying to update its skills and update its industries to take on the world in the latter part of the 20th century, it is important that Australia stand closely beside this important and very powerful friend.One of the many interviews that we undertook was with Professor Yu Zuyao, an economics professor, who talked to us about the reforms of state owned enterprises. It is amazing to know that in the Chinese economy there is now some 15 per cent of the gross domestic product in private hands, because the small and medium sized state owned enterprises are being sold off. I found it amusing that some in this country argue against the sale of state owned enterprises to private hands, yet in the People's Republic of China even the Communist Party has found some value in seeing its private citizens controlling some 34.5 million small businesses. It is an extraordinary set of numbers. Of course, hand in hand with China's growth in industry comes significant pollution. It is disturbing to note that seven out of the 10 most polluted cities in the world are on mainland China.The delegation also met with the Vice Minister of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Mr Yang Jiechi, who reflected on his admiration for Australia's integrity and consistency in its dealings—that what we say to their face we do when we are away from them. I suspect that this sort of consistency will stand us in good stead in the years ahead.We had an hour and a half with Premier Zhu Rongji just prior to his visit to see President Clinton. He was very determined to ensure that China's admittance to the World Trade Organisation, which was co-sponsored by Australia, was not going to be halted by domestic American politics. We also held a meeting with Australian businessmen, ex-patriots living in China. They are growing their business on a day-to-day basis through their one-to-one conduct, which is producing great benefits for us.Our trip through Xi'an, the ancient capital of China, exposed us to the development of new technology at the Xi'an Hi-Tech Development Zone. As well as that, the importance of the bond between our two countries was exemplified by the Gao Xin No. 1 High School, which has a `sister school' relationship with a school in the member for Aston's electorate. We spent considerable time there and understood that the children of this area knew a lot about Australia. All of this is very good for the future of our relationship between the two countries.But I suspect it was our time in Tibet which caused a bit of interest in the media here. While I do not want to steal the thunder of the member for Cowper, who can make some great observations of his own time in the Tibet region, I will make the point that there was a greater deal of freedom, of open conduct, of worship, of trade and of activity than people would have led us to believe would have been the case before we got to Tibet.There were nine of us who at different times went nine separate ways in Tibet. We saw open examples of capitalism in the marketplace and saw open examples of the worship of individual Tibetans, who are devote Buddhists, on a daily basis. We went to visit places such as Norbulinka Palace, the summer residence of the Dalai Lama, and also the Potala Palace. That symbolic site for the free Tibet movement was a very emotional experience. We sought the prospect of finding people's movements restricted, we sought to see if there were armed guards and people walking around restricting the movement of people, but we did not see it. We certainly saw army personnel, but most of the time they were involved in construction and maintenance projects—building roads and maintaining bridges over the Brahmaputra River, for instance. We saw average, everyday Tibetans, mainly nomads, who were involved in open worship and open devotion around the Jokhang Temple and also in Barkhor Square, which was the site of some civil unrest in years past.We also saw Australia's friendship extended in the form of foreign aid, with a foreign aid project which is going to the heart of basic health services for the people of Tibet, where $3.4 million—only a small amount of money really—is being spent to benefit directly some 6,000 people with fresh water supply. It includes training local people to understand the connection between human wastes, human food, germs and how diseases are spread. That sort of basic education is all helping to build on the friendship between Australia and China. Adult mortality is approximately 50 years in this particular region of the world and early childhood deaths, those children under one year of age, is 100 per 1,000. In Australia the average rate of early childhood death is just 10 per 1,000. There is a definite need to do those things that Australia was doing through such projects.We raised the question of civil rights—that is probably the one thing where the friendship group had some difficulty, basing our own particular values as an assessment point—and that is that people who talk about free Tibet are regarded as seditionists and are therefore restricted in activity and gaoled. We do have a difficulty with that. But we do understand that China has set a measure for their success to be determined by the outside world; namely, the education and opening up of their region to more and more people, and to more and more free conduct and free trade. I am well satisfied that, if that is the measure by which they wish to be determined, we should out of good grace allow them to prove to us they are trying to do good things. Some two million tourists are now going to Tibet each year.Senator Brown in the other place might like to think that you can tell China what it should be doing, but you cannot. You cannot tell even a best friend that they are wrong, because automatically they are going to turn their back on you. You can, however, encourage them to do the right thing: to pursue free trade, which China is doing; to pursue human rights, and I suspect there is a bit of work to be done; and to pursue democracy, and I suspect there is a bit of work to be done. I also suspect that over time we should be able to stand our ground and provide friendship to the other great body of Chinese people in the world—like Taiwan. The people of the People's Republic of China should not be critical of our wanting to be equal and to have the same level of friendship with the people of Taiwan as we have with the People's Republic of China.It is a difficult issue, but I suspect that over time, because we have so many of the basics right and because we are determined to encourage China to come out and be part of the world community, likewise we should allow the people of Taiwan to stand as free and equal citizens on the world stage. It is something that Beijing will over time get used to, I am sure, as we develop the strong friendship that I believe we already have a very strong basis for. I commend this particular motion to the House.16:00:008810Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—I do with great pride second the motion which is:That this House acknowledges the value to all Australians of their country's growing trade and friendship with the People's Republic of China.In so doing, I too would like to touch on the recent visit we made as a parliamentary friendship group delegation in April. However, before doing that, there are a number of pertinent facts that we need to understand and appreciate in this parliament.It is only some 27 years ago, in 1972, that a prime minister actually went and opened up a relationship with China. It is very symbolic now that this Prime Minister in this government is going to welcome a visit by the President of China. I understand this is prob ably the first time that Australia has experienced that. That will occur, of course, as we are informed, on 8 September. We welcome that.In seconding this motion, one has to acknowledge, as has already been pointed out, that China is a different culture to Australia. It is very hard, with just over 200 years of European settlement in this nation, for us to actually contemplate or even attempt to dictate to a country as rich in culture and heritage as China. One acknowledges how they have gradually come to the forefront, not only culturally, but through their education and trade. I believe they will progress further, as they certainly have done with a great deal of spirit.As has already been pointed out, China has 22 per cent of the world's population, which is quite extraordinary when you consider it is 1½ times the size of Australia. In other words, its population is 70 times the size of Australia's population. We complain about areas being overcrowded and our local councils not having flats, but imagine that 22 per cent of the world's population is housed in one nation in China. It is quite extraordinary that in 1997-98 China was Australia's fifth largest trading partner.There are a number of pertinent matters I wish to touch on. Not only is China the third largest country in the world but also it is now certainly recognised as an economic superpower. At the same time we must realise and understand that, as it goes forward, 800 million of China's population of 1.23 billion live in rural areas within that country. Even with the size of that country, their average per capita income is still around $US740 a year, which is not a lot. However, a number of Chinese have sufficient buying power to purchase consumer goods and the number is growing rapidly. I believe it is something that will continue as the years go on.I will touch on other areas. One is Australia's and China's strong government-to-government links which, I am proud to say, have been maintained by successive Australian administrations. The Australia-China bilateral relationship is firmly founded now, and that is because of shared interests, both economic and security related. These interests are reaffirmed by constant political, commercial, cultural and personal contact between our two countries. I reiterate that when some people ask, `As a friendship group what could you achieve?', the answer is that you achieve a lot; you achieve an appreciation and an understanding from an educational point of view as a member of parliament. Also, we were able to project and promote our country to a number of dignitaries whom we visited and had meetings with. More importantly, it is a two-way door. In other words, we take with us expertise and knowledge that we like to share, and they too explain and share with us their expertise and knowledge.The economic relationship between Australia and China has flourished over the last 20-odd years with Australian governments now certainly placing a greater emphasis on education, science and culture, and in doing so, they are cementing further relationships. China itself has begun a process of huge educational reform. It started in their nation in the mid-1980s and has resulted in many thousands of Chinese students studying abroad. Between 1978 and 1993 an estimated 50,000 Chinese students, both private and government sponsored, came to Australia to study. These educational links that we have been able to put together between our two countries have strengthened the ties and bonds. We should welcome more academic visits and certainly cooperative arrangements between universities and other leading institutions.Also, our cultural exchange with China is another thing that we should stand up and be proud of. There have certainly been frequent exchanges over the last two decades. Chinese opera, orchestras, dance and circus groups are regular visitors to Australia, as well as Chinese art exhibitions which are being held on a regular basis within our art galleries. I well remember the first time I saw the warriors. I queued up at the New South Wales art gallery with my young family at the time, never believing that one day I would actually be in the place where it all happened. I saw the work that is being done there by the Chinese in preserving what has to be one of the modern wonders of the world. It was absolutely a sight to behold. I stood there and reflected back to the time when I and my young children—who have now grown up—queued up to see that first exhibition. We heard them explain it all, and we understood and appreciated how and why it was done. Then all of a sudden I was part of it; I saw it there and saw them continuing to work. I commend and congratulate the government for the steps they have taken in preserving what is certainly a world treasure.Also, our ballets and chamber orchestras, the Australian Youth Orchestra and Sydney Dance Company have not only visited China but had very successful visits. Again, that is another step towards cultural exchange, particularly coming back with an understanding and appreciation between one nation and another. When attending to the development of the social and cultural ties between Australia and China, we must not just simply focus on the economic relationship between the two countries. It is vitally important that we do it on a people-to-people basis. In that way we will have a greater understanding between the two nations. Through that greater understanding, we will then also have greater economic links. That will become a natural consequence.We have already seen the increase in trade that has come about. We have already also seen, over the years—very much because of Australian governments' aggressiveness and forward-thinking approach—for example, us as a nation exporting education; and this has resulted in stronger ties again between the two nations. In recent years, Australia has looked for a greater mutual benefit with its educational links, and China also is now progressing to their next level: they are becoming—as in the school that was mentioned by the honourable member in moving the motion—very progressive in some of their education areas.It was certainly worth while to see how progressive they are in creating selective education in some particular areas. It was interesting because the member for Aston did have that sister city relationship with a school in his electorate and that is how we got access to that particular school. These children are chosen: there are something like 1,500 out of 6,000 applicants, and the same goes for the teaching. Yet they are concentrating on science and technology. When the principal of the school was questioned, she said, `This will be the future for our children of tomorrow.' In other words, `We have to have specialists in those fields.' So they are looking at their education system.One of things that amazed me—referring to that particular trip—was, when we were talking with the government, with the National People's Congress, looking at state owned enterprises and particularly talking with Premier Zhu Rongii, the way they said, `We must restructure our state owned enterprises; we must make them more economically stable—which will probably mean to our country that 30 million people will be placed outside of employment in the next 12 months.' It is hard for us in Australia, with a population now of 19 million, to understand and appreciate the enormous volume of people who will be placed out of employment because they want to restructure their state owned enterprises.When questioned on that, they explained that previously the businesses that they regarded as state owned enterprises looked after health, education and housing and that now, if they want to work into a competitive market, that can no longer take place. They certainly want to commercialise and be competitive, but it is quite extraordinary that, at the same time, they are acknowledging that they have to look at a safety net situation for the people who are placed out of work and that they have proudly adopted a system similar to what we have in Australia—not quite to the same extent with social security but at least with a safety net type of assistance to those people who are placed out of work.All in all, our trip was certainly one to behold, and I have never regretted it. I have never regretted my association with the Australia-China Parliamentary Friendship Group. Over the years, it has certainly given me a greater understanding and appreciation of a country that I believe could certainly teach us a lot of things, particularly when one looks back on their thousands of years of culture and their thousands of years of evolution. I can only say that Australia must remain a good trading partner with them and that we will achieve so much more with dialogue than with aggression. Over a period of time, we have got to continue that, and continue to be able to relate and to comprehend and understand what other nations are about and, in particular, this very large nation. I commend the motion to the House. (Time expired)16:10:008813Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHLAE4CowperNP10—I am very grateful to get the opportunity of being able to participate in the debate on the motion moved by Mr Hardgrave. Let me say at the outset that, listening to the member for Moreton and the member for Prospect, I agree with and support totally every word they said. They have been to Tibet and to China and they are coming back and reporting with honesty.It is sad that the same cannot be said about every member of this parliament who has visited China and Tibet. I have to say that I am very angry at the despicable conduct of Senator Brown of the other place, who sneaked into Tibet on a visitor's visa as a member of this parliament without even having the courtesy to advise the Chinese government that he was going there. He then came out and made the most outrageous statements. I will not go into the detail of what he said. All I can say is that he went in and did not see anything to change his mind, because he did not want to be confused by the facts: he had already made up his mind. All I can say is that the statements attributed to Senator Brown do not help Australia and do not help China—because Australia and China have a great future together, as has been said by previous speakers.I want to touch on some of the issues that are commonly misquoted and misunderstood as far as Tibet is concerned. I had the privilege of visiting Tibet a few years ago and I am pleased to say that I am going back in two weeks time, immediately after the visit of President Jiang Zemin to Australia. As far as Tibetan dress goes, I went to Lhasa, Ganden, Xigaze and Gyantze, and on the day that we happened to be going through Gyantze the horse festival was on, with 20,000 people, and the claim that Tibetans are not allowed to use their own regional dress is absolutely absurd—and I have got dozens of photographs to prove it.With regard to them being restricted in numbers of children, it is true that the mainland part of China has a restriction of one child per couple. In Tibet, Tibetan cadres or officials of the government are restricted to two children, but the herders and farmers have no restriction whatsoever. As we drove from Xigaze to Gyantze and saw the horse festival, we overtook dozens and dozens of little carts drawn by ponies or by yaks, carrying families on them. Typically, the family was a mum, a dad, a granny and four, five, six or seven kids. I never saw one family with fewer than four children. So to say that they have restrictions on the number of children is arrant nonsense and is certainly not the truth.With regard to religion, as my colleagues and friends who have been to Tibet have testified, everywhere you go people are openly praying. I must say something else. Photographs of the Dalai Lama are everywhere in Tibet. I never went anywhere without seeing them. They were in motor vehicles, in monasteries, in shops. I might say that there were far more photographs of the Dalai Lama than there were of Chairman Mao—and I think that is another indication.They also suggest that the Tibetan people are being overrun by millions of Han Chinese coming in. There are Han Chinese people there, of course: they are the administrators. But, as for being overrun, that again is nonsense. I have been there and seen it with open eyes—unlike, obviously, Senator Brown. I have to say that in reality the Han Chinese people do not really like Tibet, because there is not enough oxygen there—and some of my colleagues had felt that lack, too. I met one charming young woman who had gone back home to have her baby and could not take it back to Tibet because of the altitude and the lack of oxygen and so left it with her parents. The earliest thing that she wants to do is to finish her job in Tibet and to go back home.The other thing is comments about the army. Certainly there are army people there. When I was there I saw a lot of them on bicycles, with their shirts hanging out. I saw quite a number around the shops. Outside the barracks there were armed sentries—when I say armed, they had side-arms. Our army camps have sentries too. The reality is that they have borders with Bhutan, Nepal, India and Pakistan. They have to have an army presence there. But it is not a police state. I have felt more threatened and intimidated by booze buses in New South Wales than I ever felt in Tibet.I spent time with three Tibetan 18-year-old girls in Chengdu. One of them was very diffident about speaking. At one point, she finally spoke in English. She asked, `What is your chief impression of Tibet?' I said, `My chief impression is the poverty.' She sat back with amazement and asked, `What poverty?' We should not impose our values and judgments on other people.16:15:008814Irwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN83ZFowlerALP00—I am pleased to rise in support of the motion moved by the honourable member for Moreton and addressed by the honourable member for Prospect. Like the member for Moreton and the member for Prospect, I was able to visit China in April this year as part of a delegation led by the honourable member for Aston as guests of the National People's Congress in the year of the 50th anniversary of the congress.This was my first visit to China, if you could call it a visit. Anyone's first encounter with the people and places of the world's most populous country is more of an experience than just a visit. When you come from a sparsely populated country which enjoys a high standard of living, to visit China is to enter a different world. Those things that might apply here in Australia would have to be multiplied 60 times over to be seen in the context of China.There are many differences between Australia and China. But differences are, after all, the basis of trade, and understanding and respect for differences can be the basis for peaceful and friendly relations. I could repeat the facts and figures that show the growth of Australia's trade with China and the projections for future growth, but I think that to give the House some of the impressions I gained on the recent visit to China would be of more value.While we hear of slowing growth rates in China's economy—and there was some visible evidence to confirm this—I could not help but observe in the five major cities we visited that there was a noticeable feeling of optimism. Whether it was meeting Premier Zhu Rongji in Beijing or visiting a high school in Xian, the trade fair in Guangjou or the streets of Chengdu, you could sense a feeling of growing confidence and optimism among the people of China. This feeling was also present outside the major cities.In an unscheduled side trip, due to my early return from Tibet suffering from altitude sickness, from the city of Chengdu in Sichuan province our hosts took us on a 400-kilometre round trip to Mount Emei and the city of Leshan. The minibus ride through rural areas showed a side of China's economic growth outside the state owned enterprises and economic development zones. For mile after mile the roads were lined with small businesses, often not much more than a storeroom or workshop with the family home above. But each one was a hive of activity, some with modern equipment, some with primitive machinery. Some were small manufacturers, others recycled glass or scrap metal, others were garment makers.One thing that was clearly visible was the feeling of optimism and confidence—people who could see a better tomorrow and could see the role of their industry and trade as the basis for improved prosperity. This should be the basis of Australia's relationship with China—the mutual benefit of the people of Australia and China through trade and friendship. It is true that the delegation—apart from those delegates who completed the Tibet section of the visit—did not visit the poorest regions of China.The issue of human rights should not be far from our minds. Economic prosperity does not guarantee access to the democratic princi ples that Australians cherish. Economic growth can itself lead to exploitation, as the delegation was informed during its meeting with the Guangdong Women's Federation. The federation is conducting an AusAID funded project which looks to improving the rights of women in the Pearl River Delta. The study has covered issues including domestic violence and economic and sexual exploitation of women in the work force, and undertaken steps to prevent them.In this and in many other ways the growing friendship between our two countries finds expression. Overall, I was left with the impression that the people of China have high regard for Australia and have a strong desire to nurture that growing friendship. The issue of trade is but one aspect of our relations with China, a country which, while so different in many ways, has a great deal in common with Australia, especially our common interest in the future development of our region.I would like to thank our hosts, the National People's Congress of China, and the provincial congresses of Shanxii, Sichuan, Guangdong and the Tibet autonomous region. As well, I thank Mr Ric Smith, Australia's Ambassador to China, and his staff—in particular, Graeme Meehan and Peter Noonan. I also thank the Ambassador of China, Mr Zhou, and his staff—in particular, Mr You Wenze, who accompanied the delegation. Their valuable assistance made this eye-opening visit a remarkable experience. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Grievance Debate8815Question proposed:That grievances be noted.881516:21:008815Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—Since it came to office, the Howard government has set about undermining a number of important principles that have been held dear by both sides of politics traditionally in industrial relations. This government has systematically sought to undermine the independence, authority and powers of the industrial commission. It has actively sought to tip the field decidedly in favour of management and employers. It has deliberately sought to restrict unions in what they are able to do in representing workers, and it has deliberately sought to undermine the safety net minimum conditions that Australian workers are able to have of right.On that last point, we need look no further than the minister for workplace relations's most recent letter, after the last election, to the Prime Minister in which he wrote to the Prime Minister and complained that the Industrial Relations Commission had provided increases in the basic wage which were, and I quote the minister, `too generous'. These are the payments that go to the lowest paid workers in Australia and, in the view of this government, in the view of Minister Reith, they get too much money.Unlike their New Zealand counterparts, who established a revolutionary system overnight and abolished a whole raft of protections that existed in the work force, this government have been a bit more cunning. They have changed the ground rules, they have changed the law and set up new bodies that will do their bidding, with political appointees to ensure that is so. They have done all that to set the groundwork for a more gradual but nonetheless effective way of undermining workers' entitlements.Sadly, what we have now witnessed some years on is employers only too willing to take the opportunity to further exploit their work force. I say at the outset that the overwhelming majority of employers seek to do the right thing by their workers and understand that the long-term interests of their enterprise, as well as their decency in wanting to maintain standards in Australia, require them to treat their work force with dignity and respect. But it is the case that with these new laws that have now been in operation for three years employers have greater freedom in which to exploit workers, and that is exactly what is happening. I intend to take the opportunity available in debates such as the grievance debate and the adjournment debate to detail individual cases where that has occurred, and to do that on a weekly basis. These employer rip-offs need to be exposed. These employer rip-offs give the proof, the evidence, as to why we need to maintain a decent independent commission, an independent umpire that is able to ensure that fair play and fair rules apply. It is why we need to maintain a responsible and decent safety net of minimum conditions and not undermine them in the way that this government's 1996 legislation does, or worse, the way that their current bill—the second wave of industrial laws—tries to do. So I will, on a weekly basis, set out an employer rip-off, a real-life case, not fiction, with real people who are working in Australia today and who are finding their basic conditions undermined.I want to start by referring to one such case in Victoria. Victoria is an important place with which to start this expose because in Victoria the Kennett government abolished the state industrial system, so workers in Victoria are basically left with no protection. If they were in Queensland, New South Wales or Tasmania they could enjoy the protection of a decent state industrial relations system but, in Victoria, they cannot. In Victoria they are exposed, totally, to the ravages of the Howard-Reith model. I have here an example of what can happen under that situation. In some cases, it is quite sizeable companies that should be more responsible and should know what their middle management are doing. This account comes from a university student who was working for Safeway stores in Victoria and the problems that she confronted. She says:Each department is allocated a number of staff hours each week. This is sent from head office, but at our store the number is revised by at least 12 hours each week thanks to the Store Manager. The Bakery Manager gets into trouble if she uses more than this, so overtime is not paid. Someone comes to the bakery each morning with the adjustment sheet, and the manager or the second in charge will sign it and change your finish time to whatever time you were actually supposed to finish. Our department works a good 15-20 hours unpaid each week. Also, most of us never take all the tea breaks we are entitled to because we know we won't finish on time if we do. This is more unpaid work time.Part-timers sign a contract that shows which hours they are to work each week. This can be changed if you need to work different days or hours upon negotiation with the department manager, but generally this only happens if your university hours change, which is twice the year. Any extra hours you work outside of your contract are to be paid as casual rates. My new manager pays this, but the manager who left about six months ago would rewrite your contract each week, sometimes more than once a week, if you were needed to work extra hours. This meant that you were effectively a casual being paid part-time rates, as your roster was never the same from one week to the next. I don't know if this happens in other departments, it usually depends on the manager of each department and how much pressure they are under to cut their costs.She goes on:The store decides whether to pay public holiday rates on the occasions when a public holiday falls on a weekend. On Boxing Day last year, public holiday rates were paid to people who worked on the Monday, but not to those that actually worked on Boxing Day. I did work the real holiday, and was not paid holiday rates. After asking a few questions, I found out that I was entitled to holiday rates. I asked for the extra money to be paid into my account, but it did not happen until three months later and four trips to the pay office. I finally met the other pay girl who put it in that week. The usual pay lady gave me a different excuse every time I saw her. This has happened again recently when my pay was incorrect by about $70. I was told the money had gone in, but when I checked my bank statements I found that it never had. I have also not been paid travel allowance that I was entitled to when I asked. You are told that it will get done, but it never is. The store will do anything just to save a few dollars.That is the real-life account of a person who was working for Safeway stores in Victoria. This has happened as a direct result of this government's legislation which encourages employers to go out there and cut corners and treat workers with a level of disdain that should not be tolerated in our community.The government and their members will wipe their hands of this and say, `These things should not happen; our laws don't approve of this.' It is precisely this government's laws that have facilitated those sorts of actions—where employers think they can change people's time sheets and knock off 15 hours a week overtime, every week, and put it down as unpaid work just for the hell of it—because they know, when the bargaining is done one-on-one, where the strength is.This government's second wave legislation goes further down this track. They take away from workers the rights to long service leave in their awards, the rights to superannuation in their awards. They actually want to take away from workers the right to have paid jury service leave. Why would any government want to stop ordinary Australians from being able to serve on juries? This government does. This government's second wave legislation, which we will be debating in the parliament later this week, actually proposes to prevent the commission—even if it wants to, it will not be able to—from having paid jury service in any award. It is a common feature now. People need to contemplate what that means. It is not just an industrial relations issue.We in Australia pride ourselves on an independent judicial system, separate from government, separate from the executive, separate from parliament. Independent—where you can go before 12 of your peers and be judged by them. Under Peter Reith's laws, it will be 12 of your peers who are rich enough to afford the time off work to front up for jury service because he is legislating to take away their right to paid jury service leave.It is that sort of approach to industrial relations that has encouraged this succession of managers in this Safeway store in Victoria to think that they can treat their workers in such a cavalier and condescending way, to deny them what is their legally due entitlement, to say to them, `You may well have a legal right to that holiday pay, but we're not going to give it to you,' and then, when they front up, to give them all sorts of reasons why it is not going to happen. Workers and individual students like this—and we are talking here about a university student—should not be put in the position where they have to go and negotiate that. They are entitled to it. If you put that together with this government's plans on unfair dismissal, you create a very vulnerable work force. We will continue to expose a case a week, and these employer rip-offs will be exposed. (Time expired)881716:31:008817Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—Members would be familiar with my raising of the issue of Kessels Road, the so-called Griffith arterial corridor, which runs through my electorate of Moreton. In fact, Granard Road connects onto Ipswich Road, becomes Riawena Road, becomes Kessels Road and, when it crosses Logan Road, becomes Mount Gravatt-Capalaba Road before it all hooks onto the Gateway Arterial Road, which becomes part of the Bruce Highway network, and also goes out towards the port of Brisbane.This road has become a major thoroughfare, choking with trucks and causing a great deal of health concerns for a lot of residents in my electorate, and I rise today in this grievance debate to express my ongoing concern about the lack of care, the lack of concern and the lack of political will of the current Queensland state government—the latest incarnation of the failed Goss governments between 1989 and 1995 and, for that matter, the Soorley administration in Brisbane City Hall. Between them, these two other levels of government have been sitting on their hands, but I would like to report to the House that they have decided that the time for stunts is nigh. They have decided that it is time now to look like they are actually doing something.It is worth recording again in this place that, in 1991, the Goss Labor government decided to pull a swiftie and transfer responsibility for what was an arterial road created by the state. In fact, Riawena Road, the extension of Kessels Road, was put through about 20 years ago for the Brisbane Commonwealth Games in 1982. The state government at the time decided to transfer responsibility to the Commonwealth government, aided and abetted by the then Labor government here in Canberra.The prospect of a road upgrade to try to iron out a few of the hills and a couple of the complicated intersections—trucks proceed along this poorly designed transport route—is worth about $300 million. That involves grade separations at Mains Road, the corner of Kessels and Logan roads and the corner of Kessels and Mount Gravatt-Capalaba roads. If those grade separations ever went ahead, the traffic dislocation and the impact on residents in my electorate would be horrendous. It would also then provide yet another excuse for trucks to continue to use this route as a thoroughfare.It is astonishing that, at the same time as the then Labor government in Queensland, the Goss government, was pulling that swiftie, it was telling people in my electorate—in Kuraby, in Eight Mile Plains, in Runcorn and in other areas—that the southern Brisbane bypass, a magnificent, world standard freeway of four lanes, wide corners and hills and everything like that flattened out, a road ideal for heavy transport, would alleviate the truck traffic problem along Kessels Road. It is extraordinary then to think that the Labor Party decided to slap a toll on the southern Brisbane bypass which retarded its effectiveness. The residents were told that their rat run would go away, and of course it has not happened.It is also extraordinary to note that this southern Brisbane bypass, built for many millions of dollars, is used to about five per cent of its capacity at the best of times. It is an absolute scandal in the extreme to see that taxpayers' money has been spent on this road that could be used 20 times more than it currently is and still flow freely. I have been calling for the toll to be removed, in conjunction with some other simple measures like removing the signs that are on Ipswich Road telling people to use the no toll alternative instead of the toll road. I am all about trying to make these rat runs of not just trucks but also cars along Warrigal Road, McCullough Street and Padstow Road in and around Sunnybank and Eight Mile Plains a thing of the past.While this effort continues, I have been subject to `shoot the messenger' by Labor Brisbane City Council aldermen and Labor state government representatives in my area. As I said, the state government put up a sign saying, `Go this way and you pay toll, go this other way and you pay no toll.' There were two signs—one heading south and one heading east and north. I got the south bound one pulled out simply by shaming the Labor Party into some change, but do you think they will pull out the east bound one along Ipswich Road? No, they will not.All of this is background to the latest development—that is, a letter from the current incumbent transport minister, Steve Bredhauer. Mr Bredhauer has shown that he knows little about what is going on in my local area. When I wrote to him some months ago and invited him out to inspect this first hand, I received the usual curt dismissal, but now I am receiving requests for assistance in trying to help him get the Commonwealth government to fund noise barriers along the road that he has created, along the road that is now worse because of his, his party's and his government's own actions. I will quote one interesting line out of his letter into Hansard. Despite his great protestations about the sudden importance of this particular section of the national highway along Riawena Road in Salisbury, he says:. . . it should be noted that this section is not the highest priority for noise barriers—So he is having two bob each way. The other interesting development is that state members from my local area have decided they had better look like they are doing something. The member for Archerfield, Karen Struthers, the member for Mount Gravatt, Judy Spence, and the member for Mansfield, Phil Reeves, have discovered the truck issue and they have decided to have a survey on trucks to find out where the trucks are coming from and where they are going to. They only have to spend a bit of time actually standing at some of those intersections I talked about earlier in my contribution today to know where the trucks are coming from. Most of them are interstate trucks that are travelling through the electorate of Moreton along Kessels Road and the roads that extend from it to the port of Brisbane and to points north. Most of them can use the southern Brisbane bypass which was built at tens of millions of dollars in cost but which is underutilised. It could be used 20 times more than it currently is.The other thing I find extraordinary is that, at the same time, the Brisbane City Council says it cannot put up signs telling trucks where to go. It cannot put up a simple measure such as instructing trucks where they should be going, and nor can the state government. I think that would be a very simple, low cost solution. It is used in all the other cities in Australia. In Adelaide, Sydney and Melbourne there are signs saying that trucks cannot go this way, that trucks of certain sizes must not travel on this road or that only local trucks can use this road. I would have thought that would have been a reasonable thing and a quick fix. But there is no truck or transport plan for the city of Brisbane, and we are continuing to have residents in my electorate choking on the diesel fumes as proof of that fact.What has the Brisbane City Council also done in recent times? Its high density housing policy means it is rewarding developers who want to put high density housing against infrastructure. So what is happening is that developers all over Brisbane are picking up those parcels of land that are against railway lines or against main roads—like Riawena Road at Salisbury—and they are packing in heaps of housing.The Brisbane City Council has adopted this policy and it has been rubber-stamped by the Labor Party in the state parliament. This policy rewards developers for high density against infrastructure. The policy also rewards developers of housing commission properties with greater density. So what we have now is this extraordinary situation where the so-called workers party, the battlers party—which I thought used to be called the Labor Party, but we all know there are plenty of reasons why that is a thing of the past—jams low cost housing against infrastructure so the battlers choke on the diesel fumes and are deafened by the noise of infrastructure. That is an official policy—not just put forward by the dreadful Soorley administration of City Hall, Brisbane but rubber-stamped by the collective wisdom of the state Labor Party government in Queensland.All of the people who are currently protesting to me about noise barriers—from Minister Bredhauer all the way through to the local members and to Councillor Bailey of the Moorooka ward—support this high density housing policy. What these Labor governments have essentially done is move more people against the noisy infrastructure that they themselves created by their decision to make this road part of the national road freight corridor.It is an absolute hypocrisy that they are trying to tell people that this is now the responsibility of the federal government. It is an outrage that the people of the area are being so badly represented by these people. What I want is for the state government and the city council to get honest about this thing, to take this road back and to tell trucks in particular to use the southern Brisbane bypass—a multimillion dollar road which is lying there underutilised. That would provide a far better public policy outcome, a far more responsible use of resources and a far more equitable situation, particularly for the battlers who are going to be squeezed into these high density housing projects that are now being built all over Brisbane against big infrastructure, such as roads and railway lines. (Time expired)881916:41:008819Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—Today may well be the last opportunity I have to speak on the Badgerys Creek airport proposal before this government makes its final decision on the matter. Whether the government declares its intentions within the next week or two or holds off announcing its decision until after the New South Wales local government poll on 11 September, I would like to restate my position on this project and make some important points for the record.Members would know that I have had a long history of opposition to the Badgerys Creek airport proposal. When the idea of an airport at Badgerys Creek was first raised in 1986, I was a minister in the state Labor government led by Neville Wran. I have been a vocal opponent of an international airport at Badgerys Creek since that time.After I was elected as the member for Prospect in 1990, I was the first MP to speak out against the Badgerys Creek development in federal parliament. I have spoken in the federal parliament on the proposed Badgerys Creek development and issues related to the project on 29 occasions since 1994. Today's speech will make it the 30th occasion. I have placed 53 questions on notice on Badgerys Creek and issues related to the project in the federal parliament since late 1996.Along with other Western Sydney MPs, I currently have a private member's motion before the parliament concerning the devastating impact an international airport at Badgerys Creek would have on all of the people living in Western Sydney. I have made hundreds of representations on behalf of my constituents and community groups in regard to Badgerys Creek—to the ministers for transport and the environment and to the prime ministers in both the former Labor and the current coalition governments. Similarly, I have made many representations on behalf of constituents and community groups to the shadow ministers for transport and the environment and the Leader of the Opposition on the same subject. I have repeatedly letterboxed every household in my electorate with information and updates on the anti-Badgerys Creek campaign.I have facilitated countless meetings between representatives of local government and anti-airport community groups with former Labor government ministers and shadow opposition ministers, including the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Beazley, on Badgerys Creek. I have repeatedly opened my office in Parliament House to representatives of local government and anti-airport community organisations when they were in Canberra to lobby ministers and shadow ministers against Badgerys Creek. I provide that short synopsis on what I would like to say to reiterate again where I stand.At the same time, I have taken great pains to not just be a negative campaigner against an international airport at Badgerys Creek. The record will also show that I was one of the first people to advocate moving the proposed development outside the Sydney basin and linking it to the city with an efficient rapid transit system, or more particularly the proposed Sydney to Canberra very fast train. I have provided strong assistance to Goulburn City Council in its campaign to have a renewed EIS carried out on its Gundary Plains proposal—an EIS that considers the airport in the light of it being linked to the Sydney-Canberra very fast train.I make these points not because I am wanting a pat on the back but because I want to affirm to the House the depth and intensity of my opposition to the Badgerys Creek airport. I am certainly no `bandwagon jumper' when it comes to the anti-Badgerys Creek campaign. My concerns in regard to the airport are very deep-seated and strongly felt. The concerns of my fellow residents in Western Sydney are just as keenly held.I have arrived at my opposition after long consideration of the issues and facts. Throughout this entire debate I have strongly resented—and I know many other people who hold a similar position on Badgerys Creek airport feel the same—having my opposition to the project portrayed by its supporters as having been motivated by `not in my backyard' self-interest. Unfortunately, I have found that the majority of the ugly self-interest in this debate has come from the proponents of the development. Their battle cry has been to build Badgerys Creek and the rest be damned. Their solution to Sydney's airport crisis has been to take the noise and environmental problems of Kingsford Smith airport and to visit them upon the people of Western Sydney. I once again reject this argument wholeheartedly.As opponents of Badgerys Creek airport we have never argued that the problems facing inner city residents due to aircraft noise are not real and are not, in some cases, very severe. We have shown that understanding. We want to arrive at a solution that alleviates their distress. We have merely asked for a similar level of understanding to be shown to Western Sydney residents who do not want to suffer the same fate. Unfortunately, on the whole, we have not had the same level of courtesy extended to us. As the Sydney Morning Herald said in its editorial on the subject last week:Politicians in the eastern and northern suburbs of Sydney . . . have been determined to placate voters in their areas by pushing for a second airport. And where should it be sited? Anywhere for these politicians.Proponents of the Badgerys Creek airport clutch the project's EIS to their hearts as if it were the answer to all of their prayers. But if they were honest with themselves and the public they would admit that for every question the study attempts to address there are many more that remain unanswered.For years we have been asking the Commonwealth to conduct an in-depth study of whether building a second international airport outside the Sydney basin and serving it with a rapid transit system is feasible. These calls have been rejected out of hand. We do not know whether such a development could succeed. I think it is a tragedy that we may proceed with building a monstrosity like Badgerys Creek airport without even carrying out a thorough examination of such a proposal. We also have no idea as to what extent a very fast train between Sydney, Canberra and then on to Melbourne would reduce air traffic at Kingsford Smith and cancel the need to build a second airport at all. Indeed, the actual need for a second Sydney airport is one of the great unanswered questions of this whole debate. It has never been adequately addressed.Pro-Badgerys Creek agitators have certainly never mounted an effective, convincing argument in this regard. Instead, they have attempted to win their case by resorting to hysteria and shouting the loudest like spoiled children. Now many of them are resorting to blackmail and threats. They say that if Badgerys Creek airport is not built forthwith then they will blockade Kingsford Smith during the Olympics and make it impossible for people to either get in or out of that facility. I think the people associated with such threats should be ashamed of themselves. The EIS states:An airport with an annual capacity of 30 million passengers might not be required until much later, possibly about 2030. With advances in air transport, the development of other transport options and the more effective management of Kingsford Smith airport, that need might never even arise. Indeed, the Sydney Airports Corporation and the Charles Sturt University's Western Research Institute have said that in the medium term the best option for Sydney's aviation woes is the better management of Kingsford Smith, not rushing headlong into building Badgerys Creek at all. And yet here we are, possibly just a few days away from the government announcing the go-ahead for Badgerys Creek airport. What madness!Without a doubt the slouch towards building Sydney's second airport has been unnecessarily long, ill planned, inept, mismanaged and a sorry saga of the highest order. I am the first to agree with such an observation. But the level of dithering and the need for a solution to Sydney's airport problems is not reason enough to proceed with spending over $5 billion on the Badgerys Creek development and another $4 billion on the infrastructure when there still exists serious questions regarding the environmental and social consequences of building the airport, the economic viability of the project, and indeed the necessity of beginning such a huge project at all.Badgerys Creek airport should not be built simply because one side of the argument shouted the loudest; neither should it be rejected on the same grounds. The proposal to build Badgerys Creek airport should be rejected because of the lack of cold, hard answers to some of the most fundamental questions that still exist about the project. In closing, let me quote from the editorial in the Sydney Morning Herald once again. It states:The proposal before the Federal Cabinet that a second airport be built at Badgerys Creek should be rejected. The push for a second airport has been driven by the politics of noise. The noise has come from the ranting of politicians and the roar from planes as they flew in and out of Sydney Airport. This noise has overpowered what should be the real argument about whether Sydney needs a new airport in the foreseeable future. The evidence suggests that a second airport is not needed.I could not have said it better myself. The people of Western Sydney are banking on the Prime Minister to show the leadership and strength to reject the hysteria and the noise and face the facts and reject an airport for Badgerys Creek once and for all.882216:50:008822Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH2K6LongmanLP10—This afternoon I speak to the report of the Australian government purchasing policy and practice inquiry conducted by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit which was tabled in this parliament on the last sitting day in the last session. I did not get a chance to speak to it then. A number of issues concerned me greatly as a result of that inquiry and my participation with it, things which should be of grave concern to the wider Australian public.All state and federal governments and local governments combined spend in excess of $45 billion a year on goods and services—$45,000 million a year. Therefore, the decision to purchase from Australian suppliers some of those goods and services or, where possible, all those goods and services can impact on the Australian economy by influencing employment, taxation, technology development and ultimately Australia's balance of trade, which of course we should all be aware of.No government research is currently available as to the impact of buying Australian made per se. However, ISONET—the Industrial Supplies Office Network set up by the previous Labor government to assist both business and government alike to purchase Australian and New Zealand made products—has done some of its own research and has come up with the following figures. It states that every $1 million worth of export replacement—in other words, Australian made product that is sourced—raises $328,105 worth of tax, generates $1,216,267 worth of value adding with $210,082 worth of welfare benefits being saved and 22 full-time jobs being created. The mind boggles when you look at $45,000 million and 22 full-time jobs for every $1 million worth of export replacements that are actually purchased.The challenge for the Australian government and for all governments of all persuasions is to make sure that the Australian taxpayers' dollar is optimised not only in the value for money that we utilise in our purchases but also in ensuring that we purchase Australian and New Zealand products wherever possible. In the summary of the report that was brought down, we stated in recommendation 3 that the chief executive officers within the federal Public Service have a major role to play:The Committee suspects that some CEOs are not involved and do not place a lot of importance on their role in managing their agencies' purchasing. This is because CEOs obviously will focus on their core objectives that may relate, for example, to service delivery or policy development.That is all well and good but, if we take away the importance of the purchasing of Australian and New Zealand made products to the wider community and the welfare of us all, I think we do ourselves a great disservice.This is in contrast to the US system, where the US Government Performance and Results Act 1993 provides for agency heads to report performance against their objectives to the President of America and the Congress for each financial year. The committee has cited this example for the purpose of showing the need to assign accountability and measure the performance of agency heads and departments in delivering agreed performance objectives. In the US, they have legislated these requirements. We currently have guidelines which say that they must be followed, but the reality is that they are simply not being followed effectively by far too many departments.Some agencies were able to give some information to the committee as to their actual purchasing. In fact, the Department of the Environment and Heritage stated that they reported 97 per cent of their suppliers were from Australian or Australian based companies, but they had no information to determine from where these suppliers were sourced and where these sources of goods came from.We dug a little bit deeper into that. I would like to quote from a transcript. Mr Allen, who is the Acting Assistant Director of Corporate Services, Australian Antarctic Division of the Department of Environment and Heritage, was representing the department. I asked:You just said `Australian based companies'. Do you mean Australian owned companies purchasing Australian made or just somebody that is based in Australia and we do not know where they are sourcing the information from? Can you clarify that for us?Mr McKinlay from the department said:The data that we have provided relates to Australian suppliers—suppliers located within Australia operating within Australia.I thought I should further clarify that. I asked:Suppliers located in Australia does not indicate whether they are Australian owned or whether the product that they are supplying is Australian made . . . So it simply means . . . that it is a multinational which is based in Australia or which has a base within Australia . . . Is it possible that you have line items which are being purchased via a computer system into an Australian company which simply is a code number which then goes straight offshore and is produced and they supply it? Do you know that?Mr McKinlay's answer was:No, we do not know that . . . The more likely scenario is our buying equipment from a supplier down the street and that equipment being sourced from overseas.I asked:Does that, in your opinion, follow the Commonwealth procurement guidelines?He said:We believe it does. We certainly source Australian sourced suppliers.The problem we have is government officials saying that they believe they are following the guidelines when they are not following the spirit of the guidelines, which is to maximise the purchasing from Australian based companies. We should all be doing our best to do just that so that our balance of trade is enhanced and not put in a more difficult position. The fact that someone would stand up and tell us that 97 per cent of all of their purchases were from Australian based companies when the reality was that they were simply based on companies which have a base in Australia is somewhat contradictory to the guidelines and what the guidelines seek to achieve. The recommendation of this particular report went on to say:. . . where Australian-New Zealand products are equal to overseas items in terms of value for money and other principles in the Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines, then the ANZ products should be purchased.This is not a case of an option. The committee were of the very strong opinion that this is something that they have no say over and that they must do this because it is for the benefit of Australia. I remind you that it creates 22 full-time jobs for every $1 million of Australian product purchased as opposed to that from overseas and, of course, it raises $328,000 worth of additional taxation which can be spent on Australian personnel.ISONET is an organisation which was tasked by the previous Labor government and funded by them to assist both the private sector and the public sector to fulfil this role and identify for departments where they could purchase Australian made goods. It is a very worthwhile organisation, and it is widely used by Defence. But, in ISONET's own admission in its evidence to this committee, it stated that Defence was the only department of the federal government that was using it very often. We interviewed most of the departments' representatives and they told us that they did have MOUs, memoranda of understanding, with ISONET. Unfortunately, they very rarely use them. I put it to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that a piece of paper is hardly worth while when we look at what the ramifications are of the decisions that have been made.We should not take this issue lightly. We all know that `Australian made' campaigns—as we have recently seen with that of Dick Smith—do strike a chord with the Australian population, but this will take a leadership role from the federal government. I believe the role of the chief executive officers, in particular, who are well paid, is to meet specific criteria. I think that it is dependent upon this government to ensure that the chief executive officers have added to their assessment of fulfilling their role, used their resources to the best of their capability, have purchased from small and medium enterprises from Australia and New Zealand and have done it at every opportunity. This is not a case of what may be done. This is what must be done to ensure that the jobs that should rightfully be coming to Australia can do so, that the $210,000 worth of welfare benefits which can be saved for every $1 million worth of purchases are saved and that the value add of $1.2 million is also secured for Australia. Every chief executive officer and secretary of every department of the federal government has a role to play that is as important as any other as part of their position within the major departments of this government. (Time expired)882417:00:008824Cox, David, MPMr COX83UKingstonALP00—There is a crisis in South Australia's public hospitals. It is a direct consequence of inadequate funding by both state and federal Liberal governments. The state's own Liberal Minister for Human Services, Dean Brown, has likened the state's public hospital system to the Titanic . He should know. As I will demonstrate, he was the captain who first steered the course for the iceberg. The crisis is being felt most severely at the Flinders Medical Centre, which is the major teaching hospital servicing Adelaide's southern suburbs. It becomes obvious to the public when the hospital reaches capacity. There are two consequences. The first is a very long wait in Accident and Emergency for admission to a ward, which may mean a long period on a trolley in a corridor. The second is that ambulances may have to be directed to other major hospitals like the Royal Adelaide.On one infamous evening in July when Flinders had reached its capacity, arrangements were made to direct cases to the other major hospitals around Adelaide and, within a couple of hours, the whole hospital system became overloaded. A worse demonstration of the problem is to come. At 3 a.m. on Friday, 30 July, a 28-year-old man was admitted to the Flinders Accident and Emergency department. Two and half hours later, the patient died without having been seen by a doctor. It was the first time in 17 years that a patient had died at Flinders without being seen by a doctor. The Accident and Emergency department was staffed that night by four emergency doctors, two ward doctors and a paediatri cian, attending to 41 cases. It is a graphic and most regrettable example of the risks associated with an overloaded hospital system.Overloading has become a frequent event at Flinders, particularly in winter. The usual causes are respiratory viruses and flu, resulting in many older patients with complex conditions requiring hospitalisation. To the extent possible, Flinders has permanently adapted to manage this overloading. Accident and Emergency has been completely redesigned, with solid walls between beds which face into a central glassed area from where patients can be monitored. The solid walls are to reduce noise, because the patients can expect to be there for an extended period.In July, 175 patients had to wait 12 hours or more for a bed in a ward. At the other end of hospitalisation, a transport lounge is being set up for people on their day of discharge. It has nursing supervision and is somewhere people can wait for relatives to collect them so that they are not occupying a valuable bed in a ward. Flinders Medical Centre has also developed a new pre-admission clinic to reduce the length of stay in hospital of people requiring elective surgery. Patients are kept in Flinders only as long as is clinically necessary. One of the reasons Flinders fills to capacity so frequently is that it is relatively small for a major hospital. It has less than 430 beds. By comparison, the Royal Adelaide Hospital has 675 beds, the Royal Perth Hospital 700 beds and the Royal Brisbane Hospital 800 beds. Flinders did have 500 beds in 1993, but wards have gradually been closed because of budget cuts. It therefore runs with little capacity to do elective surgery. Only 20 per cent of admissions were elective cases, and only five per cent were not clinically urgent.As a result of the July overload of the public hospital system, the Health Commission asked hospitals to reduce elective surgery for eight weeks. That of course means lengthening waiting lists for those procedures. The waiting time for elective orthopaedics was already about two years and, for elective heart surgery, around six months. If you are in severe pain, are relatively immobile and need a joint replacement, two years is too long to wait. If you require elective heart surgery, a six-month wait increases the likelihood that your circumstances will become urgent and quite possibly fatal. These are some of the real incentives for people to remain in private health insurance if they can possibly afford it. Unfortunately, if you are a pensioner requiring a knee reconstruction, you will have no option but to wait. Once you are admitted, whether it is to Accident and Emergency or for an elective procedure as a public patient, the treatment is absolutely first rate, and I hear nothing but praise for the medical staff. Nursing staff, however, are spread rather thin because of cost-cutting, so some of the attention relating to patient comfort may not be as fast or as frequent as it would have been some years ago.The fundamental problem is that Flinders is trying to operate with a declining budget. In 1998-99, it received an extra $5 million to cover extra patients above its agreed workload. In 1999-2000, the only increase it has received is a small one to cover pay awards and inflation, but there is no funding for additional activity, and demand is increasing by five per cent per annum. This year, Flinders has been told there is no extra money available for extra work and it must reduce expenditure by that $5 million. The only strategies available are cost reduction and activity containment.The scope for non-clinical cost reduction is small. With a budget of about $140 million, the total value of the non-clinical support contract is only $5 million. The reduction in activity means shutting probably another 30 beds this year. For simple reasons of safety, the existing nursing and medical staff cannot be spread any thinner. One ward, 6B, has already been closed. The loss of its 16 beds is expected to save less than $1.5 million. Nurses at Flinders Medical Centre took the unusual industrial action of trying to work harder when they voted to continue to operate all wards, including 6B. Because of the safety factor, senior management broke the ANF picket line on 6B and removed the patients.The health minister, Dean Brown, knows it is a problem. He has been to cabinet and asked for an extra $100 million for the public hospital system. I was told by a senior medico from Flinders last week that the minister was claiming he had taken the need for extra funding to cabinet three times. I can imagine how difficult it would be getting $100 million extra out of the state budget at the moment. But, given the circumstances, there is no good reason why the minister could not get $20 million, and that would make a substantial difference to the overloading problem.Most of South Australia suspects that the reason no money is forthcoming is that the Premier cannot bear to give his old rival a win. Unfortunately, the Olsen-Brown conflict still stands as an impediment to good government in South Australia. But it was Brown as Premier who cut well over $100 million from South Australia's own expenditure on hospitals. The Commonwealth Grants Commission 1999 Report on General Revenue Grant Relativities tells the story of South Australia's own source public hospital funding in constant 1997-98 prices: in 1993-94, the last financial year that state Labor was in office, $394 million; in 1994-95, Dean Brown's first budget as Premier, $355 million; in 1995-96, $355 million; in 1996-97, the year that Dean Brown was deposed by John Olsen, $270 million; and in 1997-98, the year of the state election when John Olsen loosened the purse strings to get re-elected, $346 million.The same Grants Commission report showed that South Australia's public hospital Medicare base grant had gone up each year, in 1997-98 constant prices, over the whole of that period: in 1993-94, $330 million; in 1994-95, $336 million; in 1995-96, $342 million; in 1996-97, $346 million; and in 1997-98, $354 million. The state government has sought to put the burden for fixing the public hospital system on the Commonwealth by demanding an increase in its funding. There have been heated public exchanges between state Health Minister Brown and Commonwealth Health Minister Wooldridge. Mr Howard cannot see why the Commonwealth should increase funding for public hospitals when he says that the problem was caused by the states cutting them. That ignores the fact that he cut $312.5 million from public hospital funding in his first budget with a measure described as `Reductions in hospital funding grants to the states to offset cost shifting of public hospital related services'. Mr Olsen, along with other premiers, has bought into the health debate. There have been suggestions such as means testing Medicare, selling Medicare Private to raise funds for public hospitals and setting up a Productivity Commission inquiry into the health system.Mr Howard has never carried a torch for Medicare, but I doubt that he would buy into these arguments at the behest of premiers who want only to take pressure off their own health budgets—at least not until after the next federal election. What the public can see is Liberal politicians fighting amongst themselves while the public hospital system falls apart. My constituents have a very good grasp of this issue. They know how Mr Olsen and Mr Howard can fund a decent public hospital system. When they talk to me about this problem, they have a long list of things that the state and federal governments are wasting money on, and it would be difficult to argue with their spending priorities.882617:10:008826Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWSHK5MenziesLP10—I rise in the context of the recent revelation that the Australian banks had entered into an arrangement with the radio broadcaster, Mr John Laws, to downplay any negative perceptions of them and promote their image positively. More than a million dollars was involved as payment. Like many Australians, I was appalled at this revelation. What particularly concerned me was their preparedness to pay more than a million dollars to Mr Laws on the quiet, and who knows how much to others, while ordinary Australians continue to suffer at the hands of some banks. This afternoon I instance one case of unethical behaviour involving a constituent, Mr Gordon Thomson, and the Commonwealth Bank.Briefly, the facts of the case are as follows. In 1985, Mr and Mrs Thomson purchased a one-acre block of land at Wonga Park in my electorate. In 1987, they approached AV Jennings to build a house on the block. A representative of Jennings proceeded to arrange a loan for the Thomsons through the Clayton branch of the then State Bank of Victoria, now the Commonwealth Bank of Australia. After considerable delays caused by Jennings issuing the wrong plans, a loan was finally issued by the bank. The bank's contract required bank forms to be completed for the release of moneys to Jennings. Jennings provided a series of forms to release moneys which they had had pre-signed by the Thomsons. After construction commenced, Mr and Mrs Thomson became alarmed that the work was of an extremely poor standard. In a letter dated 2 August 1988, the Thomsons advised the bank to `make no further payments until they are notified that the Shire of Lilydale is satisfied and we are'—that is, with the building constructed by Jennings.The Thomsons did not consent to the final payment, but the bank went ahead and paid Jennings on 8 December 1988. In March 1990, the local council—the shire of Lilydale—was forced to accept that the house was not fit for human use and cancelled their approvals. The bank was informed, but it refused to take action against Jennings. The owners, the Thomsons, were forced to take action themselves.In defence to a claim for defects in the construction of the house, Jennings admitted to defects to the value of $80,000. Jennings settled the claim for considerably more than this amount. This action indicated that the builder should never have claimed his final payment and should not have been paid, even for the first sub-frame payment. Moreover, the bank admitted that the Thomson's words `and we are'—that is, satisfied with the construction—were deleted from a copy of a letter that it had. It would appear that this deletion, which prima facie constitutes fraud, was done by or with the knowledge of an employee of the bank. The matter of unauthorised payments was investigated by the Victorian Department of Justice. I quote from a report obtained under freedom of information laws:This complaint centred on the experiences of one consumer . . . He was asked to sign documents stating that his intended house had been completed to various stages at the time of signing the building contract. This is an offence under s.31(3) of the House Contents Guarantee Act and appears to be Jennings' standard practice. It was further alleged that if he did not sign those forms it would result in Jennings pulling out of the deal. This may be in contravention of s.22 of the Fair Trading Act—Coercion.The last objection was to Clause 8 of the Jennings Home Building Agreement which states—`Possession. The builder shall have exclusive possession of the land as from the Commencement Date determined in accordance with Condition 6, save that the Owner or representative of any mortgagee shall have access at all reasonable times previously approved by the Builder to enable the Owner or such representative to view the state of the Works.'Advice from Legal Services Branch is that a person can sign away his/her right to access to the property under the terms expressed in this clause.At first, it seems that this clause is harmless. But when considered along with the pre-signed forms allowing automatic payment to Jennings, it becomes a problem. The Owner when allowed to inspect the works may identify faults. However despite this Jennings will be paid as soon as they present those forms to the Owner's bank unless that person formally notifies the bank that no payment is to be made without personal authorisation.This scenario is not ethical behaviour and could be seen as a basis for taking action for unconscionable conduct.The report from the justice department continues:As the investigation has proceeded, another more disturbing practice has come to light. Several people have refused to pre-sign those progress payment authorisations at the time of signing the building contract. It is alleged that Jennings have directly approached the banks and attempted and at times been successful in obtaining progress payments from the banks. This has occurred without any authorisation from the account holders.On most occasions when this has occurred, the bank concerned is the Clayton Branch of the State Bank. Prospective Jennings customers are referred to that Bank when finance is not forthcoming from their own bank e.g., Westpac, NAB. Jennings have permanent appointment times at that bank for their prospective customers. When the loan is approved, an account is started at the Clayton Branch.Between November 1988 and November 1991, the bank received interest payments of almost $100,000 from the Thomsons. Despite this, the bank offered no compensation. What the Thomsons are left with is a house unfit for habitation, falling down around them. Tragically, the Thomsons have separated and Mr Thomson is unemployed. Seven years later, the bank knows that it paid against instructions but proceeds now to sue the Thomsons for possession of the land, as they are now unable to pay out the loan.Mr Thomson reported this matter to the police. The police completed their investigation without being able to speak to some of the key officials of the bank and without important documentation being produced to them. Hence, they are unable to proceed any further. It has been alleged that the person who arranged the interviews with the State Bank officers was dismissed by Jennings for dishonesty. It is further alleged that he was a friend of a key official at the Clayton branch of the Commonwealth Bank. Because of diary entries, the bank knows the identity of this officer involved in the matter at the time but appears to have done nothing to determine the truth.The loan application completed by the Thomsons refers to progress payments being made upon receipt of `a bank progress payment form'. Yet the bank officers were happy to accept different forms from the builder. Moreover, the bank officers knew that the progress payment forms were pre-signed and made payments even after being requested not to do so by the Thomsons. The Commonwealth Bank has received some $230,000, much more than the value of the loan in this case. The bank also demanded and received the benefits of the legal action by the Thomsons against Jennings. There are other disturbing matters about this case, but time precludes me from mentioning them today.Even before the revelations about payments to John Laws, I found this case quite disturbing. Essentially, the bank have been prepared to allow officers to engage in questionable conduct which, when raised with them, they have not be prepared to even investigate fully. Moreover, knowing that Mr Thomson is in necessitous circumstances, raising a child in premises that probably should be demolished and without work or even the resources to fight this case, he is being pursued by a greedy bank in a most unethical manner. The only positive element is that some members of the Victorian bar have been prepared to assist him pro bono.In the circumstances, I call upon the Managing Director of the Commonwealth Bank, Mr Murray, to investigate this matter properly and for the bank to withdraw its action against the Thomsons. If banks can find more than $1 million for the likes of John Laws, then how about a little justice for people whose lives have been wrecked by the incompetence, if not fraud, of banks? This is the sort of case that one would have expected Mr Laws to raise.882817:19:008828Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—The Howard government has waged a war on public servants and the services they provide. We have seen the systematic destruction of government service after government service. Every time a government asset is privatised or a service is contracted out, we see public servants losing their jobs and a decline in service delivery to Australians.This government is philosophically opposed to a public sector. It is philosophically opposed to providing services to the people of Australia. Rather, it farms those services out to its friends in the private sector and gives no thought to whether or not it is more efficient or more effective. Rather, it is done because `the private sector does it better; it's right for the private sector to handle it'. The government is made up of ideologues who are committed to private enterprise, who are committed to the private sector providing services that can be provided quite often better by the public sector.The government's present to unemployed Australians was Employment National and the plethora of agencies that attempt to deliver employment services to them. There are some good agencies out there, those that are truly concerned and working very hard to ensure that unemployed Australians are facilitated back into the work force and given the services they need. Then there are some very ordinary agencies out there, those that just go through the motions and get as much money out of the system as they can. Then there are the others out there who are failing unemployed Australians. The whole tender process that was involved in selecting these agencies was very flawed—very flawed indeed. The losers in this whole process are unemployed Australians.The CES provided a service that was uniform throughout Australia. It was a service that unemployed people could rely on, a service that delivered. It was not a service that was run for profit; it was not a service that double-dipped. Unlike a number of these agencies, we hear about record outcomes in filling vacancies and getting people back into the work force. Record outcomes can be achieved if the number of vacancies filled are counted three or four times. The manner of counting the number of vacancies filled can completely change the outcome. There is the recycling and the double counting of those vacancies being filled. But always the people who are being failed by this process are those who are the most disadvantaged—the long-term unemployed in Australia. However, this government puts everything aside and continues to fund the private sector at the expense of the public sector, which previously did cater for the needs of the most disadvantaged in the employment market.Legislation has been passed in this parliament to enable the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service to be corporatised. It is an organisation that provides employment services to disabled Australians who are seeking either to enter the work force or to live in the community more independently. Once again, this government has undermined the operation of the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service, which provided a quality service to unemployed disabled people. Rather, the government is looking at moving towards a situation where insurance companies offer these services instead of the CRS. One of the strengths of that service was the relationship it had with the Commonwealth Employment Service, Social Security and other agencies in the community, whereby they all worked together to come up with a package that would help those disabled people to find work.I know that every day members in this House would be receiving phone calls from constituents who are complaining about the poor service they get from Telstra and about the hidden charges that have slipped onto the bottom of our phone accounts. Now every time you need a service, you have to pay for it—once again, profit at the expense of service.Centrelink has undergone a major staff reduction and contracting out is slipping into its services. Literacy and numeracy courses have been contracted out along with other services that have been contracted out. You find yourself asking the question: is this government setting Centrelink up to be privatised or is this government setting Centrelink up to have all its core services contracted out? There is absolutely no commitment to a very strong public sector by this government.That brings me to an issue concerning the Australian Taxation Office that has been very prominent in the Hunter. I have had a number of discussions with staff at the Taxation Office. One issue very important to them is the contracting out of IT services. This is also a very important issue to all Australians. If I can describe the scenario that exists in the Hunter, what has happened is that one company nationally has been given the contract for IT services. They have subcontracted to another company, which in turn has subcontracted to another company. So it has gone through three stages. If there is one area that people would like to think their privacy was protected in, it would be taxation. But, with this plethora of IT contracts, how can we be assured of that privacy?Another issue goes to the actual operation of the tax office, because there has been a $20 million cut in its recurrent funding. The contracts have been awarded, but the agency does not have control of those contracts. Once again, we are seeing a reduction of service. I believe it is not being provided at a cheaper cost. It is disadvantaging Australians at the same time.Other issues relating to the tax office concern the withdrawal of services. The cashiers are going to be phased out, and people will no longer be able to pay tax at the tax office. Imagine it! A tax office that does not accept any money! That is what we are facing here in Australia. Inquiry officers will no longer be able to talk to people, because inquiry officers are to be a thing of the past. If you want to speak to anyone at the tax office, you have to telephone and, if you are very lucky, you will be given an interview. The small business section has been abolished with 1,000 jobs gone, but 4,500 more staff will be taken on to deal with the GST.Over the last few years there has been an emphasis on creating a positive image for the Taxation Office and creating a situation where the tax office can work well with business and the community. They claim that they are being helpful and that resources have been put in to allow this to happen. But we are now getting to a situation where there will be an alienation in the relationship that the tax office has with the community. You might ask: why after years of improving relationships with the community would the government decide that they no longer want to do that? Why after changing the image of the tax office are they now turning it around? Why after trying to develop strong regional services are they now doing away with them? The answer is the GST is soon to be introduced.There are going to be so many problems associated with the GST, because it is confusing, that the tax office is going to be inundated with inquiries. They therefore need to be able to remove themselves from that public contact. They are no longer going to be there to deliver a quality service that focuses on the customer. Rather, they are going to be there just holding the fort and trying to survive against the onslaught of inquiries and problems that will be brought to them on a daily basis. This is a very dishonest act—removing the cashiers and the inquiry officers—because the Taxation Office is supposed to be at the forefront of the government's new tax policies, with the GST and all the other associated legislation that will be coming through. I think that the government needs to address this issue. (Time expired)882917:29:008829Lawler, Tony, MPMr LAWLER834ParkesNP10—I would like to talk this evening about the issue of workers entitlements. This is an issue which has taken a very long time to be seriously addressed in this place, and I believe it is because of a lack of will that we have seen on both sides of the political divide. There has been no solution, simply because it has been too hard: there was no solution that was ever going to please everybody, so it has been put on the backburner.My interest in this matter is obviously because in my electorate is the town of Parkes, which was so adversely affected a couple of years ago by the closure of the CSA mine there. But I also have an interest because, if the union figures are correct—and I have no reason to dispute them—there have been 17,000 people per annum losing entitlements of which they are truly deserving.As I said, both sides of politics have, I believe, been equally accountable; but I must make the comment that I admit that in recent times I have thought that some rhetoric from government about the lack of leadership on the other side was simply that—rhetoric—until I heard recently a comment by the Leader of the Opposition to the effect that the reason there was not more done in the 13 years that Labor were in power was that `we did what we were asked to do'. Well, Leader of the Opposition, who asked you to give us 11 per cent unemployment? Did somebody ask you to give us the recession we had to have? Did somebody ask you to give us 20 per cent interest rates? Did somebody ask you to supply us with record inflation?The great, minute first step that the now opposition achieved when they were in government was to raise workers' rights above the rights of the tax office. Sometimes governments have to do a little more than they are asked to do. They have to take some initiative and show some leadership. This government has made some very hard decisions and has shown some leadership at the expense of taking a populist route: for example, taking taxation reform to an election. As the member for New England has recently put it, the Labor Party are out of touch, out of government and out of the game.In the issue of workers' entitlements, I believe that everyone has a role to play—governments, employers and employees. The reason that we have to involve all of these people is that it is not the fault of the government when a company goes belly up; nor, equally, is it the fault of the employee or of other businesses that are ongoing and still employing and still paying their way. The further away that we take the solution from the source of the problem—that is, the failed business—the more we fuel the culture that we have developed in society now whereby someone else is responsible for our needs and someone else makes the decisions for our wellbeing.When the funds for these rightful entitlements are provided from an arms-length supplier, it is much more likely that rorting by unscrupulous employers and employees will occur. We only have to look at the way costs have blown out in workers compensation insurance, public liability insurance and professional indemnity insurance to see an example of this. There must be a balance in achieving a guarantee of the rights of workers' entitlements without costing others their jobs by sending other businesses to the wall with unrealistic cost increases.I do not know what the ministers have in mind, but I would like to comment on some of the options as I see them. The member for Prospect has actually shown more leadership than the Leader of the Opposition has. She has been doing more than she has been asked to do, by proposing a compulsory insurance scheme. I do not believe that this is the full answer, for reasons that I have outlined previously when commenting on the disadvantages of insurance when you are removing the payment from the source of the problem. But I acknowledge that she recognises this by requesting that that be a starting point for the debate.A government funded scheme certainly has disadvantages. In essence, it would only be a capped fund and a safety net, and so we would still have the argument—rightly—about the rest of the entitlements that the workers should have. This would lead to more acrimonious exchanges, similar to those we have had recently. If we are going to implement a system, the way I see it is that it has to withstand the rigours of time and the rigours of different situations that might occur.In an ideal world, businesses would have the cash resources to meet all of their entitlements at any time; but, in reality, most busi nesses have the reserves to meet any called-on entitlements at any given time but not all the entitlements if they were all demanded at once. There are many impediments to having cash reserves. For example, long service leave only might accrue if the employee is at their place of work for longer than 10 years, and all employees would rarely make a demand on the system all at once.There are four big impediments to putting aside cash in a trust, for example. At the moment, tax deductibility is the big one. If an employer puts money aside to meet his obligations, it is not tax deductible at the time he makes provision for it; it is only tax deductible at the time he actually pays it. So that has big implications for cash flow.Record keeping is another impediment. It would be a nightmare on a month-to-month basis to keep track of all of the wages, long service leave and holiday pay that could be due to your employees all at the one time. It could be relieved by having a percentage of the wages that could be fairly and accurately reflected to show the provision that would need to be required; and an employee could show their willingness to be a part of this by agreeing not to accumulate holiday pay for any longer than, say, eight weeks.Accountability is another impediment. It has been suggested that if there were a trust fund this would be the first amount of money to go if the business ran into trouble. This could be prevented by having the trust fund cosigned by a second party—for example, a certified accountant—to make sure that the money is being spent for the reason that it was put aside.The fourth impediment largely is cash flow, which is certainly tied up with tax deductibility. If business were to put aside money in a trust, some ways to assist in alleviating the cash flow would be perhaps to have a choice between insuring, if they like, or having the cash in trust. If they choose to have the cash in trust, business should be allowed three to five years to build up to the amount required for that trust because, in reality, the serious money for long service and redundancy only really accumulates after three to five years. So having this provision would allow businesses to accumulate those funds. This would also allow new businesses to get up and running without the added impost of an extra cost, like an insurance scheme, and therefore it would not lead to the unfortunate situation where new jobs were cut.I believe my suggestion is sensible. It focuses on the fact that all parties have a role to play—government, employers and employees. We must recognise that no solution will be perfect; no solution will not create heartache for one group or another. But the issue will not be helped by populist grandstanding by those on either side of the argument or by media commentators. We need not be ashamed of saying that business needs to be profitable. If a business cannot be profitable, then there is no incentive for an investor to take a risk and borrow money or to spend their own money on setting up and maintaining a business. If this situation occurs, there will be no jobs. However, taking profit at the expense of employees and to their detriment is not on, and there would not be one reasonable business person who would say otherwise.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mossfield)—I put the question:That grievances be noted.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills8831The following bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or request: Damage by Aircraft Bill 1999 Australian Sports Commission Amendment Bill 1999 Committees88318831883110000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mossfield)—Mr Speaker has received a message from the Senate acquainting the House that Senator Allison has been discharged from the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territor ies and that Senator Bourne has been appointed a member of that committee.Bills8832s2238832Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time.Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Bills8832s2078832Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time.Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Bills8832s2088832Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time.Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Bills8832r8848832Debate resumed from 12 August, on motion by Mr Truss:That the bill be now read a second time.17:41:008832Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—The Social Security Amendment (Disposal of Assets) Bill 1999 —legislation that will apply retrospectively—has caused great angst in the community. Pensioners and senior citizens are rejecting it and believe it is mean-spirited and yet another example of how John Howard and his government are attacking pensioners and older Australians. In this year—the International Year of the Older Person—this government continues to attack older Australians. The quality of life that pensioners in Australia enjoy is being gradually eroded, and this is yet another example of how this erosion is taking place. This legislation is an attack—an attack on the standard of living and quality of life enjoyed by pensioners in Australia.One value universally held by older Australians is the desire to help their families. This legislation is preventing older Australians from being able to do that. Pensioners are no longer able to help their families out when they are in dire need. This government says, `No, you are not like any other person; you are not allowed to help your family. If you do, you will be penalised. Your social security payments and your pension will be lowered, and that will apply over a five-year period.'This government has continually attacked pensioners. It has introduced the GST. I was speaking to a large group of older Australians—there were a number of older Australians present at a morning tea I was at last Friday—and the one issue that they continually raised was the GST and how it was going to impact on their lives. They were worried about the increased cost of their electricity, the increased cost of their telephones. They were worried about the increased cost of being able to buy clothes. They were worried about the increased cost of every aspect of their lives. They saw the GST as a tax that was going to affect them every day in every way.Now, coupled with that, this government is attacking their ability to give money to their family, to their children, to their grandchildren, to be able to help out when they are in need. No longer will pensioners have the independence to be able to decide whether or not they give their money to a member of their family.The government has once again made changes that disadvantage pensioners in Australia. Every change they make is an attack on the living conditions and on the quality of life enjoyed by pensioners, and yet the government continues to do it. I have been searching to see if there is anything positive that John Howard and his government are going to give to older Australians in this International Year of the Older Person and, I am afraid, I am at a loss. I thought that locally I would do something, and I had a social work student, Michael Whiteside, come to my office to look at issues affecting older Australians. One major issue relates to their independence, their ability to make decisions and their ability to go out there and say, `This is what I want to do.' What this legislation will do, once again, is take away their ability to make a decision that affects their life.Health is an area that is of great concern to older Australians. The Dental Health Scheme was a scheme that pensioners used widely. It was a scheme that did not cost the government very much money to run. It was a scheme that provided pensioners with dentures, and if a pensioner needed to have dental care they could access it. As recently as last month, I received a letter from the Dudley pensioners in which they implored me to raise in this parliament the need for the Dental Health Scheme to be reintroduced. I do that and I do it in the context of this legislation because it is something else that this government has taken away from older Australians. They feel they are being forced to take out health insurance and they are particularly upset that $1.7 billion has been put into health insurance while they have to wait to have their hip replacements or their knee replacements in public hospitals. If that $1.7 billion had gone into the public hospital system, pensioners would not have to wait for health care.If you look at every avenue that this government is involved in, you will see attacks on pensioners. I think it was the member for Parramatta who the other day said, `Well, if a pensioner is really poor, we don't mind them getting their pension. We don't mind them having some money but, if they have a bit of money, maybe they should have to pay.' That bit of money that they have has been saved through their life. It is their safety net, their way of knowing they will be secure. As I have said, one of the things they hope they can do, if anyone in their family needs assistance, is provide that assistance. This government is taking away that freedom. This piece of legislation will force older Australians to think twice before they help their families. I implore the minister to rethink his stand on this legislation and think about those older Australians—it might be his mother or his grandmother that will one day want to assist a member of his family and they will not be able to because of this legislation.17:49:008833Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNEUU5PatersonALP00—I rise for the second time today to speak out against what this government is trying to do to elderly Australians. I may be regarded as a cynic, I know I am cynical, but when I hear the Treasurer of this country stand up and issue forth with the rhetoric about how televisions and sound systems have become cheaper, about all of the things the government is doing to make the cost of living better, to make things more achievable, I just wonder how those things apply to the elderly.This morning I spoke about the hardship that self-funded retirees face under the Howard government's tax reform, the GST. Now I look at the other group of retired people in our society—and I am speaking about pensioners, both those receiving full benefits and those receiving part pensions. Not satisfied with the burden of the GST, and what that is going to place on pensioners and retirees alike, the government has devised another load for the retired to bear.What does the Social Security Amendment (Disposal of Assets) Bill 1999 do? If you ask John Howard, the Prime Minister, or Peter Costello, the Treasurer, they would tell you that it closes loopholes that have been used by high income earners to claim the pension. But, if you were to ask them to put a number on just how many people have been able to get a pension, because they have been able to disperse their assets, they cannot tell you.No-one has been able to show that people have been able to get rid of their assets and go out and claim a pension. No-one has been able to quantify this. No-one has been able to show that gifts and bequests have been anything more than just gifts and bequests. However, if you ask anyone else what this bill will do, they will tell you straight out that it reduces the value of gifts and bequests that a person on a pension or a part pension can give to a relative or friend. It reduces it from $10,000 to $5,000.It will stop people giving their children or grandchildren more than $5,000 because, if they do, it will be treated as an asset and be included in the pension, deemed income and assets test for a period of five years. Depending on a person's circumstances, this could mean a reduction in fortnightly pension payments of $15 simply because they gave a child or grandchild $10,000 in that financial year.I grew up in a working-class part of Australia. We went to primary school without shoes on. I am a little younger than the Prime Minister but I am sure that our upbringing was much the same. I have listened to the Prime Minister talk about his white picket fence vision of Australia, and I just wonder how two people who grew up under similar circumstances came to such a different point of view of Australia and of what working-class Australians mean to each other.Most of the kids I went to school with, like me, lived in an extended family. They had their grandma or grandad living with them, or they lived with them. When elder sisters got married, they generally brought their husband home to the back bedroom because that is what working-class Australia stood for. If the family could give something substantial to their kids when they got married, that was the greatest day of their life. That is what working-class Australians are about. They are about being able to give their family a leg up. They are about being able to make it a little more equal, to just ease the burden a little. That is what they want, and that is what this government is denying them.The people whom I know, the people whom I get around and talk to, think this is a very harsh thing. I can remember that at weddings there was no big reception. The family would get together and cater. They might put a marquee tent up in the backyard and dad would pull out a roll of carefully folded notes, give it to his son and say, `Here, this might help for a deposit on a block of land,' or `This might help you with your car repayments.' They were the sorts of things that most working-class Australians dreamed of doing. But times have changed, I guess. Society has moved on. More families are able to get into houses of their own—I suppose they are. I know a lot of people rent, particularly in my electorate, particularly in the poorer suburbs. The amount of mortgage repayment is much greater than I would have cared to pay. When I hear what young people today have borrowed to buy their home, I must admit that I am very concerned for them because it is more than probably I ever borrowed in my life. In fact, the cost of housing has increased so dramatically that it has moved away from many families. It has moved away from lots of ordinary families, and those people will probably never own their own home, unless of course they can get that family assistance, unless they can get that help.Car payments have gone up too. I notice there is a smile from the Minister for Employment Services, who is at the table, but he is also aware—or probably not—that he has very low unemployment in his electorate of less than four per cent, I believe. But, if he comes to the Hunter, where it is about 11 per cent, he would realise just how hard it is for those sorts of families to exist and why they see the need when their children cannot get a job, when their children are condemned to life on social security, to give them something to try to make sure that they have the opportunity of equality of education and things like that.Times are tougher, and I am sure the Prime Minister will agree with that, particularly for the elderly. I am sure the Prime Minister, who loves the word `mateship', would also agree with the need for families to help each other out. I would like to know how this legislation is going to do that. This legislation means that, if a pensioner decides to help out, they are going to be disadvantaged because of it.This means that the generation who were taught to save, that saving is the way to security later on in life, are sadly mistaken. It means the generation who grew up with parents who helped them out as much as they could and who want to do the same for the next generation simply cannot do it under the Howard government.Today's pensioners have worked hard for their savings. They do not look on them as everyday accounts to be drawn on for simple purchases such as food. They look on them as an investment. It is the only thing they have to pass on. Under the pretty harsh nursing home legislation, we saw this government force aged people to sell their homes. Previously the home was about the only thing that a lot of these people could pass on. Now their savings are the only thing they can pass on, and they are not going to be allowed to do that either.Today's pensioners obviously have to be careful with their pensions. I know many pensioners who are going without at the end of a fortnight. They will often miss a meal or two at the end of their pension fortnight, particularly when, if they want to bring their pension forward a day or two, they are going to lose one-fourteenth of their pension for that fortnight. Of course, the government knows that the only time pensioners get that back is when they go out in a coffin.Is this the loophole the government wants to close? Does the government want to catch high income earners who help their children, or is the government just putting the pressure on the low income earners, on the pensioners, to make sure that life becomes as miserable as it possibly can?Here I can tell a story. I was contacted the other day by a lady. She is 70. She lives in a mobile home park by herself. Last Christmas, her family gave her a week's holiday on Norfolk Island. It is interesting that it was Norfolk Island, because that is the same place our Prime Minister went on holiday.This woman, being a pensioner, received the gift from her family to go away and she had a fabulous time. When she came back, in about June I think it was, she got a letter from Centrelink telling her that they were aware she was out of the country for a week. What happened? She had to repay $74.20 of her pension for that fortnight. She could not believe it. She rang my office. I could not believe it. She said, `They told me at Centrelink that, if it had been the week before or the week after, they would not have been able to detect it because it wouldn't have been on the computer that I was out of the country. It just happened to be the week that my pension was due.'I thought: is this not the story of Australia under the Howard government? The Prime Minister and his family go to Norfolk Island and stay at the governor's residence—a taxpayer funded holiday for the leader of the country. But a pensioner who has paid taxes all her life goes there and what happens? She is denied $74.20 of her fortnightly pension because she was overseas. I guess ministers of the government would say, `That's fair. That's the way it should be.' I do not think that is fair for one minute.If we have a look at the record of the Howard government and what they have done for the elderly, we can see that they abolished the free dental scheme for the elderly. I happened to be at a meeting of Maitland senior citizens last Thursday. The first thing that happened when I walked in was that one of the ladies getting morning tea ran over to me and said, `Mr Horne, I was at Maitland hospital last week and, do you know, they told me I have to wait four years to get my teeth fixed. I told them: "Take my name off the list. I'll be dead in four years".' That is all courtesy of this government. That program was worth $90 million over four years, but the government cut it.They have removed free hearing aids and hearing services for health cardholders. They have introduced nursing care fees. They have included an annual and extra daily fee. A couple of months ago, a pensioner couple whom I have known for some time rang me. His wife has suffered with ulcers on her legs for some time and he said, `I want you to see if you can get the district nurse to call in more often. She calls in twice a week to change the dressing on my wife's ulcerated legs.' I said, `If that continues to go on, your wife will lose her legs. Do you realise that?' He said, `That's what I'm afraid of.' The next time I spoke to him, his wife was in hospital and they were deciding whether to amputate one or both legs. For what? What are we saving here? The cost of having the district nurse call in to service this person is far less than eventually making sure she is in a nursing home as a double amputee.I had a lady call me the other day. She is 85 and her husband is 86. He is a veteran and he had a stroke six years ago. Here is an 85-year-old woman caring for her 86-year-old husband who has had a stroke. She bathes him, she dresses him, she toilets him, she does everything. Veterans' Affairs became aware of it and they gave her domiciliary nursing care for half an hour a day. The nurse decided that this 85-year-old lady needed an extra half an hour of care at night to get her husband into his pyjamas and into bed. That went on for a couple of weeks and then she turned up one night and said, `I've got bad news for you. You're only going to get half an hour a day.' This woman broke down. She was in tears and she said, `What happens when I break down and I can no longer do it?'These are the sorts of every day things that are happening under this government—the government that claims it has got Australia's finances back on track. I keep saying, `At what cost? At what cost to the ordinary working Australians, to the people who served their country in war and who are now in their time of need? At what cost?' This is the government that reduced rent assistance for shared renters, that deemed interest rates on bank accounts of less than $2,000, and the list goes on.There is no doubt that the Howard government will be known for many things, but I know how elderly Australians will remember it and they will not remember it fondly. They will remember it as the harshest government of their lifetime. They will remember it as a government that has taken away some of the few pleasures they thought they could look forward to in their retirement. They will remember it as a government that really took the icing off the cake.EZ5ABBOTTMr Abbott—Ha.UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNE—The minister laughs at that, too, but I urge him to get out there into real Australia. Don't talk to us about the supposed benefits of the Work for the Dole program. Get out there and talk about the real situa tion—the situation that this government is not addressing.18:05:008836Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—In introducing the Social Security Amendment (Disposal of Assets) Bill 1999 —which seeks to reduce the annual allowable gift permitted under the social security asset test from $10,000 to $5,000—the then minister claimed that the current $10,000 `free area' was, to use his words:. . . anomalous in that it is greater than the maximum single pension rate—some $9,400 per annum. The result is that under the current rules an income support recipient can give away more than that person is entitled to receive by way of assistance.With respect to the minister, as far as I am concerned this supposed rationale is absolute nonsense. It cloaks the reality that all this bill is really about is saving the government money, and in the scheme of things not much money at that—an estimated $750,000 in savings this year growing to $4.5 million by 2002-03. Is this really the way we want to generate a surplus?The Parliamentary Library and the department have confirmed that at no time in its history has the gifting provision been in any way linked to the maximum pension rate. I understand that some time ago the rate was around $2,000 but it was then increased to $10,000 by the Hawke Labor government as an act of generosity at a time when it was tightening up social security payments in other areas.The reality is that this bill has nothing or very little to do with preventing people who are close to getting a full rate of pension from giving away money. It has everything to do with making it harder for those people at the other end—those who are close to qualifying for a pension—to access a part pension.This measure will make it even harder than it already is for people who are asset rich and income poor to access a part pension. It will deny these people what many call the fringe benefits available when one accesses even the smallest pension of a few dollars a fortnight. By `fringe benefits' I mean the range of federal, state and local government and private organisational concessions available to pension cardholders. As detailed by the former speaker, the member for Paterson, I am talking about things like reduced rates, car registration concessions, reduced train fares and health care cards, although some who miss out on the pension can still at least have that.Denying people these types of fringe benefits is really what the bill will achieve. It is not about the effective delivery of assistance measures and encouraging more responsible attitudes in the community, as the then minister would have us believe when he introduced the bill. It is clear that what has happened is that the minister has gone to his boffins in Social Security during the budget process and said, `Find me as many little areas where I can save a few bob,' or perhaps Treasury have demanded such savings so that they can yell responsible fiscal management to the money markets where, unfortunately, our real but unproductive income is occurring but our need is not being generated in that area of the economy. But it certainly looks good on the bottom line. Far too often—and this is a classic example—the rationalists in Treasury are more concerned about that bottom line than they are about the impacts this miserly recovery of money will have out there in the real world.People are still reeling at the way this government changed the way super is treated under the asset test. We have also seen the introduction of the income maintenance provisions for income support payments. We have seen the proposals for the treatment of non-economic loss compensation. The irony is that people whom this penny-pinching bill will hurt most form a good part of the constituencies of current and past ministers. I am talking of course about farmers, and specifically farmers past retirement age—asset rich yet invariably income poor given the continuing low commodity prices, drought, OJD, and the list goes on. My office has been in touch today with the National Farmers Federation to discuss this bill. They agree that by reducing the gifting provisions farmers will suffer. Yet, as the bill has not received much publicity, the federation was not even aware of its debate today.I am sure most National Party members in this place, like me, have a file full of letters from farmers in their electorates pointing out how the social security asset test already does not adequately treat their family farm asset. One such letter I recently received from an aged farming couple eloquently explained their plight. I might say that that farming couple were in the seat of Gwydir, the seat of the Deputy Prime Minister. They had farmed their property throughout their life. They had no children to pass the property on to and so access the pension under the Retirement Assistance for Farmers scheme. I cannot recall their exact income, but it was well below that for the pension cut-off, yet they could not access the pension because of the supposed value of their farm. I recall that it was the electorate of the member for Gwydir. It may refer to one other case. I could stand corrected, but I am happy to provide the details.I say `supposed value' because they like many others in their area know they are highly unlikely to sell their properties for the amount Centrelink values them at. In their area, with the rural decline, we have the bizarre situation of very high valuations for properties because of Pitt Street farmers investing in the area but a high degree of difficulty selling properties at the same time, especially if, as is the case on the Tablelands at the moment, it is unfortunate enough to have ovine Johne's suspect status. Because these properties do not show a profit as farming enterprises, the main people who seem interested in buying them, on the Tablelands particularly, are Pitt Street farmers who do it for all the right reasons—to reduce their tax by negatively gearing into a loss making venture.Those letters from my constituents point out the inequity of the asset test. In this particular case I am citing, while their farm was counted, the principal family residence in the leafy suburbs of Sydney of their Pitt Street counterparts were not only exempt from the asset test but also exempt from capital gains tax. The irony inherent in all of this is that your Pitt Street farmer is going to benefit with their mansions being capital gains tax exempt as well as getting the tax benefits of investing in a rural property for the specific purpose of making a deductible loss. I should put on the record my concern that the current rate of investment in the grape growing wine industry is such that one wonders how productive, from a wine point of view, a lot of this investment will be and how many smaller genuine boutique wine producers, if you like, are going to be left high and dry by not only the new WET tax but also the oversupply of grapes that I fear will be around in the not too distant future.As I said, you can have a million dollar house or unit in Mosman or Woollahra that would be snapped up tomorrow and still be entitled to the pension, yet if you have a farm of the same value in Calare which you could not sell in a year for the price it is valued at you miss out. It does not matter if your farm is as dear to your heart as your home. Farms are not only counted under the pension asset test but, depending on how the rollover relief rules apply to you and when the property was purchased, you will pay tax on it when you sell it as well.I concede that the government has taken some steps in the direction of dealing with the rural decline and the problems faced by the ageing farm population. I did welcome at the time the Retirement Assistance for Farmers scheme, but it became more and more apparent that it only scratches the surface of the problem. It has proved to be extremely hard to access with only a fraction of the take-up expected because of the rigid criteria, but there is nothing in RAFS for those farmers with children who do not want to carry on the farming business or those who do not have children at all.While the government could have come in here with a bill addressing these types of concerns, all it has come up with instead is this penny pinching one. If, as the government claims, it is anomalous to have a $10,000 gifting rate because it is higher than a maximum pension rate, surely if the government is fair dinkum it should be going the whole way. If $10,000 is anomalous, isn't $5,000 still half an anomaly? I ask why members of the National Party have not come in here and justified this bill and stood up for their so-called constituencies. Perhaps they have not even taken the time to look at how it will impact on their constituencies. They, not me, could have pointed out that what this bill will do is deny many farmers access to some small mercies which might have made their retirement years after a lifetime of paying their dues just a little easier.Yet among the National Party, only the then minister, the member for Wide Bay, spoke to the bill. He could come up only with these arguments about alleged anomalies with the current gifting provisions. Perhaps the other members have not even thought about who will bear the brunt of this bill. I can certainly show them a couple of cases of those who will be affected. For all these reasons, I condemn the bill.18:15:008838Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—The Social Security Amendment (Disposal of Assets) Bill 1999 halves the amount of assets that a pensioner may give away in each year without affecting their pension from $10,000 to $5,000. This bill will penalise pensioners who are forced from time to time to assist in a family crisis by providing financial assistance to sons and daughters who may have found themselves in some sort of financial difficulty. The government is seeking to have these changes applied retrospectively from 1 July 1999. The bill also changes the definition of a year from pension year to financial year. Currently, the pension year refers to the anniversary of the date the income support recipient commenced receiving a payment.In introducing this bill on 30 June, the then Minister for Community Services, Warren Truss, gave no specific reasons for the introduction of the bill other than to say:The government is committed to the effective delivery of its assistance measures, and part of this involves encouraging more responsible attitudes in the community.This legislation continues the policies of this Howard government of hitting the battlers so that they can continue to produce a budget surplus and appear to be good economic managers to the financial controllers of this world. If we look at the legislative record of this coalition government, we see that it is aimed continually at winding back the financial support that medium to low income earners have either built up for themselves or was provided by previous Labor governments.For example, we have seen the coalition's attempt to force older people to sell their family homes to pay for nursing home accommodation. We have seen them forcing unemployed people over 55 to access superannuation entitlements before becoming entitled to unemployment benefits. We have seen them reduce unemployment benefits for 17- and 18-year-olds, forcing the burden back onto low income families. We have seen them producing a budget surplus by cutting spending on education, health and social welfare. And now, before this House, they are saying that they are going to provide more jobs, but they will be creating job insecurity and low wage growth and reducing conditions for the average Australian worker, as is intended in the second wave of industrial relations legislation. We now have the daddy of all economic rationalist policies in this International Year of Older Persons: they are reducing the amount that older Australians can gift to family members.This legislation is restricting the ability of older Australians to assist their children or grandchildren during their developing years while continuing their education or establishing a home. Labor is strongly in support of bringing accountability into the social security system. We would strongly oppose high income earners simply placing their wealth in low or no income producing assets so as to receive social security benefits. The current arrangements should remain that allow parents or grandparents to assist their offspring in financial difficulties relating to medical treatment, education, starting a business or buying a family home. Families are all about helping each other.As if this coalition government has not hurt older Australians enough, in addition to the general pattern of its policies of taking from low income people, it has been specifically petty in dealing with older people since coming to office. We have seen the abolition of the Commonwealth Dental Health Program; the removal of free hearing aids and hearing services for health care cardholders; a cut in the number of financial information service officers by some 25 per cent and the introduction of nursing home fees; deemed interest rates on bank accounts of less than $2,000; an increase in the cost of life saving medicines; the removal of the earning credit scheme; the removal of the rent assistance for shared renters; the tightening of the Pension Advance Scheme; the scrapping of the Home Equity Conversion Scheme; and, of course, now we have the GST. In fact, the GST could be renamed the `disposal of assets tax', as this will be the effect that it will have on the assets of older Australians. The GST will affect the ability of older Australians to accumulate financial assets. It will ensure that low income people have less opportunity to accumulate financial assets, and the assets that they do accumulate will be eaten into to make ends meet. It is likely that the full impact of the GST will not be known until well after its introduction date of 1 July 2000.This is really worrying low income people. What will be the long-term impact of the unknown aspect of the GST? It is predicted that pensioners and self-funded retirees will be substantially worse off under the coalition-Democrat tax package. Compensation for the tax will likely be eroded over time and in fact merge into normal pension increases. After a number of years, pensions would be no higher than if a GST had not been introduced. Most social commentators recommended exemptions from the GST rather than compensation as the best means of protecting pensioners and low income people. The fact that the coalition-Democrat package has gone for the latter means that pensioners will have to tighten their belts even further when the GST is introduced in mid-2000.In the Sydney Morning Herald on Monday, 31 May, in an article by Tom Allard under the headline `Pensioners fear benefits losses', concern is expressed as to how pensioners will fare under the GST. The article states:A boost to social security payments and the removal of food from the GST net has done little to convince pensioners and welfare groups that the poor will be better off over the longer term of tax reform. The Brotherhood of St Laurence Director of Social Action and Research, Ms Alison McClelland, said the compromise deal finalised on Friday was `not as good as it could have been'. . . `There's great danger down the track that any gains could be eroded,' she said, noting the retention of many state taxes would penalise the poor.And in the same article:The head of the Australian Pensioners and Superannuants Federation, Mrs Nora Maguire, said "It's only a 0.5% improvement for pensioners. All it means is it will take a bit longer for the compensation to be eroded."That is the very important point that I think this government should take on board: `All it means is it will take a bit longer for the compensation to be eroded.' Then there was a media release from ACOSS headed `Tax package will widen inequality and is still not acceptable'. I quote:After careful analysis, the Australian Council of Social Service has concluded that the new Government/Democrats tax package is still fundamentally unfair and is unacceptable.Michael Raper, ACOSS president, is quoted in the media release as saying:While the revised package is fairer than the original because it gives a little more to pensioners, unemployed people and low and middle income Australians it still gives too much to the well-off.The package will therefore widen the gap between rich and poor and the whole nation will suffer from greater division between the haves and the have-nots.Concern has been expressed about the retention of the many state taxes and their impact on the poor. Already, bank fees are set to rise when the GST is introduced next year. A media report also indicated this:The Managing Director of the Commonwealth Bank, Mr David Murray, signalled fee increases last week and his chief financial officer, Mr Michael Ullmer, did not back away from that stance yesterday.`The very fact of a G.S.T. prima facie—the bulk of it not being recoverable by banks—must lead to an increase in revenue to cover the increased tax,' Mr Michael Ullmer said.In the same article, the Executive Director of the Australian Bankers Association, Mr Tony Aveling, said that the original $260 million cost to the industry of the GST had increased since the deal with the Australian Democrats and the decision to defer the abolition of bank taxes. The article states:"The likelihood is that at least some of that will be passed on to consumers," he said. "But the abolition of the financial institutions duty in July 2001 would cancel out the higher fees."However, in the meantime consumers, including pensioners, will have to carry the increased bank charges.On top of this, the government has shown appalling timing in introducing this legislation right in the middle of the International Year of Older Persons. You would have thought this caring coalition government would have introduced some legislation during the International Year of Older Persons that resulted in some benefit to older people. But no, all of its decisions and legislation regarding older people are designed to make life harder for these people. In fact, the only attempt to introduce a debate on issues relating to the International Year of Older Persons was the private member's motion that I put on the Notice Paper and which was debated on 31 May.This private member's motion referred to issues relating to the employment of people in the latter period of their working life. This issue goes directly to the issue in this legislation, and that is the ability of people to accumulate sufficient assets to provide for their needs and perhaps for their family in retirement. The motion also gave members of this parliament the opportunity of raising general issues relating to older people. But the time allocated for this debate was less than usually applies in debates of private members business. If I recall correctly, there were three speakers, each of five minutes duration, compared with the usual time allotted to private members business of up to 30 minutes. I would say that the government and the parliament have given very little consideration in this International Year of Older Persons to the issues affecting older people.On that occasion, I spoke about the government's decision in the 1996 budget to force unemployed people over 55 to run down their superannuation entitlements before having access to unemployment assistance. That decision directly impacts upon the legislation before the parliament today be cause it is a retrospective tax on the assets of older Australians. In that debate, I said:What has not helped these people is the decision in the 1996 budget to remove the exemption in the social security means test for superannuation and rollover benefits for unemployed people between the age of 55 and the aged pension. Fifty-five seems to be the age that a lot of employers think is a good age to ease older persons out of the work force. However, many people in this particular age group still have financial commitments—children at school, mortgages and various other debts arising from supporting a family.The shadow minister, the member for Lilley, has drawn attention in his speech to the appalling policy process that this government obviously engaged in when it was drafting legislation such as this. None of the various bodies that represent older people—such as the National Seniors Association, the Australian Pensioners and Superannuants Federation and Welfare Rights—was consulted prior to presenting this legislation. The member for Calare has reminded this House that the National Farmers Federation, which also clearly have some concerns about how this legislation will affect people in rural areas, were not aware that this bill was being debated today. The government has not consulted very widely at all on this particular issue.Once again, the government is moving quickly to close the gap, even though this bill still has to be debated in the Senate. It has set a retrospective operating date of 1 July this year. From this date, any pensioner who gifts over $5,000 to assist their family will have their pension reduced. Of concern to all in this parliament is the advice that this bill and its schedules refer to a bill or act that simply does not exist. The explanatory memorandum to this bill drew attention to this:New item 127 provides that, where this Act commences on or after 1 July 1999, amounts paid prior to royal assent under the existing disposal rules are protected from recovery insofar as the provisions of this act are concerned.We are advised that the proposed item 127 refers not to this bill but to a bill or act named `Budget Measures Legislation Amendment (Social Security—Disposal of Assets) Bill 1999'. Such an act does not exist and there is no bill by this name before the parliament. What on earth is happening to this ministry? The minister wants to retrospectively nobble the pensioners from helping their families and then presents a bill that refers to legislation that does not exist. Clearly, the intention to nobble had far higher priority in the mind of the minister than the need to properly draft this bill. The attitude of this government towards our older persons borders on the offensive as they take every policy decision they can that severely affects the financial wellbeing of persons who deserve much better.Sitting suspended from 6.30 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.20:00:008841Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS5K6NamadgiALP00—The purpose of the Social Security Amendment (Disposal of Assets) Bill 1999 is to reduce the amount of assets that a pensioner may give away each year without that gift affecting their pension. The allowable amount of gift in any one year will be reduced from $10,000 to $5,000. Within the Social Security Act, the provisions of the assets test rules mean that an unapproved gift, for pension criteria purposes, will be deemed to be still held by the particular pensioner for five years after that gift has been made. Many pensioners find themselves in the position of wanting to help family members in times of financial or other crises, and we on this side of the House do not believe that the $10,000 limit has been or is unduly generous.In my opinion, this is just another example of this government tightening up on rules that affect our older citizens. Unfortunately, we have seen many examples of this over the past three years or so, and here we see yet another. The government says that it has to do this because some financial advisers are apparently directing recipients of part or full pensions to lighten their bank accounts to ensure that they continue to receive the maximum pension entitlement. I am not one for a moment to support the falsifying of any financial situation merely to receive what you do not really need. The big question here is: where is the evidence of overwhelming rorting? What number of pensioners are giving away, year after year, $10,000 after $10,000 merely so that their assets or income test remains favourable by that whisker required?The truth is that there can be no evidence. We have not had it displayed by the minister, and I am sure that, if it were there, we would have seen it. Again and again, the government has unfortunately displayed an attitude towards those in our community who rely on assistance—the unemployed, the elderly, the ill and those with a disability—that they have to prove their honesty or their need. Until then, the government will assume that the majority of them are rorters and cheaters, and they will be treated accordingly—and coincidentally, at the same time, savings appear to be made. But when we look at the estimated savings predicted through this measure—$766,000 in 1999-2000, $1.9 million in 2000-01, $3.1 million in 2001-02 and $4.4 million in 2002-03—I have to question the effect that this will have on the genuine cases out there balanced against these small savings, small in the grand scheme of things.As for the retrospectivity of the bill, I know that the measure was announced in the budget, but nothing is a sure thing until this parliament passes the legislation. I was interested to hear the shadow minister in his address to the House on this bill draw attention to this measure—this mean-spirited piece of legislation that has been presented by the department in its own publication, Age Pension News, as a law. What audacity and what respect for the processes that we are all in here participating in! What really concerns me the most is the impact that this will have on those who, through much difficulty, are in a position to offer some assistance to their family and who also happen to qualify for a pension at the same time. I know of quite a few people—and I am sure that many members in this place do also—who proudly and quietly step in when family are in a spot of bother, when they face a crisis and need a hand. Family is something we often hear of from that lot opposite. Family is something that we should promote and reward when they stick together.We agree with those sentiments. But under this rule, if you are in a family where the older members need the support of a pension and your family finds that a crisis is facing you—an illness of a child, an accident affecting the main breadwinner, financial pressures through unemployment or any other of these many examples—your family is going to be told that they can assist only to the tune of $5,000 in one year maximum before they themselves are financially affected. As I said earlier, I am not in favour of allowing people to falsely manipulate their financial circumstances to receive what they do not need, but I do believe that the previous gifting limit of $10,000 a year was adequate. As I also said earlier, no evidence has been put forward either that $10,000 was proving problematic or that there had been massive rorting to necessitate this legislative change.What I think has necessitated this change is unfortunately the mean-spirited, small-minded, suspicious approach of this government. You cannot, on the one hand, demand that families look after their own—as in the youth allowance legislation to name one good example—and then, on the other hand, remove some of the ability for family to support family as you are doing in this legislation. You cannot continue to claim that you are a government for the families of Australia—warm, fuzzy, feelgood words that we hear constantly—while at the same time we see deeds like this. An amount of $5,000 in one year is not a great lot of money. Some funeral expenses perhaps? Some money towards some favourite grandchild's first car? Some support for a young student needing help with living expenses? A couple of grandchildren who happen to get married in the one year? Maybe, unfortunately, a grandchild born with an illness or disability and the family needing some financial help? There are many reasons why someone may wish to assist their family.We must keep in mind those poor folk who work in the Centrelink offices and who will now have some additional tasks to do in keeping tabs on when that $5,000 limit is reached. How are they are going to tell and counsel those who may have gifted over $5,000 between 1 July and whenever this pathetic piece of legislation sees the legal light of day that they have to lose some of their pension retrospectively? All I can say is, `That's a really nice one, Minister.'Is it really worth suggesting a rethink on this issue? Yes, it is. I always like to believe in the commonsense and the fairness of those opposite. I say to them: do rethink this, it is not good policy and it is just so unfair and needless. Offhand, I can think of at least half a dozen families in my electorate whose members I have come to know through unfortunate circumstances having driven them into my office over, say, the last 12 months. In every case they have relied upon the assistance of older members of their families. Unfortunately, in some cases those older members have not been in a position to offer them anywhere near $10,000, even though some of them have.The point is, as I said a moment ago, you cannot bring one piece of legislation into this House which demands that family look after family and another piece that demeans that same theory. The $10,000 limit has proven adequate. It has not, to my knowledge—nor to the minister's knowledge because he has not come clean on it—been something that has been overrorted. Considering the amount of administration it will take and the minor, meagre amount of money in the grand budget scheme of things it will save, I would really like the minister to come clean about the motive for this. The motive is pretty pathetic.If families are in a position to offer this sort of assistance, they should be able to do so without this bind being put upon them. They should be able to be free within those limits that have been placed there—limits which appear to have been working quite well—for that to continue. There are members on the other side of the House whom I know, those I work with on committees and those I have got to know through the processes of this place, who I truly do not believe would be very much in agreement with this if they were to look upon it in relation to their own electorates. I give them all the power of my encouragement to have the ability and the courage to stand up and say within their own party room, `Minister, this is quite dumb, this is stupid.' In the meantime, I will continue to join with my colleagues in opposing what I think is really dumb public policy.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.8843Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.20:10:008843Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPCommunity Services10—I move:That the bill be now read a third time.I would like to thank honourable members for their contributions to this debate on the Social Security Amendment (Disposal of Assets) Bill 1999 . In particular, I would like to thank the member for Parramatta for his expression of support for the bill. The opposition has certainly made a number of ill-informed comments about the bill. I believe it is unfortunate that members opposite have not been able to resist the temptation to make cheap political capital out of the sensible approach proposed in this bill.The main thrust of the bill is about introducing improvements to gifting arrangements. The bill will introduce changes to the provisions which determine how much a person can dispose of by way of gifts and still qualify for social security benefits. I would expect all members to see these changes as being fair and reasonable. This bill revises from $10,000 per annum to $5,000 per annum the free area that a person or a couple may gift before that gift begins to impact on the level of their social security pension.The simple fact of the matter is that the existing annual $10,000 free area is overly generous. Under the current rules, an income support recipient can give away more than a full year's worth of pension, with the current single rate of pension being $9,400 per annum. I am astonished that members opposite think it appropriate—they even encourage it—that people dispose of their assets. In fact, I think those opposite are acting quite irresponsibly with their objections to the sensible approach adopted in this bill. It would appear that members opposite are endorsing a policy to encourage pensioners to devalue their assets and put themselves in financial hard ship. Is it not more prudent and responsible to ensure that older members of the community not put themselves into financial hardship, that they do not put themselves into far worse financial situations?This bill is not about people looking over their shoulder when buying a gift for a family member. The member for Lilley, whom I am glad to see in the chamber, would want you to believe that, every time a pensioner were to buy a 21st birthday present for a grandchild, they would need to look over their shoulder for a Centrelink officer. This is preposterous. In fact, I think the member for Lilley has been busy looking over his own shoulder in trying to keep up with the member for Werriwa for policy inspiration—and we certainly know who is the shadow-shadow member for social security matters. Whilst speaking to this bill in the previous sittings, the member for Lilley seemed to be losing the plot; in fact, I remember watching his delivery on the monitor. He seemed to be delirious; he was seeing things in the chamber, including me.This bill is not about reducing benefits for older Australians. I cannot understand the hypocrisy of the member for Lilley and his lack of sincerity towards older Australians. The government is about increasing benefits to older Australians. Under the coalition's tax reforms, pensioners and seniors will benefit. There will be real increases in pensions and allowances; lower income tax and higher tax thresholds, replacing scales that have been in place since 1993; refundable imputation credits; abolition of provisional tax; and, of course, the abolition of sales tax and wholesale sales tax.In addition, pensioners and low income retirees will not pay a cent of taxation until their income reaches $14,500 for a single, or $24,500 for a couple. That is a significant improvement. Pensioners and retirees may be eligible for bonus payments of up to $1,000 or $3,000 respectively, depending on their income and savings. More than 50,000 current self-funded retirees will become eligible for the age pension due to the relaxation of the pension income and assets test. This gives them access to pensioner concession cards and all the associated benefits. Certainly the pensioners in Richmond know this full well.The coalition has a solid record in the support of pensioners and seniors. Drawing back to some comments made during the debate, the member for Lowe made a number of comments regarding one of his constituents which I am unable to comment on directly. However, I would be happy to receive the details from the member for Lowe and get my department to look at the matter.The current $10,000 free area presents an opportunity that has been increasingly exploited by individuals to maximise their entitlements to income support. As the member for Parramatta rightly pointed out, many financial planners are actively encouraging early retirees and pensioners to take advantage of existing gifting arrangements and divest themselves of their assets to claim a larger part of their pension. It is irresponsible for the member for Lilley and members opposite to advocate financial planners and others advising people to take advantage of gifting provisions. When you read financial planning brochures and leaflets, it is commonplace to see tips on how to maximise social security benefits through gifting arrangements. I am appalled to think that the member for Lilley would encourage financial planners to rort the social security system.I note with interest some other comments made by the member for Shortland. I point out to members opposite that provision is made in this bill to ensure that any income support which is paid on the basis of the existing disposal rules before the royal assent to the bill is protected from being recovered insofar as these amendments are concerned. Centrelink customers who have given in excess of $5,000 since 1 July 1999 cannot have their payments affected by the new rules until the legislation has received royal assent. If someone's rate is affected by the new rules, this will apply only from the date of the royal assent. Therefore, the member for Shortland was incorrect when she stated that the provisions contained in this bill are retrospective.This bill provides for a sensible approach in relation to gifting arrangements. It is completely irresponsible for members opposite to advocate that older members of the community should divest themselves of their assets so that they can receive a relatively small increase in the rate of their pension. I thank the members for their contributions to the debate and commend the bill to the House.20:16:008845Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—We oppose this measure because it laughs at the family values of a helping hand and of loyalty.Question put: That the bill be now read a third time. The House divided. [8.21 p.m.](Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr D.P.M. Hawker) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 ——Voting details are recorded in the Votes and Proceedings .Question so resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a third time.Bills8845r8678845Debate resumed from 30 June, on motion by Mr Vaile:That the bill be now read a second time.20:30:008845O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—The opposition will not be opposing the Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 which is now before the House. This legislation seeks to make a series of amendments to nine pieces of legislation that come within the ambit of this area of portfolio responsibility. These vary from amendments of a minor technical nature to amendments of more substance which are aimed at improving the efficiency of existing legislation and consistency of application and, in one particular case, amendments which relate to what are considered by some to be very important philosophical issues, which I will refer to later in my consideration of this bill.For the public record, the nine acts amended by this legislation are the Plant Breeder's Rights Act 1994, the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act 1991, the Australian Horticultural Corporation Act 1987, the Farm Household Support Act 1992, the Primary Industries and Energy Legislation Amendment Act (No. 1) 1996, the National Resources Management (Financial Assistance) Act 1992, the Primary Industry Council Act 1991, the Rural Adjustment Act 1992 and the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Act 1980.Before I discuss this legislation in detail, may I offer my congratulations to the member for Wide Bay for his elevation to the agriculture portfolio. I have not had the opportunity to do so before on the floor of the House, and I thought it appropriate that I take the opportunity to do so during the consideration of the first bill that the minister brings into the parliament in his new responsibility. I think it is an honour for anyone, from any party, to serve the farmers, the foresters and the fishermen throughout Australia in the capacity of Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry.While it is the task of the opposition to create as many headaches as possible for the minister of the day, I am sure that, among the many headaches that we on this side of the House will be creating for the minister, the honourable member will derive a large amount of enjoyment from the privileged position he now enjoys as the minister for agriculture. I note that the minister has just come into the House.Having said that, it is incumbent on me to say that it is our intention on this side of the House to retire this government at the earliest electoral opportunity. We will attempt to do that, Minister, without extreme prejudice in a manner which I am sure you understand fully and are familiar with, because the issues of the day that you are confronting—and your department and your constituency are confronting—are substantial. They are quite enormous.The rural sector is an agricultural exporting sector; 80 per cent of its output finds its way into the international marketplace. It is a sector that must deal with low commodity prices which in many cases have historically trended down. Farmers must contend with the fluctuating exchange rates in our financial sector, the vagaries of our climate and a general decline in rural communities, while at the same time trying to sustain a productive agricultural base in the sector. It demands not only a degree of sophistication from those farmers and other producers down the chain but also a fairly sophisticated response from government. Therefore, I wish the minister well.I hope that the minister is able to achieve a degree of balance between his family and his ministerial responsibilities, because it is very important at this point for the rural sector to have an active minister in the bowels of government where senior members of the Liberal coalition really pay no heed and where the urban lawyers and stockbrokers in the Liberal Party really do not have the interests of farmers and their families at heart. I notice that the parliamentary secretary at the table, Mr Slipper, is having a gentle laugh at that. Of course, we know that the honourable parliamentary secretary has had a foot on both sides of the fence, so to speak. But I do wish the minister well, and I hope, as I said, he achieves a good balance between the responsibilities of his family and the demands of ministerial office.As far as this omnibus bill is concerned, I note that the amendments to the Australian Horticultural Corporation Act 1987, the Farm Household Support Act 1992 and the Primary Industries and Energy Legislation Amendment Act (No. 1) 1996 are mainly technical amendments. They are there to correct minor errors in those acts. They are part of the normal ongoing tidying up process that relates to all legislation in this parliament and do not require extensive discussion here.Schedule 1 of this bill relates to amendments to the Plant Breeder's Rights Act 1994. As I understand it, the main thrust of the government's proposal is to amend the act to require persons who are objecting to a decision by the Registrar of Plant Breeder's Rights to lodge a fee before the objection is considered. It is also to require the unsuccess ful party to any registration dispute to bear the cost of any test planting ordered by the registrar, and to allow the registrar to recover the cost of any test planting undertaken on behalf of another country.The Plant Breeder's Rights Act was legislation enacted while Labor was in power. While the issue of PBR is not one that consistently headlines the rural press or the general media in the community, it is an issue of considerable complexity involving important philosophical and, I would say, commercial considerations. The act was conceived to provide commercial protection to breeders who had invested their money, skill and efforts to the development of new plant varieties and to provide a regulatory framework in which such claims could be scientifically tested and assessed. At the time, Australia had fallen behind its competitors in this area of development and the act was seen as an important mechanism to encourage private investment activity in such research in the face of declining public investment by state governments and other public institutions.But there has always remained a tension between the commercial imperative in this area of the agriculture portfolio and the need to protect the public interest and common property rights that we all enjoy. Therefore, in our great democracy, we strive for balance between the pursuit of legitimate private interests and the maintenance of public good. Part of that process is to ensure that those who seek to garner profit from elements of the public domain justify in a transparent way the claims that they make with regard to the development of new varieties of plants. An equally important part of that process is to ensure that those individuals and organisations who have legitimate interests in contesting these claims are able to do so without undue impediment.The amendments relating to the introduction of fees and the awarding of costs are intended to bring this part of the legislation into broad line with the principles that apply in other legislative areas. While the opposition has no argument with that principle, we would view with real concern any attempt to stifle the process of legitimate objection to the granting of plant breeders' rights by individuals or organisations within the larger community. I have no quarrel with any objective to maintain the disincentive for frivolous and vexatious claims, as stated on page 2 of the explanatory memorandum, which was circulated to this House with the act. However, the proper operation of this legislation must at the end of the day ensure that adequate balance is maintained between the private and the public interest.As an opposition, we will be monitoring the operations of these amendments very closely and we reserve our right at a future stage to revisit this legislation to ensure that our objectives are adequately met and to exercise the normal prerogatives of an opposition should we find that this is not so.The amendment also ensures that the costs associated with any test growing conducted on behalf of another country here in Australia can be recovered in full by the appropriate authorities. This is a sensible amendment. The Australian growing conditions are conducive to the testing of certain varieties, and this provision may well assist plant breeders in Australia to gain access to other markets. It is an amendment that we generally support.Moving on to schedule 2 of this act, amendments are being made to the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act 1991 to allow for uniformity in levy collection techniques and to generally improve the efficiency of collection of levies and export charges. In particular, these amendments incorporate settlement agents and solicitors into the legislation as collectors of levies and charges. The opposition does not have any objection to the amendments that are being proposed in this schedule. I have already mentioned the minor technical amendments to three acts which form the basis of schedule 3 of this act.Let me now turn to schedule 4 which amends the Natural Resources Management (Financial Assistance) Act 1992. This amendment replaces the name of the National Landcare Advisory Committee in the legislation with the Australian Landcare Council. The aim of that committee—now renamed the Australian Landcare Council—is to advise the minister on natural resource management issues. The structure and functions of the old committee remain unchanged. I note that the chair of the Australian Landcare Council, as it will be renamed, is a former member of this House—I think he was the honourable member for Murray—Bruce Lloyd. Bruce is held in quite high esteem, I think, on both sides of the House and has taken an active interest in landcare issues over a long period. He pursues his chairmanship of that council with a degree of impartiality that we appreciate.In the course of the last parliament, I did have cause to meet the chairman of the old committee and the new Australian Landcare Council on my travels as Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition. I happened to meet him in Darwin on one occasion when the committee was meeting there, as it does in rural areas. At that point in time, he offered the good assistance of his officers to brief the opposition on matters relating to landcare, and I did appreciate his gestures.The landcare movement is one of Labor's great rural initiatives. It is worth going over some of the objectives of that program because it does occupy a central place in the agriculture portfolio, and will over the next decade. One of the major objectives of that program is to facilitate the development and implementation of integrated approaches to national resource management for the purpose of achieving efficient, sustainable and equitable management of natural resources in Australia, consistent with the principles of ecologically sustainable development. Another objective is to promote community, industry and government partnerships in the management of natural resources in Australia and to enhance the long-term productivity of natural resources in Australia.There are some great strengths of this great Labor initiative. It has brought the focus of resources within the Commonwealth on the problem of sustainable management of our natural resources. But one of the enduring benefits of the Landcare program is the way it has engendered partnerships in communities all across Australia. It has been a major agent in changing the culture of farming practice, and I would say changing the culture of farming in Australia. One of the important things that it has done is it has brought quite disparate elements within the community together to grapple with some of the great problems that we face in maintaining the productivity of our agricultural base. Environmentalists, unionists, general members of the community, members of industry, members of local government, farmers, their organisations and women's networks have all been brought in under the umbrella of the landcare movement.It is pleasing to see that the government has continued funding of the initiative. I do not endorse the particular source of the funds. They could have come out of general revenue, not from flogging off our great communications assets. There are many in rural Australia who would agree with me on that point. They would agree with me on two points. Firstly, they would agree that it was a great Labor initiative and worth continuing. Secondly, they would roundly condemn the government for flogging off one of Australia's great communications assets to continue the process of funding these sorts of initiatives. I would just say to the minister that the landcare network is very important to farmers in the communities, and I am sure that, as he moves about the rural sector as I do, he will gain an appreciation of that.There is a concern in the rural communities at the moment about the future of landcare coordinators and the funding of those coordinators in rural communities. There is a degree of funding uncertainty, and I think the government ought to clarify that for those communities at the earliest opportunity.I was recently in the minister's home state in central west Queensland and had cause to meet with farmers who are members of the Aramac Landcare Group who have a problem with the prickly acacia, as the minister would be aware. Of course, if we are going to come to terms with the problems that are posed in these very fragile environments by these noxious weeds that are spreading at an alarming rate and threatening the livelihoods of farmers and the communities which sustain them, these landcare groups are going to be very important indeed in assisting government and opposition in formulating national strategies that have bipartisan support that can address some of these very substantial issues.Schedule 5 of the act amends the Primary Industry Councils Act 1991. There are provisions under that act that allow for the establishment of a Grains Industry Council to advise the government on the strategic direction of the grains industry, following the privatisation of the Australian Wheat Board. This amendment removes that provision. Those industry councils were very important and broad sources of advice to government. I certainly hope that the minister has some other framework in mind that will deliver to him the appropriate advice from a broad cross-section of operators within the grains industry because it is, I would say, one of the most important primary industries in the sector and one on which the growth of Australian exports and the survival of many rural communities depend quite considerably.Schedule 6 of this legislation amends the Rural Adjustment Act 1992. The name of the Rural Adjustment Scheme Advisory Council is changed to the National Rural Advisory Council. This occurs in light of the government's wind down of the Rural Adjustment Scheme, and the functions of the council are changed to remove reference to the scheme. Its primary role will now be to advise the minister on exceptional circumstances, payments and adjustment issues generally. This body, the new council, will advise the minister on rural adjustment matters, regional issues, matters relating to the declarations of exceptional circumstances and, of course, training issues as they relate to the rural sector.I note that in the explanatory memorandum there is a requirement that this body report to the minister on any other matters that the minister requests advice on or information about. That is a fairly broad brief for anybody, I might say, and I hope the members of that committee are not shaking in their boots tonight over that broad provision in this legislation.I think it is important that, in the face of the government's abandonment of the regional development program in its first term of office, it does keep a handle on regional issues, particularly regional development issues. We were concerned at the time—and we expressed those concerns publicly both in this House and in the general community—that the government had abolished that regional development program. It took us a long time to persuade the bureaucracy, especially Treasury and Finance, that it was appropriate to develop a program of this type and to fund it out of general revenue, and it was disappointing that the government saw fit in its first term of office to abolish that program.The rural sector has undergone enormous structural change over the past 15 years in response to both macro and micro economic pressures that have been brought to bear on the sector. We have seen significant changes to production techniques, the adoption of new technologies, the greater use of capital technologies on farm and, in the broad sense, a greater deregulation of markets. Those adjustment pressures are certainly not going to abate. The global pressures on the rural sector are immense, and both sides of the House note the importance of the forthcoming WTO round to the agriculture sector in this country. It is absolutely essential that we leave greater access to overseas markets so that not only do our primary producers survive but those who are employed in the value adding chain are able to maintain their employment in those firms operating in the sector.I might make some reference to schedule 7 of this legislation which relates to amendments to the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Act 1980. The bill amends sections of the act dealing with inspection powers and record keeping in order to make prosecutions for misleading labelling easier. The proposed amendments do not impose new compliance measures but seek to clarify provisions which have made enforcement difficult and thus jeopardise Australia's ability to meet its international obligations under the EU-Australia wine agreement.I want to make a passing point here about the issue of new compliance measures and costs on industry. We certainly agree with this amendment because it was done after con siderable consultation with the industry and the government was seeking to not impose any more compliance burdens on the wine industry. But we do note that next year the government is going to impose a GST, a wine equalisation tax—which has the industry up in arms—and generally a new tax on the farming community, which the National Farmers Federation has stated will significantly increase compliance costs and burdens for the farming community.We have always held the view that, when the government articulated the benefits of the GST to the rural sector, it overstated the benefits that would flow to the sector. It has always been our job to clean-up the mess left by Liberal and National Party governments and, as time pans out over the next five years, we will have to wind back and roll back the GST and once again put the rural sector in a more advantageous position than it will be with the introduction of this tax.In conclusion, might I congratulate the wine industry on its recent export achievement. It passed the $1 billion export mark well ahead of schedule and it certainly earned the congratulations of all in this House for that magnificent effort. In 1997-98, over 50 per cent of our wine exports went to the European Union. The substance of this amendment will assist the wine industry in sustaining and improving its access to that market. I note also that the industry now exports 35 per cent of its production, and that percentage is rising.I must say that, when I came to this portfolio and reviewed the rural industries that comprise the sector, this was one industry that really stood out—stood out in its ability to plan, to articulate a vision, to give a framework for new entrants coming into the industry and to encourage them to invest. It set out very clearly the goals that the industry needed to achieve. I note that it reached the export sales target in July 1999, which I think was five months ahead of the time it had—GT4TRUSSMr Truss—Eighteen actually.WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNOR—I am sorry; I stand corrected. I thought it was five months, but 18 months is even better, isn't it, Minister? It is a very significant achievement by the indus try. It has come about by an industry developing a vision for itself—a vision of where it wants to go, giving encouragement to new entrants and investors, being export oriented, seeking to skill up those participants in the industry and investing in new technologies to the point where Australia is acknowledged to be a world leader in new wine techniques and new wine technology. It is an enormous achievement. It is a great achievement. It is an industry that is of vital significance to rural communities because of its linkages with rural tourism. I congratulate the industry on its achievement. I conclude my remarks by saying that we do not seek to oppose elements of this legislation, but there are some provisions in it and we will be watching the operation of those amendments very closely.21:00:008850Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANEWN6GroomLP10—Whilst I note the bipartisan attitude of the member for Corio, I will have to pass up his offer to right the agricultural industry when the Labor Party returns to power, and may that not be in my lifetime. I remember when Labor were in power and the favours they did us as farmers. Was it 22 per cent interest rates? I think it might have been. I think that probably caused more pain and grief in the rural sector than some of the horrific droughts which I worked through with previous ministers for agriculture and primary industries, Bob Collins and Simon Crean. To his credit, Bob Collins worked with primary industry and had a decent understanding of it being a producer himself. But there would be many out there who would dread the thought of returning to Labor and returning to the sort of economic management we saw.Whilst on the issue of economic management, I pass over the highly important subject of low interest rates and turn to the introduction of a new tax system. I again correct the member for Corio by saying that in my experience and in the conversations I have had with the NFF—and I do happen to know the NFF reasonably intimately—they are looking forward to the introduction of a GST. They are looking forward to a reduction in wholesale sales tax. They are looking forward to lower diesel costs. Those are the sorts of things that the Labor Party opposed. I can assure the House that the rural sector is sitting very comfortably with the coalition government at the moment and the reforms we have introduced, the economic management we have in place and the opportunities we are providing for the future.As has been said about the Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 , it covers a range of areas such as amendments to the Plant Breeder's Rights Act; the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act; the Natural Resource Management (Financial Assistance) Act; the Primary Industry Councils Act, an area in which I have a particular interest; the Rural Adjustment Act; and the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Act. These amendments in the main bring about fairness, conformity, uniformity and equity.When we introduced the Plant Breeder's Rights Act we did so with the best intent of ensuring that the Plant Variety Rights Act was replaced with an act which would encourage the greater use of plant breeder's rights here in Australia. Plant breeder's rights are fundamental to ensuring that we get better varieties here to give our farmers a greater competitive edge and to ensure that we are able to compete on an unlevel playing field in the international marketplace. These proposed transitional arrangements contained under the amendments relate to affected applicants who, with the introduction of that new act, lost the opportunity to keep their applications relevant. These transitional arrangements look at reinstating those applications and, in doing so, will hopefully restore some of the fairness that was lost.The purpose of the amendments to section 37 are twofold and cover the area of recovery of costs associated with testing a new plant variety when conducted at the request of another country. This again is an issue of fairness, of ensuring the integrity of the act and of ensuring that there is the opportunity for plant variety rights to be protected. Australia is one of approximately 43 countries which are members of the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants. It is important that our acts work with regard to that undertaking. The amendment also has the provision of sheeting home to the unsuccessful party in such a request for a test the cost of that test. This brings about even further equity because, whilst removing the opportunity for frivolous claims, it ensures that the party who is proved to be right is not subjected to the costs of that appeal. Again, as I have said, this will bring about a fairer approach to those participating under this legislation.Some other changes have been introduced, and I will speak briefly about those which relate to the issue of record keeping in the PBR Office. Under the amendments, we are going to allow a single hard copy of the register to be maintained. This is just simply commonsense and is a cost-effective way of ensuring that records are kept, thus protecting the rights of the plant breeders while at the same time not fostering a bureaucratic industry. Section 21 extends the allowable time in which the PBR Office must be notified and respond when rights to a variety are assigned to another person. Amendments to subsection 80(2) clarify the time, manner and circumstances in which fees imposed under the PBR Act are paid to the Commonwealth and may be specified in the regulation. These changes are fundamental to cost savings in administration and are seen as merely a tidying up of an act which has already brought significant change in the way plant breeding operates here. They have wide industry support and, as I say, bring conformity to the 1991 convention of UPOV.I will move to the issue of the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act 1991 and the amendments under that act. The basic aim is to rationalise levy and charge collection and make provision for the efficient and effective collection of primary industries levies and charges. Of course, these levies are a very important part of research. They play an important part in ensuring that our industry is able not only to control its destiny but also to remain competitive into the future. A number of areas have caused concern to those in charge of administering the act. Take the horticultural industry, for example. There have been instances, particularly in the area of horticulture in wholesale produce markets, where intermediaries have taken the opportunity to urge the seller of the produce to either carry the burden of the levy or perhaps shun lodgment altogether. That obviously leaves those intermediaries and dealers in horticulture in the wholesale sense who abide by the act and pay their levies at a distinct disadvantage. Under these changes, we are aiming to tighten up the procedure and bring fairness in that area.There is also some concern in the livestock industry, where sales of properties are conducted on a walk-in, walk-out basis. For those who are uninitiated, a walk-in, walk-out sale means just that. The buyer walks in, puts his money on the table and the seller walks out, basically leaving all plant and stock as well as the property there. In those situations, some anomalies have arisen in terms of the correct levies being paid on those stock. It is hoped that through the amendments that we are introducing here those loopholes will be tightened up. There has been some confusion in the area of processing as to who is actually responsible for the collection of the levy. The amendments that we have put in place define the proprietor of the processing establishment as the person legally responsible for the collection of the fee.There are also some changes in regard to the rights relating to authorised persons. Whilst some may see this as an infringement on privacy, they are really there only to ensure that the act is carried out in an unimpeded, economical and efficient way. The area of resource management has been covered. As the member for Corio said, it really relates only to a name change. The changing of the National Landcare Advisory Committee to the Australian Landcare Council is aimed at better reflecting the independent status of that committee.I noted some concern from the member for Corio about the consultative arrangements between the grains industry and the government. Many people have been involved in the grains industry and have led it at a state and national level. I am honoured to have been one of those. I will say, but perhaps I have a biased view, that that industry has spent a great deal of time in consultation with government, with processors, with marketers, with handlers and, most importantly, with growers. One of my fonder memories as President of the Grains Council of Australia was of travelling Australia—there were some 22 grower meetings over three weeks—explaining the changes to growers and listening to their views on the changes that we saw as perhaps fitting in the new wheat marketing organisation, now known as the AWB.During that process, we saw the introduction of the Grains Industry Council, which was intended to provide a forum of representation to the main sectors of the industry. But, as we showed through practical experience rather than bureaucratic imposition, the best way to have that interface is to actually get out there and do it. As the instigator of the strategic planning units, we also worked at ensuring that we consulted all sections of the industry. I can assure members opposite that that strategic planning process worked very well. We not only consulted those people directly involved in the industry but even went to the extent of contacting customers overseas. I am not sure how one could improve on the process. Over time it has certainly demonstrated that the concept of councils consulting with government and industry was basically not relevant. We saw this with the only other council that was in place, the Pig Industry Council, and that has also been abolished.It has been five years since the Grains Industry Council was first given life. During that period, I have watched organisations like the Grains Industry Council move from strength to strength. Under its current solid leadership of John Lush and Bruce McClelland from Queensland, I have absolute faith that the body will continue, along with its associations at a state level and its affiliations with various marketing and processing bodies, to ensure that the interests of primary producers are taken into account.One of the things that the member for Corio did get right was that rural industry, like practically every industry in Australia, is subject to continuous structural change. That structural change was assisted by the Rural Adjustment Scheme and by changes intro duced by the member for Hotham and Senator Bob Collins during their tenures as Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, but with a change of government and the advent of a new minister it was time to take a fresh approach. There has been a significant change of direction in the way that rural industry has needed to be guided and assisted and, whilst the Rural Adjustment Scheme did an excellent job, the government's Agriculture—Advancing Australia package has taken the next step.In that change, there has been a redefining of the roles of the Rural Adjustment Scheme. Under this amendment to the Rural Adjustment Act, we will be looking at changing the name of RASAC, the Rural Adjustment Scheme Advisory Council, to the National Rural Adjustment Advisory Council. Time moves on, and the needs of agriculture move with it. There is a far greater awareness in agriculture in 1999 of the need for things like strategic planning and greater education and training amongst those people who participate in that industry. To refer again to the NFF, there are some quite compelling statistics about the success of farmers and managers who have undergone basic training and skills upgrades in comparison to their colleagues.The new Advancing Australia package is all about ensuring that we build on that new understanding. The role of the Rural Adjustment Scheme Advisory Council has changed significantly too. It will continue in its traditional role of advising on exceptional circumstances declaration, a process introduced by the previous Labor government—one which I have a great deal of support for. But the role and the experience now contained in what will be known as the National Rural Adjustment Advisory Council should be put to good use in advising on areas of rural adjustment generally, on regional issues and on the training issues that have now become so important in rural industry, particularly through the Farm Business Improvement Program. In the end, if you have that sort of intellectual base, you should draw on it for agricultural and rural issues generally.Those changes will see the National Rural Adjustment Advisory Council play a pivotal role in the future of agriculture and will be the fundamental parts of the Advancing Australia package, the most important of which is the area of the Farm Management Deposit Scheme. That is a great scheme introduced by the current government which will allow farmers to put money away in good times in preparation for those inevitable droughts, floods or commodity price drops. There are also other components such as the training packages and the restart scheme. If there is one weakness in that scheme, it is the Retiring Farmer Assistance scheme, which has been an abysmal failure. That, however, is under review. Hopefully, the new minister will be able to put in place a scheme which allows people of retirement age to pass on their assets to the next generation and allow that generation to prosper and make their future in agriculture.In concluding, it would be remiss of me not to talk for a moment about one of the great success industries of Australian agriculture, and that is the wine industry. As the member for Corio said, it has undergone absolutely formidable growth in the past 15 or so years. It has grown since 1985-86 from an industry that was exporting $21 million worth of wine to an industry that is now at the door of exporting $1 billion worth of wine. The amendments that we have outlined to the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation are merely to bring about a regime which will allow us to maintain the Australian wine industry's reputation for producing a world-class product by ensuring that false claims are not made about wine. This will ensure that correct records are kept and that the nature of these records is such that an unbroken audit trail is established from the grape to the sale of the product.All in all, this is a broad range of amendments which will allow rural industry to continue only to prosper as it has done under the last four years of the coalition government. This government will introduce many other programs to ensure that rural industry prospers but, in looking back over the last four years and to see the turnaround in economic terms, the way in our government is addressing the issues of trade and competi tiveness and the way we are moving to ensure that our producers have access to the latest varieties and the latest technologies—and the tax incentives to take up those technologies—I can only say that, while the coalition stays in government, rural industry will be the better for it.21:20:008853Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—At least the honourable member for Groom is not a lawyer or stockbroker, those who normally make up rural policy for the Liberal Party. He does come from out there towards the west of Queensland. He mentioned trade before he sat down. I remind him that the Tasmanian salmon industry, which is a nice big trading area for Tasmania, is not doing very well under his government. He might like to take that on board.The Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 makes some minor technical amendments to a number of acts. It covers a number of areas that include the Plant Breeder's Rights Act 1994, the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act 1991, the Australian Horticultural Corporation Act 1987, the Farm Household Support Act 1992, the Primary Industries and Energy Legislation Amendment Act (No. 1) 1996, the National Resources Management (Financial Assistance) Act 1992, the Primary Industries Council Act 1991, the Rural Adjustment Act 1992 and the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Act 1990.As the legislation covers a large number of areas, I would like to point out a few things about some of the minor amendments. I had a briefing on the amendments to the Plant Breeder's Rights Act. The amendments are to allow persons who are objecting to a decision by the committee who registers the plants the right to pay a fee before the objection can be considered and to bear the cost of any test plantings. This is because, if there is an objection, it can be quite costly to redo tests that prove individual plants, where trialling and a considerable amount of time getting them to grow are involved. Any particular plant takes a period of time and I understand that the cost is between $1,500 and $3,000. If a party is concerned to the extent that they believe a retrial is required, then it is appro priate that whoever is in the right should not foot the bill. If the appealer is right, the costs should be awarded to the person who is registering the plant.I do not think this should be seen from our side as preventing people, where it gets too costly, from having a right to a retrial or seeking some redress where they think they have been wrongly done by. By the same token, countries that are trying to sell a variety into Australia as a separate plant entity or phenotype should prove conclusively that their variety is different from any grown here. The tests sought to prove this should be charged to the country that is seeking entry. All this might become unnecessary, however, once genetically modified material enters the market. Plants that come under the plant breeder's rights legislation are distinguished by their look, colour, shape, shade, height or whatever—in other words, by the expression of their genetic material or phenotype. Once genetics come into it, it passes over to Genemac, another body that patents genetic material.There is also a public interest problem in the legislation which has been partly addressed, but it really requires someone who is keen to keep their slightly altered plant to have it registered so that they can put their name to it. For any ordinary gardener or horticulturalist, this can be expensive if they are developing a number of lines. It is also expensive for a person who wishes to have a plant of that variety because the costs of registration must be passed on. I am told that plants you discover or identify as new in the bush are not considered in this way. Plants have to be modified in some way before they come under this legislation. Perhaps that is not much comfort for some but, as I said, I think this particular part of this legislation will probably become irrelevant in a year or two as the argument on genetically modified material comes into the registration field.I want to comment on the changes to the Rural Adjustment Act, whose name this bill is merely changing. The Rural Adjustment Scheme Advisory Council played a useful role and it seems that it is now part of another package and is to be changed merely because it was put in place by the last government. This will confuse people and is unnecessary, being done because of politics rather than out of any necessity to change the name. They have, I believe, downgraded that Rural Adjustment Scheme and taken a different direction, but I think that it is a lesser scheme than the one that existed under the Labor government. Probably that is why they want to change the name of it or try to rebadge it. It probably does not serve any purpose. I understand from the shadow minister when he was speaking that the council can now report to the minister on anything it wishes or anything that he asks it to report on and, as he said, it is a pretty broad brief.I would also like to mention the amendments to the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Act 1980 which are to amend sections of the act dealing with inspection powers and record keeping in order to make prosecutions for misleading labelling easier. I am told that these do not impose new compliance measures but seek to clarify provisions which have made enforcement difficult and thus jeopardised Australia's ability to meet its international obligations under the EU-Australia wine agreement. The definitions being looked at are: `examinable document', which is amended to include all documents relevant to establishing the truthfulness of a claim made on a label, and `wine premises', as including anywhere it is reasonable to assume that wine or examinable documents may be located.This is supposed to make existing record requirements explainable in more detail; thus the need for the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation to establish whether a wine is a blend or a single wine in order to prove that an offence has been removed. On face value this may look very simple and as if it will assist the wine industry. But I have a concern that it may be used against the small wine grower. If it is to allow wine growers to be clear regarding locally blended wines, that is fine. However, if it is to allow overseas wine to be blended with Australian wine, without having to spell it out in more detail, then I would have problems with it.I still believe that the small wine growers of Australia are facing an enormous burden not only from a bad tax treatment but also, once the GST comes in, from being on the losing end of the deal. Also, I believe that the large winemakers of Australia get a very easy run at the expense of the smaller ones. As I have said previously, there are now two Australian wine industries: one is at the large end and is made up of four or so wineries, and the other is at the very small end and is made up of numerous small wineries, many of which are very important in assisting the tourist industry in regional Australia.In Tasmania, wine is a relatively young industry. Many of our growers have been in the experimental phase and have not been marketing much of their product. Therefore, all the effort and ingenuity that has been put into Tasmania over the years is now being thrown away because with price the big players can just walk all over our growers. As we get into the new tax regime, it will be even worse for those smaller players.Many of our people at the small end have invested thousands in setting up a viable small business with good markets and good export potential. But they must have some incentive, some assistance to make it worth while. Why else would they really bother getting involved in this area? The tax scheme this government is putting in place will do nothing for this growing industry, even though it is producing lots of jobs in rural areas. This government has no interest in small business and small growers in regional areas, and the way it treats the wine industry is a prime example of this. I do not believe that this government has an interest in any of the small players in the business. It is just open slather, with the big players calling the tune when it comes to lobbying government. This applies in all sorts of areas that cover rural pursuits. Australia is not in a good position to fight some of the competitive overseas arguments if these industries are being held back by government impositions, such as unfair taxes.I am not sure why we are bothering to change the name of the National Landcare Advisory Committee. It is still an advisory body and still carries out the same functions. This is probably just another change to confuse people and an attempt by the government to put its own stamp on it. It is certainly nothing new, but I suppose this government wants to be able to say in a few months time that it has set up a new landcare body. So we will be coming back and saying to those opposite, `Sorry, landcare was a Labor initiative, and a very good one at that. So you want to try to claim some credit for it yourselves; go on and try, but it won't wash.' Those opposite will put a new name on it and try to rebadge it, but I do not think it will work. I think you would have been better off just getting on and funding it properly and stop imposing so much paperwork on the people who are involved in the landcare area. We then would get even better results at the grassroots level.I will just digress a little. I am not quite sure how farming awards in Australia get funded—and I am sure that they are not funded by primary industry levies and charges—but I would like to mention two of my constituents who have achieved a remarkable success in the Australian Prime Lamb of the Year Award. This was the first time that Graham and Cath Tole had entered their lambs in this competition. They did so because they wanted to assess how their stock compared with other stock on the mainland of Australia and to benchmark their flock. They were surprised to learn that they were the best, and they won the award hands down. It was a marvellous effort. It was a particular achievement for Tasmanian farmers who have little to compare their stock with. Graham and Cath Tole are fine farmers, fine Tasmanians and fine people, and it is a pleasure to know them.We might be isolated in Tasmania, but it can lead to better practice of our producers with their continual striving to achieve more and something better. Of course, in the Tasmanian situation, one always has to try to be a little better, a little further in front because we are an island and, because of that, have extra burdens.Mr Kerr interjecting—BV5Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMS—My colleague has interjected that we are better. We can be better. In many regards we are better, but we also have a lot of burdens placed on us which we have to overcome. But congratulations to Graham and Cath Tole on their very successful win competing against the whole of Australia.Levies and charges can often be part of the promotional and marketing aspect of various industries that come under this particular series of bills. These charges are regulated by the industries and move towards self-help in those industries for developing markets, both within Australia and overseas. It seems that this government is trying to say that it has renewed Australian agriculture, but it seems that it is only continuing in the direction laid down during a very fertile period of Labor in office.We opened markets that were not there before. We encouraged farmers to look beyond the farm gate and to get into measures that could not only influence the outcome but set the direction for their industry. This could be with their own newly developed products or a refinement of existing ones, but we encouraged them to constantly look ahead. There was benchmarking, there was world best practice and there has been a move towards brand names rather than commodities—and that is the future of primary industry and things we produce. We must add value to those commodities and get the brand names out into the world market.This is a direction in which Australia must move if country people are to survive, and it cannot be done in isolation from the rest of the community. If we are to help our primary producers, it must be through the development of infrastructure that helps the individual prepare for the world market. That infrastructure can mean transport, communications or the existence of local services such as shops, banks, schools, et cetera. In this way, busy producers will not be required to go out of their area and waste valuable time. It is time that we stop separating our primary producers from the rest of their communities and help them be a part of the survival of the small communities by providing the necessary infrastructure for all to remain there.On the surface this bill is merely a method of changing a few names and other minor stuff. However, in order to get proper assistance for the wine industry, when are we going to start tackling problems like produce dumping? When are the finance companies and banks going to give people in rural and regional areas a chance to invest in their communities without penalising them?As I said earlier on, this government's rural and regional policy has usually been made by the stockbrokers and lawyers of the Liberal Party. They are the ones that have been setting out where they want rural policy to go. Some of those members sitting on the government's back bench ought to start taking up some issues about regional Australia and start putting them into their policy areas. They failed dismally in the last government and have also failed so far in this one. The member for Barker and the member for Groom who spoke before me do not seem to be having too much luck making any inroads in getting the government to spend a bit of money in regional Australia and to put in some infrastructure.We are continuing to see Telstra sold off, with lost opportunities there for the people in rural Australia. There is a need to get people out there on to the Net so that they are able to use the valuable information that can come to them and they are able to seek information very quickly. It is essential for the future of rural Australia that people be able to undertake education and training using modern communications. This government has a few little schemes floating around that are funded out of some of the money from the sale of Telstra, but it really is not fair dinkum about bringing all those communities out there up to date and allowing them to compete on an equal playing field with even the rest of Australia, let alone the rest of the world.So those backbenchers have a fair way to go. This sort of name changing exercise is doing little for the real issues of the day. We will support this bill, but it does not really amount to very much for regional Australia. (Time expired)21:40:008856Secker, Patrick, MPMr SECKER848BarkerLP10—I congratulate the previous speakers for their contributions on the Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 . I note the general bipartisan agreement of the opposition, as indicated by the member for Corio and the member for Lyons, and accept they will always say that their programs were better and that they will always do better when they get back in government.I found it interesting that the well researched contribution from the member for Lyons noted the phenotype schedule for PBR varieties. Phenotypes are all about visual and productive characteristics and, for all intents and purposes, it is quite a satisfactory area for judgment. However, I can see into the future where genotypes with DNA testing will become an issue and will cause further amendments to this sort of legislation.I noted that the member for Lyons talked in jest about stockbrokers and lawyers making agricultural policy for the Liberal Party and, frankly, that is absolute rot. It shows a complete lack of understanding of how agricultural policy takes effect and how it is produced in the Liberal Party. We in the Liberal Party take a very strong interest in the agropolitics groups throughout the country. I know, for instance, in South Australia that the South Australian Farmers Federation and the National Farmers Federation have a very strong input and influence on our agricultural policy.The Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 is a very broad bill in that it contains about six different types of amendments. First, the bill contains amendments to the Plant Breeder's Rights Act 1994, Rural Adjustment Act 1992, Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Act 1980, Primary Industry Councils Act 1991, Natural Resources Management (Financial Assistance) Act 1992 and Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act 1981. However, I wish to speak on two of those issues only. Many of the previous speakers have spoken to the minor amendments, but I wish to speak on the amendments to the Plant Breeder's Rights Act 1994 and on the amendments to the Rural adjustment Act 1992.Firstly, dealing with the amendments to the Plant Breeder's Rights Act, as a primary producer myself I have many years of hands- on experience in seed production. For instance, my farm produces approximately 100 tonnes of lucerne seed annually, and the bulk of this is exported to markets in South America, Europe and the Middle East. I have a fair bit of experience on plant breeder's rights varieties—or PBR varieties, as we all know them. In seed production, I feel pretty well qualified to speak in this chamber on behalf of the seed producers not only in my electorate of Barker but also Australia wide.The PBR system is a successful one that has worked well for seed producers for many years, because producers are guaranteed prices and markets, and the seed buyer is guaranteed the produce to sell. In my farming operation, I grow the PBR lucerne varieties of Quadrella, Sequel, Septre, Pioneer L69 and Pioneer L5939. They are grown under conditions specified by quarantine regulations to ensure quality in terms of germination, purity and absence of weeds. In fact, Quadrella was first grown in the Keith area and was the first lucerne variety in Australia grown under PBR—or, as it was then, PVR—legislation. So the Keith area has certainly got more experience in PBR varieties, especially of lucerne, than has any other area of Australia, if not the world.In the Keith district alone, where I have been farming for the past five years, 80 per cent of Australia's lucerne seed is produced; and PBR varieties play a very important part in the production of lucerne seed. In fact, it could be argued that the Keith district on an area basis produces more lucerne than any other area of the world; so we could actually claim to be the lucerne capital of the world. As I said earlier, many of those varieties are PBR.Without this type of legislation, primary producers would not have the capabilities to provide incentives for breeding new varieties or investing in new technologies, such as genetic engineering or genetic modification. Of course, the plant breeder's rights used to be known as plant variety rights or PVR. However, since plants cannot possess a legal right, it was more appropriately renamed the Plant Breeder's Rights Act. This was why the PBR Act was introduced—to replace the previous Plant Varieties Act of 1987, which reduced the contract period for many varieties from six years to four years.These changes would have been made to ensure greater purity of sample, because cross-pollination over six years could mean at least twice the impurity of samples over four years—although at this point I must emphasise that purity, even after 10 years or more, is still quite acceptable. In fact, one could actually argue that, after 10 years, the persistence and longevity of those varieties could be better identified and bred.Following the introduction of the PBR Act of 1994 by the previous Labor government, many applicants applied—only to find out that their allowable period for prior sale had expired up to two years earlier. The proposed transitional arrangement will allow affected applicants to have their applications reinstated by making claims within six months of the amendment's commencement. This will apply to varieties first sold overseas between 10 November 1988 and 9 November 1990. Certainly, Quadrella, as a lucerne variety, would come into that and there would be quite a few producers in the Keith area who would be covered by that.The purpose of the amendments to section 37 is twofold. Firstly, they ensure cost recovery by the Commonwealth for the testing of new plant varieties conducted at the request of another country, even if no application is lodged for the variety in Australia. This might apply to a lucerne variety such as Pioneer L5939, which is not sold in Australia but is grown here for export to other countries where it is better suited to the climate and environment.Secondly, the act alters the way in which test costs are covered when there is an objection to an application. As previous speakers said, the proposed amendment ensures that the unsuccessful party will bear the costs of test growing, which is a financial barrier to a successful objection, but this amendment will also be a financial barrier to frivolous claims. So, just as in any legal case, you have a judgment to make about whether you should make an objection. Under the present situation, frivolous claims can be made and there is no protection for the person who wants to register that phenotype.It is also proposed that a single hard copy of the register of varieties also be included on the Internet. This will save the significant cost of the requirement to maintain a copy of the register—which, I have to say, as a small seed producer myself, is hardly ever used, if at all. It seems that we have had a fairly high cost for very little use, and so it will put it on one register which is easily accessible on the Internet and is still available to be asked for by any breeder or anyone involved in the industry.The amendments to subsection 21 extend the time in which the PBR offices must be notified when variety rights are transferred. These are certainly in line with standard business procedure, and I certainly think that they would not cause any problems to anyone involved in this industry. These amendments have wide industry support and have been solidly endorsed by the PBR Advisory Committee, which is made up of breeders, users and consumers. Certainly, in speaking to the people in my district who have a very strong involvement with this, I know that they certainly have no problems with it and in fact welcome it very strongly.I also wish to comment on another part of the bill that deals with the amendment to the Rural Adjustment Act of 1992. As many members would know, the Rural Adjustment Scheme of 1992 was, to put it bluntly, pretty useless. In fact, it was about as useful as a wheel on a walking stick. It was basically a welfare program. It did not actually promote any effective farming operations in Australia and really did not put people on the right track.As many members would know, the Rural Adjustment Scheme effectively ceased to operate 13 months ago, on 1 July 1998, and was replaced by the government's Agriculture—Advancing Australia, or the AAA package. As I said, the Rural Adjustment Scheme was not effective in fostering profitable productivity measures in the farm sector, as identified in the 1997 review, so it was wound down and replaced with a more effective program. This AAA program is indeed AAA in comparison with the Rural Adjustment Scheme in its effectiveness in increasing the profitability, competitiveness and sustainability of the farm sector and encouraging self-sufficiency and innovation.Some of these initiatives include the Farm Business Improvement Program—well known as FarmBis—which in a rural electorate such as Barker is proving to be both popular and effective, because it provides financial assistance towards training in financial planning, risk management and resource management. I certainly know from my own experiences that farming operations—whether they be stud cattle, stud sheep or commercial operations—are certainly taking to this part of the program with great endeavour.Then there is the Farm Management Deposit Scheme, which is a management tool to reduce financial risk, with saving initiatives and tax concessions. This allows farmers to help themselves. Then there is the Farm Family Restart Scheme, which provides a safety net for struggling farmers with adjustment assistance for those wishing to leave the industry. Hopefully—and I have no doubt that it will—this will also reduce the high suicide rate that is often associated with the decline of a family farm after many generations. This is a serious thing, because often they might be the fourth, fifth or sixth generation farmer, and they see themselves as failures. We, as a government, can assist them to leave the industry with dignity, to give them counselling so that they do not go down that track of rural suicide which, unfortunately, is one of the biggest problems that we see in rural areas. So I am certainly very pleased that the Farm Family Restart Scheme is up and running, and I am pleased to be part of a government that is putting that forward.Then there is the retiring farmers assistance package, which provides a three-year window of opportunity until 14 September in the year 2000. Qualifying age pensioner farmers who wish to transfer the legal title of the family farm to the younger generation will be able to do so without affecting their pension eligibility. That is pretty important because, unfortunately, our farming generation has tended to age in the last 20 years. It can be said that the average age of farmers is 60 to 61. But if we can encourage that transition from the patriarch—or in some cases the matriarch—to the next generation, I think we will see innovation and new ideas. If we can encourage that by ensuring that they are no longer ineligible for the pension, I think that is a good thing. These amendments are necessary. Most of them are very minor but very sensible, and certainly I support their passing.21:56:008859Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—I will not hold up the House for a long period, but I want to comment on an aspect of the Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 that concerns the amendments that propose that there be a new advisory council to deal with matters relating to declarations of exceptional circumstances. I wish to raise the issue of the government's decision to request that the application for exceptional circumstances for chicken farmers on the New South Wales Central Coast be withdrawn and perhaps resubmitted at a later date.I am pleased that the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry will be summing up soon. He might have an opportunity to respond to some of these matters or perhaps he could take them on notice and provide me with a letter in reply. Either way, I seek his assistance in undertaking an urgent review of the decision not to grant an expeditious agreement to the application for exceptional circumstances by these farmers.I am sure you are aware, Mr Deputy Speaker Mossfield, that a few months ago we had an outbreak of a virulent strain of newcastle disease on the New South Wales Central Coast. We previously had a less virulent strain break out in Western Sydney and, unfortunately, a second outbreak of this less virulent form of newcastle disease has again taken place in Western Sydney. But the strain that was discovered on the New South Wales Central Coast was so virulent that the authorities decided that two million chickens needed to be killed. Up to 900 people from the various emergency services organisations were deployed to ensure that strict quarantine was imposed on that part of the New South Wales Central Coast. That meant not only the expenditure of a very large sum of money by the government to mobilise those emergency services staff to impose the quarantine but also the loss of access to income for a period of six months, nine months, up to a year, for the chicken growers and for the contractors who work for the chicken growers.The difficulty at the moment is that the message that the local chicken growers are receiving from the authorities is that this application for exceptional circumstances will not be determined until at least the new year. Many of these chicken farmers are in dire financial straits. They are grateful for the assistance that has been provided to date—there has been some assistance provided by the federal government in various decisions—but many of these families have never been dependent on social security in the past. They are facing very difficult financial circumstances at the moment, and they are seeking from the government a reconsideration of that decision not to grant exceptional circumstances.The exceptional circumstances provisions are there to help farmers who are affected by drought, flood or bushfires. I argue very strongly that the outbreak of newcastle disease on the New South Wales Central Coast meets the requirements for exceptional circumstances. It was a rare, unforeseen and severe catastrophe for those farmers, for those families. There is no way in the world that anyone could argue that it is common for there to be a spontaneous mutation of the commonly found but non-virulent newcastle disease into the rare virulent form of newcastle disease.On the first ground, it is clear that this will be a rare event—and please God that we do not get these outbreaks continuing to occur. It certainly was unforeseen because we have never had this strain of newcastle disease in Australia before and it has certainly been severe. For these chicken farmers it has meant they have had no income for a period of six months and that could go to 12 months or more. This not only affects the chicken growers, it affects the contractors and the staff who are employed by the chicken growers. It affects the contractors who do work for the chicken growers and, for the New South Wales Central Coast, it means that there is about $20 million of income that is not getting ploughed into the Central Coast economy because of this dire outbreak of disease in the Mangrove Mountain area.This affects the constituents of the member for Robertson more than it does my constituents—although, there are a small number of my constituents who are directly affected by this outbreak—but large numbers of the residents of Dobell are employed directly or indirectly through the money spent by people involved in the chicken growing industry. The Saturday before last the member for Robertson and I had the privilege of attending the Mangrove Mountain Recovery Committee's discussions on ways that they can help the community recover from the outbreak of this disease. I certainly picked up a very strong message from the chicken farmers at that meeting that they want the government to make a decision on this application for exceptional circumstances now rather than have it deferred for another period of three months, six months, nine months—who knows how long.I understand that some members of the government are claiming that this decision that no decision be made is supported by my state Labor colleague in New South Wales. That claim has been made. When it was passed on to me, I immediately rang Mr Amery and his office denied completely any suggestion that the New South Wales state government supports deferral of the decision on the application for exceptional circumstances. Even if the state Labor government were agreeing to defer this, it is an issue that should go beyond party politics. We should be prepared for the federal government to treat the chicken farmers who have been hit by this rare, unforeseen and severe catastrophe on the New South Wales Central Coast in the same way as we would treat those affected by flood, drought or bushfire, because they are also rare, unforeseen and severe.These people and their families have been badly damaged by the outbreak of this disease and the imposition of this quarantine. The least we can do is ensure that these farmers are treated in the same way as those who grow other crops. I appeal to the minister for agriculture to agree to an urgent review of the decision not to grant exceptional circumstances and I would be grateful if he could respond verbally now. I know a detailed written application was submitted to the government. If he is not prepared to respond tonight, I understand and I would be more than happy for him to take this on notice and provide me with a response in writing.22:03:008861Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—Firstly, I thank all of those who have contributed to the debate on this legislation, the Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 . I want to thank the honourable member for Corio for his kind comments on my appointment as Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. As he rightly points out, this is the first piece of legislation I have had to deal with in this portfolio. Indeed, it is a piece of legislation that was introduced by my predecessor and I merely have the honour to respond to the debate tonight and complete its passage. As has been mentioned by a number of speakers, it is a relatively non-controversial omnibus piece of legislation which makes improvements in a number of areas of primary industry legislation.I also express to the member for Corio my wish that we can work cooperatively together. I am more than happy to always provide to the opposition appropriate briefings on issues that are of importance and to make sure that the opposition have access to the necessary information to come to a position on legislation before the House. I also compliment the members for Groom and Barker on their very knowledgeable contribution on these issues. They both have a long history of association with the issues under consideration in this bill and I found their comments very helpful. I also recognise the contribution by the member for Lyons and, more recently, the member for Dobell who raised the issue of the crisis confronting a number of chicken growers in the Mangrove Mountain area in New South Wales.I certainly recognise the difficulties they face. Their plight has been the focus of considerable attention. Newcastle disease is one of the most hated and horrible diseases that can confront the chicken industry and, for that matter, almost any of the animal raising industries in the world. Indeed, as a nation, we have always prided ourselves on the absence of newcastle disease. It has been used as a reason why we should not be too liberal in allowing imports into this country, so it really strikes hard at our nation as a whole when the disease is discovered not once but three times in various mutations in Australia. It is our view that it is a local mutation—if that is any comfort—but that, nonetheless, it is a matter of great importance to the chicken industry and, for that matter, all those who care about the wildlife of our nation, because there is this great capacity for it to spread to other bird species.There is in place a national program involving the states and the Commonwealth to address these sorts of issues. The key is obviously to make sure the disease does not spread and that it is wiped out as quickly as possible. The state government, in this case the New South Wales government, takes the lead but the Commonwealth has been very supportive of New South Wales in this quite horrible task of having to kill and dispose of close to two million birds. We estimate that that operation will cost around $10 million—so it is no insignificant amount—but it is something that had to be done for the sake of the industry.I am conscious also, though, that the effect not only is on the chicken industry of the nation but also falls particularly heavily on those farmers whose livestock have to be destroyed. The member for Robertson has been especially active in drawing to my attention, to my predecessor's attention and to the Prime Minister's attention the needs of the farmers in his particular area, and I note that some farmers also come from the electorate of the member for Dobell.The government has taken a number of initiatives. When it was clear that many of these farmers might not readily qualify for Farm Family Restart or other social security type measures available, the government took a quite unprecedented step in making ex gratia payments available to the farmers, irrespective of their assets. That was a much appreciated gesture.Some 95 farmers have benefited as a result, but those payments were made available only until the quarantine was lifted. Gradually, and now in most cases, the quarantine has been lifted. Farmers have generally received one or two payments after that period, but the government's commitment concluded once the quarantine on the farm was lifted. I understand there might still be one or two farmers left who are receiving the benefits because their quarantine has not been lifted, but that is only a relatively short-term thing for them as well.The honourable member for Dobell is correct in saying that the New South Wales government has lodged an application—I think it would be fair to describe it as that—for exceptional circumstances declaration for these particular producers. The exceptional circumstances provisions were introduced by this government to extend upon the previous arrangement which basically applied to little more than drought. There is now a wide range of incidents that can lead to a triggering of an application for exceptional circumstances, and it is certainly not out of the question that a newcastle disease outbreak of this nature could be sufficient to qualify for exceptional circumstances.But there are a number of criteria, and these criteria were agreed between the Commonwealth and the state agricultural ministers, including Mr Amery, at the ARMCANZ meeting in March this year, and they were reaffirmed at the latest ARMCANZ meeting. I accept that there has been some misunderstanding, if I may put the most charitable interpretation on it, amongst some of the states of all political persuasions as to the kinds of circumstances which might lead to an exceptional circumstance of declaration. Perhaps there has been an overlooking on occasions of what the criteria actually are.It is not meant to be something that will turn up quite often. It is meant to be only in exceptional circumstances. So one would expect that all other kinds of possible areas of assistance would have been exhausted first. In this case, the arrangements for the eradication of disease were obviously triggered and considerable expenditure was incurred in that regard. In some other cases there is a natural disaster relief declaration, and that is a more appropriate means of dealing with the issue.In this case, there was a request also for exceptional circumstances, but amongst the criteria it not only has to be a severe and unforeseen event but also has to have a long-term impact—at least 12 months or more—on the producers concerned. It is not possible once an event has occurred to make that determination early. That is the reason why there is a suggestion that this matter should be considered in a few months time once it is clear what the level of disadvantage is and how long the effect will be on these producers.There are a number of other related factors affecting the producers of Mangrove Mountain, including, it seems, undue long delays in some instances in having the farms restocked. I certainly call on the parties involved to not delay unduly in restocking the properties that are cleared of their quarantine requirements. It certainly would be unreasonable to expect the taxpayers to provide assistance where a normal commercial business arrangement has not worked effectively.Ironically, I met only 10 minutes or so ago with the member for Robertson to further discuss these issues and how the matters might be further progressed. I accept that perhaps there had not been a clear understanding amongst the states about what sorts of circumstances actually trigger exceptional circumstances. I hope that Mr Amery and others, following the last ARMCANZ meeting, now better understand that. I have certainly indicated to him that we are prepared to look at the issue once we are able to establish that all the criteria have been met.MG4LEEMr Lee—When? When is the earliest?GT4Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSS—It would seem that it would probably take another three or four months before that situation could be adequately addressed, but that is basically an assessment for Mr Amery to make as to when is the right time to proceed with the further application.Can I make two other points in the spirit of endeavouring to help the farmers concerned. The first is that, when the ex gratia payments were concluded, Centrelink wrote to all of the farmers concerned and drew to their attention the possibility that they may be eligible for the Farm Family Restart Scheme. You do not require exceptional circumstances declaration to be eligible for Farm Family Restart, and a number of those farmers have now qualified for Farm Family Restart, and that can go on for a 12-month period.The New South Wales government has also made available a loan scheme—I think it is called the Premier's fund. I am told that many of the farmers are not finding that potential $20,000 loan accessible because the New South Wales government is requiring a first mortgage, which does seem to be a rather tough requirement if it is meant to be a genuine assistance measure for the farmers concerned. Maybe that is another area where the New South Wales government could be of assistance by making that loan assistance more readily available.I think all members of the House would share in the concerns of the plight of the chicken farmers in that region. I believe the Commonwealth government has been generous in responding to their needs, although I recognise that many of the farmers are going through a difficult period and still face another few months, in some cases, before they will actually start to get a cashflow from chickens being restocked on their property.In the interim, as I mentioned, I would encourage the farmers concerned to meet the appropriate assets and income tests and to look at the Farm Family Restart Scheme. If farmers are actually choosing to leave their industry—and I am not sure there are any—they may also be eligible for the farm exit package, which is a tax-free payment available to farmers who again meet those criteria. If there are other ways that we can be of assistance, I am talking on a regular basis with the member for Robertson about what we might be able to do in that regard. Assuming the New South Wales government believes that they meet the criteria for exceptional circumstances, we might hear from them again in a few months time and then that application can be dealt with.Let me remind the House also that the procedure for considering an exceptional circumstance involves an assessment by an independent committee. The Rural Adjustment Scheme Advisory Council deals with these sorts of issues. It includes farmers and a cross-section of the industry, and it basically acts as an independent arbiter to decide whether or not the exceptional circumstances should be granted. I am sorry that I have spent a long time answering that matter, but I am sure it is a matter of interest to the House.I will turn briefly to a few final comments on the legislation itself. The bill addresses a number of technical issues in the legislation administered by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. The amendments to the Plant Breeder's Rights Act will assist applicants who have been affected by the change in 1995 to a four-year rather than a six-year period for prior sales. The amendments will also shift the cost of test growing on to the unsuccessful party rather than, as is the case now, on to the party who has objected to an application. This is obviously a much fairer approach.The changes proposed to the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act will improve how levies are collected. Levy rates will not change. The current provisions will be updated to take account of changing industry practices. Two existing organisations will be renamed. The National Landcare Advisory Committee will become the Australian Landcare Council. The Rural Adjustment Scheme Advisory Council will become the National Rural Advisory Council.For eight years, the Primary Industry Councils Act has provided for the establishment of a Grains Industry Council. These provisions have been overtaken by reforms in the industry, and it is now appropriate to repeal these provisions. The general power to establish policy advising councils remains.Amendments to the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Act will strengthen the integrity of labelling in the industry by allowing authorised inspectors to examine a wide range of records to confirm label claims. The Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 introduces a number of useful reforms. I commend the bill to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.8864Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Truss) read a third time.Bills8864r891Billsr870Bills8864Debate resumed from 30 June, on motion by Mr McGauran:That the bill be now read a second time.22:19:008864Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—The opposition supports the Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill 1999 and the Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 . These bills are, in a sense, technical in nature but they do set the scene for very important and substantive changes to our broadcasting arrangements in the coming few months with the conversion of analog television broadcasting to digital broadcasting.The Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill 1999 amends the Television Licence Fees Act 1964, which controls the calculation of television licence fees. The bill introduces a levy on commercial television licence holders for the next three years only in order to recover the cost estimated to be incurred by the Australian Broadcasting Authority, the ABA, in administering the provisions of the Television Broadcasting Services (Digital Conversion) Act 1998, the legislation which sets the framework for the conversion of broadcasting television signals in Australia from analog to digital.The cost is estimated by the Australian Broadcasting Authority to be $3.41 million over the next three years, which is broken down in the following way: in the 1999-2000 financial year, it is $1.21 million; that figure is replicated in the following financial year; and in the third financial year, 2001-02, it is $0.99 million. Each broadcaster's annual contribution is proposed to be calculated using the following formula: the ABA cost multiplied by the licensee's current fee divided by the total of all current licence fees.It is expected that this additional levy will represent approximately 0.7 per cent of the total licence fees collected during each annual collection period. The individual licence fees will be calculated on the basis of gross earnings and, as a consequence, the annual licence fees currently collected and the marginal increase of 0.7 per cent will mostly come from metropolitan television licence holders.In 1997-98, the most immediate preceding financial year, the Commonwealth collected $194.5 million in television broadcasting licence fees. So the ABA's estimated cost of $3.41 million is put in context when you appreciate the amount of broadcasting licence fees which are collected annually by the Commonwealth.The Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill (No. 2) makes technical amendments to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 as a consequence of these temporary changes to the television licence fees regime. The Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill (No. 2) will suspend the existing arrangements by which the ABA currently recovers its costs incurred through administering the broadcast regulatory regime from broadcasters through the licence fee system for the duration of the provisions relating to the digital conversion process.The ABA currently recovers its costs on a fee for service basis, but it has indicated this formula would not be sufficient to recover the $3.41 million necessary to undertake the work required of it during the conversion to digital broadcasting. This measure proposed by the government was announced in the most recent budget. As I indicated at the outset, the opposition supports the passage of both pieces of legislation. They do, as I indicated, set the scene for the conversion of Australia's television industry to digital production and broadcast. The conversion to digital TV sets the scene for serious and important issues which the government, the parliament and the public will need to consider in the course of the next couple of months and potentially into early next year.The introduction of digital broadcasting in Australia is mandated by the Television Broadcasting Services (Digital Conversion) Act 1998, legislation enacted in the previous parliament prior to the October 1998 election. Amongst other things, the act specifies that broadcasters must commence digital broadcasting by 1 January 2001 in metropolitan areas and have commenced digital broadcasting in all regional areas by 1 January 2004. Broadcasts will be simulcast in both digital and analog format for the first eight years of digital broadcasting. Broadcasters will be required to broadcast a minimum amount of high definition TV broadcasting. Broadcasters will be able to use a proportion of their spectrum for the provision of datacast services but will be required to pay a fee in order to so do.Broadcasters will not be able to provide multiple channels of broadcast content, multi-channelling, although the national broadcasters are not subject to the absolutism of this provision in recognition of their role in public broadcasting. No new entrants to free-to-air broadcasting will be permitted until the year 2006, domestic content standards will apply to the digital environment, and provision is there for the introduction of a new entrant or a new industry in broadcasting, datacasters.In general terms, that sets the framework for the introduction of digital TV to Australia. As I have indicated, the framework was set in the conversion to digital act, the Television Broadcasting Services (Digital Conversion) Act 1998, but a series of issues were left to be determined by departmental and agency review, very many of which are currently under way and the important ones of which will be reported to the minister on the current timetable in September. It is currently expect ed that the minister will report to cabinet in September and October for the government to make decisions in respect of these matters before the end of this year, although I notice in a speech made recently by the minister that he adverted to early next year. That is the first time I have seen that particular timetable.Government decisions, when they are made and announced, will be the subject of intense public and parliamentary scrutiny. As the member for Dobell said, the former Minister for Communications who spoke in my stead when the digital conversion legislation was passing through this House, the devil is very much in the detail. It will be the detail of the government's decision which will be the subject of intense industry, public and parliamentary scrutiny. The difficulty with the devil being in the detail is that often you have to make sure you do not miss the forest for the trees. So I think it is important to have a look at some of the strategic objectives which we want from Australia's media and broadcasting industries before we descend into a consideration of some of those details.I have argued previously that, if you take a line through Commonwealth public policy in respect of media and broadcasting, you can find a range of long-term objectives which the Commonwealth has generally sought to secure by way of media and broadcasting legislation. They include, in my view, media and broadcasting of high quality; a diversity of information, education and entertainment; a competitive industry with diversity and control of influence; the development and reflection of a sense of Australian identity and character, particularly through the national broadcaster originally and now the national broadcasters, the ABC and SBS; the development of new technology; and a viable, vibrant industry presence leading to jobs and investment. These are important long-term national strategic objectives which I think are important to bear in mind before descending into the detail of the conversion to digital TV through the review process.What strategic objectives might we try to summarise those as being? Quality and excellence, diversity, competition, national identity, a vibrant national broadcaster or broadcasters, an industry for the next century with jobs, and investment and economic growth that follow those parameters. These are the key strategic objectives which the Australian Labor Party has always found in media broadcasting and policy. I think you can probably find a strand of thought which is consistent with those objectives going through the Commonwealth's public policy approach to media and broadcasting over a long time.It is very late in the night, Mr Speaker, so I might spend a couple of minutes with some modest and mild criticisms of the government's approach. These are big changes which the conversion to digital legislation sets the scene for, but I am not sure the government has applied all that much strategic thought to it. I am certainly sure the government has not sought to explain or educate the public about the vast series of changes about to be upon us. There has been no focus and no attention on these matters and these issues. I noticed the other day that, when the minister for communications, Senator Alston, had the opportunity at a digital television and datacasting conference in Sydney, all he could say to the audience in the end was, `All I can say is watch this space.' Unfortunately, either at a conference in Sydney or generally, watching this space is not enough.I do not want my comments to necessarily prejudge any of these issues. We will await the government's decisions in these matters and we will, as I have indicated, scrutinise them very carefully. One of the key things which is now coming to the fore and which I will continue with in my remarks at a later stage is the very key question of affordability and accessibility. If the industry is to prosper and profit and if the community is to benefit from the conversion to digital television, then one thing which we must absolutely make sure of as a parliament and as a community is that these things are affordable and accessible so far as consumers are concerned.Debate interrupted.Adjournment886610000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 10.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn. 886622:30:008866Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—I rise tonight to report on the passage in the Senate today of a motion from the Australian Labor Party to establish a Senate inquiry into the Brisbane airport master plan for the future construction of a western parallel runway. In doing so, I am honouring a commitment which I gave to a public rally of more than 4,000 Brisbane southside residents in February this year. Labor sought to establish this inquiry earlier this year, but with the loyal vote of Senator Colston the government defeated it. Today, however, the tables were turned and the government was defeated. The inquiry was established. For the first time in the 18-month history of this sorry saga of the Brisbane Airport Corporation master plan, the torch of truth is going to be shone onto the appalling process that has produced the master plan in its current state.Why has the Senate inquiry become necessary? It is necessary because the Brisbane Airport Corporation has not been even faintly transparent in its dealings with the Brisbane community in the development of a proposal which, at the end of the day, is going to have a profound impact on the livability of many of the suburbs of Brisbane.It is important to review the history of how we got this far. It began in March 1998 when the Brisbane Airport Corporation delivered their draft master plan. In doing so, and in recommending a parallel runway, they demonstrated three fundamental problems, which have endured until this day: firstly, their master plan did not examine any alternative runway options; secondly, it provided no flight paths for any of the options advanced, including the parallel runway which was their preferred recommendation for the future; and, thirdly, their proposition that if you constructed a western parallel runway it would put all noise, or a substantial part of the noise, out over Moreton Bay remains to this day unproven. These three problems remain until the present time. They have not been resolved. After three months of perfunctory public consultation, last year we had 4,000 public objections registered and more than 10,000 people signed public petitions, yet still the attitude of the Brisbane Airport Corporation remained unmoved. In July of last year, they submitted a final draft master plan to the minister. In August, the then Minister for Transport and Regional Services, Mark Vaile, surprisingly decided to reject the draft master plan only six weeks before the October 1998 election. The reasons given were technical. I would suggest that the reasons were in fact substantially political. Mysteriously, the technical reasons were quickly overcome once the election was held.In November 1998, the Brisbane Airport Corporation resubmitted their draft master plan to the new Minister for Transport and Regional Services, Mr Anderson, for approval. No substantial change was made to the original recommendation. In February 1999, the new minister approved the master plan. Despite my having met with the minister and having requested him to come and look at those parts of Brisbane which would be affected by the recommendations of this plan, he refused to do so. He endorsed this master plan and established two conditions to it: (1) in the future the Brisbane Airport Corporation should look at some other options and (2) they should provide draft flight paths as well.The next stage in this whole saga will be the development of a master plan. Of course, in the original document, the master plan has suggested that new capacity for Brisbane airport would be needed by about 2006-07, which means that, given a three- or four-year construction period, under the major development plan the final decisions would need to be taken in a year or two's time. Now we have the Brisbane Airport Corporation saying that that timetable is going to blow out and that this new capacity will not be required for quite a number of years into the future. The critical question which remains unanswered for the community of Brisbane is: when precisely will the Brisbane Airport Corporation advance their major development plan? Once it is approved, that is the last stage in the process. Construction then commences.We get to the very final stage of the process in August of this year when the Brisbane Airport Corporation came out with a new staggered runway proposal. In fact, this is the old parallel runway proposal given a new name. The same three problems which were evidenced with the original proposal of 18 months ago are the same today. No alternative runways or flight paths have been advanced, and the proposition that the bulk of use—in fact, one of the advocates has said 90 per cent of use—of take-offs and landings will be over Moreton Bay again remains unproven. It is for these reasons and these reasons alone that, 18 months into the process, we have been left with no alternative but to advance a Senate inquiry to get to the truth of this matter. We require an independent examination against five sets of criteria of all the runway options which are possible. Until that is done, there will be no rational basis on which to make a decision for the future. (Time expired)886722:35:008867May, Margaret, MPMs MAY83BMcPhersonLP10—It gives me great delight to speak about two young people in my electorate who recently participated in the National Youth Parliament. Travis Northcott and Kim Christiansen, both year 11 students at Robina High School, represented the Gold Coast at this recent forum. These two young people, both of whom are only 16 years of age, are fine examples of youth who take pride in themselves, their school and their futures. The National Youth Parliament is part of the Voices of Youth initiative of the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs and is one of the major ways young people have to voice their opinions to federal government.A concept that was initiated by the YMCA in America, youth parliaments in Australia are run by a task force of young people who have gone through the program as participants in previous years. Youth parliament offers a dynamic forum, much like the real parliament of Australia, in which students from all backgrounds, representing the diversity of the nation's youth, put their ideas into action. They learn to develop their ideas and formulate a bill, which then gets debated in Parliament House.At the 1999 National Youth Parliament, participants aged between 16 and 24 spoke about a diverse range of issues, including illegal immigration, reconciliation, youth unemployment, suicide and juvenile justice. It takes a great deal of courage to put forward your ideas at an open forum in which you are subject to scrutiny. I congratulate all youth participants who took the opportunity to share their thoughts and opinions.When I met with Kim and Travis last week to discuss their time in Canberra and swap parliamentary experiences, what struck me about these two students was their energy, enthusiasm and willingness to learn. While they may have been initially apprehensive to speak on their feet in such an awe-inspiring environment as the Old Parliament House, they overcame their fears to stand up and be prepared to take criticism for their beliefs or stance on an issue. Australian youth are too often portrayed in a negative light by our media, yet some of our youth have dynamic and innovative ideas which we should all take on board. I understand the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, the Hon. David Kemp, dropped in on the forum and himself spoke of the lessons that serving politicians could learn from the youth representatives at the National Youth Parliament. Youth have so much to offer: energy, ideas and enthusiasm. Forums such as the National Youth Parliament provide positive learning experiences and open doors. I was delighted to hear that both Kim and Travis want to return next year to take part in the year 2000 National Youth Parliament. While Kim wants to pursue a career in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and Travis has his heart set on becoming a police officer, the experiences they have gained stand them in good stead in becoming community minded citizens.I would also like to congratulate Sarah Mengler, who is 17 years of age and has recently been selected to represent the electorate of McPherson at the Australian Youth Parliament for the Environment Convention 1999. Sarah will be travelling to Canberra next week to take part in this very important event. The AYPE is Australia's peak body working to put youth at the forefront of creating sustainability. It is an apolitical, independent and proactive environmental organisation run by youth for youth.Our young people will inherit the earth, and therefore need every opportunity available to reach their potential and play a strong role in creating a better future. The AYPE was initiated in 1996 with the purpose of creating a vehicle whereby young people could feel they were truly empowered to make a valuable contribution to shaping our world and to ensuring that we have a sustainable future. The convention is being held next week at Old Parliament House with over 200 delegates from around Australia. A key outcome of the convention will be a statement to the nation which will outline the future direction of the AYPE and bring it closer to becoming what the name suggests—a fully national representative youth parliament for the environment. I wish each of these three young people, Travis Northcott, Kim Christiansen and Sarah Mengler, the best for the future, and to each I once again offer my congratulations on being selected to participate in these special events.886822:39:008868Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—I wish to speak on an issue of fundamental importance to all Australians, particularly women. The Department of Surgery of the University of Sydney notes in the Australian New Zealand Journal of Surgery :BREAST CANCER is the most commonly diagnosed cancer and the most common cause of cancer death in women.It is with this chilling fact in mind that I am compelled to speak in this House tonight on this critical issue affecting women's health.My electorate of Lowe is privileged to have within its borders one of the most sophisticated, specialised breast units in the world. I speak of the Strathfield Breast Centre. Established in 1989, the SBC is a private clinic and an initiative of surgeons directed to providing a multidisciplinary, integrated service to assess patients with breast disease. I particularly wish to pay tribute to Professor David Gillett, a legendary surgeon at the clinic, and his staff, especially Catherine Kennedy, Research Officer for the Department of Surgery, University of Sydney, Strathfield Private Hospital campus, for her help in providing information to me for this speech.In the interests of women's health, I now wish to present to this House a summary of the findings of six years research conducted by the SBC from January 1990 to 1996. I hope that, through presenting this data and findings of the SBC, the quality of life and longevity of women clinically diagnosed early will improve and they will be able to avoid permanent scarring or premature death. The SBC collected and analysed information on patients presenting for diagnosis or ongoing management of breast cancer during this six-year period. Breast cancer patients were most commonly referred from general practitioners and occasionally from other surgeons. During the research period, a total of 812 patients with breast cancer had been seen at the SBC. The number of patients reviewed each year has been steadily increasing. Each surgeon saw, on average, more than 50 new patients with cancer per year. The mean age of the patients was 60 years. There were six male patients in the group. Of the 812 patients with breast carcinoma, 33 patients or four per cent of the total did not have any surgery, 524 patients or 68 per cent of the total had a one-stage procedure and 239 patients or 31 per cent of the total required a second operation. Only 10 patients, one per cent, required more than two operations. Some 147 patients, 19 per cent, had an impalpable lesion requiring wire localisation.Ninety-three per cent of the patients had a diagnosis confirmed on the day of consultation. The average time between diagnosis and surgery was nearly 12 days. Breast preserving surgery was attempted in 68 per cent and achieved in 50 per cent of cases. Breast conservation was attempted in 527 patients, or 68 per cent of patients. Of these, 207 patients needed further breast surgery because of inadequate margins, unfavourable pathology or patient preference. Of these, 142 patients proceeded to mastectomy, the surgical removal of the breast, leaving 385 patients, or 50 per cent, who had breast conserving surgery. The number of patients undergoing breast conserving surgery has increased yearly from 45 per cent in 1989 to 58 per cent in 1996.The messages are clear from this analysis: (1) early prognosis of breast cancer dramatically increases the statistical probability of patients' survival, especially women, and (2) the SBC, having centralised breast cancer services, has demonstrably and conclusively improved the survival rate of breast cancer sufferers. In Australia, breast cancer is traditionally managed by surgeons, most of whom have experience with small numbers of patients in any one year. A report titled Management of primary, operable breast cancer in Victoria (Aust N.Z. J. Surg 1990; volume 60, pages 871-8) notes that `only four per cent of surgeons saw over 20 patients with breast cancer per year in Victoria'.The SBC is achieving its goals in centralising expertise to achieve comparable long-term results while optimising a conservative surgical approach and providing an efficient, integrated service. The fourfold increase in numbers presenting to the SBC over this six-year period in itself indicated the acceptance of the clinic and its integrated approach. The SBC's approach has enabled excellent efficiency and treatment, with surgery being performed within 11 days of presentation. They have been able to achieve excellent results by international and national standards, demonstrating the effectiveness of the multidisciplinary approach and confirming the benefits of a specialised unit for the treatment of breast cancer. The SBC is an ideal clinic integrating the many disciplines required to effectively treat this disease and also providing effective breast screening.For the sake of all breast cancer victims, I strongly urge other states to develop more clinics like the SBC. I salute once again the great work of Professor David Gillett, Catherine Kennedy and all the staff of the Strathfield Breast Centre. Finally, I stress the importance of all women regularly undergoing medical examinations to exclude the presence of breast cancer.887022:44:008870Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON6K6FordeLP10—One of the disadvantages of public office and our commitment to represent our constituents in this House is that at times we cannot be in attendance on occasions of our choice. Today, I would have chosen to share my day with the many hundreds of people in my electorate of Forde who paid respect to a man who gave much of his life to the shire of Boonah—a man who was respected and loved by many. Jim Pennell CBE lost his fight against cancer last Wednesday, 18 August, surrounded by friends and family—his wife Audrey, daughter Valerie, and sons Graeme and Doug. He was 71 years young.Jim was involved in the community before his election to the Boonah Shire Council in 1961 and went on to serve a full 12 terms of council. He also chalked up the record of being the longest serving member in Boonah's history. Jim's encouragement of others in local council was unstinting. I am sure that many of the people that worked for Jim for years would agree that simply sharing time with him was an opportunity to advance their knowledge of local government, which would result in advantaging their own communities. He held a very distinguished record in council and Boonah shire is much the richer for him serving them for so many years. Jim introduced to the Boonah Shire Council the concept of flood-proofing shire roads which were subject to regular damage during wet seasons. He was committed to improving state controlled roads and ensuring that they were either constructed to seal standards or reconstructed to a better standard. He encouraged the use of unemployment schemes to upgrade footpath, kerbs and channelling in Boonah and Kalbar shires.Jim was also very instrumental in making sure that Boonah had its own airstrip, council depot, council civic centre, council library, cultural centre and bicentennial park. Jim was a great debater and everybody in town knew him for this. He never, ever backed off on an argument. He would actually wear down his most committed opponents. I spent many times arguing points with him, but I can say that nearly all times he won. I would also like to pass on the thoughts of Senator Ian Macdonald, the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government. He would have liked to have been at the funeral today, but he made sure that his good wishes were sent over. He had spent a lot of time with Jim.On behalf of the community, I want to record in Hansard the commitment that this man gave of his life to a shire. I do not think I have seen any person as committed as Jim was. He was also the state local government chairman and he spent many a time making sure that other shire councillors and mayors in Queensland knew how to run a shire correctly.I would also like to congratulate two Green Corps projects that I have had in my electorate. The graduation ceremony of the participants took place last week. I would like to thank the two Green Corps groups in Mount Tamborine and Canungra for the restoration work that they have completed for the district. They have restored much of the damage that was done at the Canungra Army base through artillery fire during the war years. They have revegetated plants and streams and so forth. It was great to see the dedication of those young people for the six months work that they gave to our community, and I would like to congratulate them. It is purely voluntary that they nominate to work on our Green Corps projects. Our young people accept such great responsibility, and they have worked their hardest in conditions where, in the last few months in Queensland, as everyone would note, it has been raining. They worked throughout those times. I would like to thank Drizabone and the Australian Coat Company for sponsoring these young people and making sure that they had adequate cover by supplying coats and hats to our teams.887022:49:008870Griffin, Alan, MPMr GRIFFINVU5BruceALP00—I note the outstanding endorsement I am receiving from the government benches, particularly from the Chief Government Whip, who is a great friend and admirer of mine, as he has often said—but he never says it publicly. Tonight I rise to reflect on a couple of issues in relation to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, particularly an article which appeared in today's Financial Review headed `P&O slams dock reforms'. It is an article by Stephen Long which goes through some of the results, so far, of some of the waterfront reform that has been undertaken by the government. I admit that this is only part way down the track and that there is a long way to go, but I would like to read from part of the article:P&O Ports Ltd suffered a slump of 25 percent or more in the number of containers moved per hour at its Australian terminals during the past two to three months.. . . . . . . . .Management of P&O Ports, which handles more than 40 per cent of the nation's waterfront traffic, attributes the slump in port performance mainly to skills shortages resulting from the deadline for terminating employees imposed on it by the Federal Government.P&O had to retrench more than a third of its workforce—some 533 people—within 24 hours of registering new enterprise agreements so it could qualify for funds from Maritime Industry Finance Corporation. MIFCo was set up by the Government last year to bankroll redundancies after Patrick Stevedores' Mr Corrigan dumped his unionised workforce."It was bloody stupid, really," the managing director of P&O Australia Ltd, Mr Richard Hein, told The Australian Financial Review . "We would have preferred to have a phased reduction in manning levels but we couldn't because of the government constraints."When we look at the whole issue of waterfront reform, we see that what P&O has highlighted is an example of the way that the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business works. It is very much a matter of a big bang. It is the media circus rather than the policy emphasis. It is a situation where you try to say something grand and do something grander but, at the end of the day, end up in a grand mess. I know from being down on the docks on occasions in Melbourne, and I know from what occurred at that time, that a lot of the promise that was maintained by the minister was subsumed into a result which left Corrigan's company in a mess, the waterfront in a shambles and did not lead to anything like the changes that were hoped for. This big bang approach is something that this minister has tried to bring to a range of areas.I note today, around his latest sojourn into public policy on the question of a republic, the minister was quoted with respect to the question of the flag. Again I quote:The Employment Minister, Mr Peter Reith, has launched a direct attack on Mr Peter Costello's core reason for Australia to become a republic and suggested the Treasurer could have a secret agenda to change the flag.Further into the paper, Michael Gordon, in commenting on this, states:Peter Reith had the opportunity yesterday to engage seriously in the substance of the republic debate by answering Peter Costello's case that it is really about the symbolism of retaining a foreign head of state.He abused it, opting instead for opportunistic scaremongering about the flag that, once again, raised questions about his motives.. . . . . . . . .. . . he suggested the secret agenda of those who spoke about symbols was to ditch the flag. It matters not that the flag is not being voted on in the referendum nor, as Mr Reith himself observed, that the flag is protected by legislation. "You cannot change it except by vote of the people."We know from earlier comments regarding the question of this minister's view on the republic he has said that he has been consistent throughout—that he has consistently had three different positions; that he has consistently espoused them at the particular time he has held them; and that he has been in a situation where he has held them very truly and firmly, as he has very truly and firmly held beliefs until he has changed them.I remember the comment I think made by the member for La Trobe, my friend Bob Charles, along the lines that the minister had had more positions on this issue than in the Karma Sutra. I note the member for Ballarat looking across at me; I know that he is aware of those matters in some detail.Mr Ronaldson interjecting—VU5Griffin, Alan, MPMr GRIFFIN—I know that we would both like to know more about the Karma Sutra , but that is another story. But this does say something about this minister in terms of his positions on policy. As I said, he has been the sort of minister who has been very grand in the statement, but not so grand in the result; always there is the sweeping change, but at the end of the day he is sweeping most of it under the carpet. The sort of things that he has been up to in relation to the republic debate I think really crystallise his positioning—that is, that he has many positions, but not too many beliefs. It does say something about the way he has operated in this government and as part of the Liberal Party.887222:54:008872Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON3K6ParramattaLP10—I rise tonight prompted by what I regard as a very positive and certainly successful initiative of one of my parliamentary colleagues, the member for Bradfield. Ten days ago, at Abottsleigh, a local high school in his electorate, he sponsored a forum entitled `Drugs and other bruises—don't leave me this way'. The forum was run as a panel discussion and led by some very eminent figures. They included Dr Ian Paterson, who for 20 years or so has been the principal of a local school; Sally Lone from 2BL; and drugs campaigners from all sides of the debate—the Salvation Army, the Woods family, Tony Trimmingham and others.The interesting thing about the forum in the first instance is that it was attended by 550 people—principally parents—from the local community. Members on both sides of the chamber will be familiar with the difficulty of getting ordinary community members to turn out to events such as this. When you get 550 people turning up and packing a school requiring there to be an overflow room with 150 watching on closed circuit TV, it says that the member for Bradfield was clearly scratching an itch, that there is a great thirst among parents for better knowledge and understanding of these issues. They desire to be better informed and to be able to handle the practical problems such as, for example, what do you do when your adolescent children start wanting to attend or, indeed, host parties at which there is a likelihood that drugs will be present.I just want to commend the member for Bradfield and to say that he poses an interesting question. That is not just, `Why do kids go on to drugs?' Perhaps the more fertile question is, `Why is it that many do not?' I am reminded of Primo Levi, the Italian Jew, who became a Nobel Laureate. He wrote of his experiences in a concentration camp during the Second World War in which many of the prisoners perished. Often, rather than the older ones, it was the younger fit ones who did not survive. Primo Levi posed the question not why did people die but what was it that caused some to survive?On that point, as we look at this question of young people and drugs—and I know that parents in my electorate of Parramatta and around Australia are asking themselves the question how do I create the sort of environment in which my kids will not make those choices—it is not my purpose tonight to make really strong statements on either side of the enforcement issues associated with drug abuse but purely to ask the question: how do we create this climate where kids prefer other choices?I want to refer in particular to some remarks made by a gentleman named Keith Waters, who heads an organisation called Care, Communication and Concern. That organisation is primarily based in Melbourne but is running a program in my electorate about which I have previously spoken in the House. That program is called `Handbrake turn' and is principally directed to turning around the lives of juvenile offenders, particularly in the area of motor vehicles. Keith spends his life among young people who have, for whatever reason, gone down the track of criminal behaviour; most of them are drug users.I said to Keith, `What is it, do you think, that delineates that class of kids who don't go down that track from those who do?' He said, `Well, Ross, in my view, there are three fairly simple indicators,'—and it is not rocket science and it will not, I think, strike any member in the House as being a revolutionary idea. But he said that the first key variable is strong family relationships; that it is an important foundation for a young person to feel a sense of belonging, identity, appreciation and for there to be coherent family relationships. He said that the second thing is that, while young people are at school, for there to be evidence of a strong participation in school—on the academic side but also on sporting, cultural and other extracurricular activities; that that is a good indicator. Finally, he said that he looks for evidence of some other kind of community involvement and attachment, whether it be scouts, some other sporting activity, a particular hobby or interest that causes a person to connect with their local community.Keith said to me, `If all three of those things are present, I am relatively confident that you will see a young Australian making good choices with their life, and with a ballast that provides a counterweight to the attractions of a drug culture.' But he said, `If one of those things is absent, the younger person is likely to dabble.' He said, `If two are absent, there is a young person at risk.' He said, `If three are absent, they are almost certainly in real trouble.' So I think that is wisdom for us and for this House. (Time expired)Question resolved in the affirmative.House adjourned at 10.59 p.m.Notices8873The following notices were given:Mr Kerr to present a bill for an act to establish a Parliamentary Joint Committee on Commonwealth Law Enforcement and for related purposes.Mr Martin to move—That the House:(1) notes the extreme hardship that will be caused to Australia's Defence Force personnel as a result of the new fringe benefits tax (FBT) reporting regime put in place as part of the Government's new tax system;(2) notes that the Government has decided to only exempt a few of the fringe benefits and allowances that Australian Defence Force (ADF) personnel receive from the new FBT reporting regime; and(3) calls on the Government to exempt all ADF personnel from FBT reporting requirements in respect of the conditions and facilities they receive because of their service in the armed forces.Mr Fitzgibbon to present a bill for an act to allow franchisees in the petroleum sector to purchase fuels for re-sale from a variety of sources. Answers to Questions in Writing8874The following answers to questions were circulated:8874(Question No. 698)6988874Bevis, Arch, MPMr BevisET4BrisbaneALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services and the Minister for Community Services, 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.8874Anthony, Larry, MPMr AnthonyXJ6RichmondNPCommunity Services10—As indicated above, the honourable member has asked the identical question of both ministers. The following answer is provided on behalf of both ministers:No.8874(Question No. 534)5348874Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 24 March 1999:Has (a) the Minister, (b) his or her predecessors or (c) the Department or an agency for which the Minister holds, or his or her predecessors held, portfolio responsibility, engaged Australasian Research Strategies, related companies or organisations or Mr Mark Textor to undertake research since 2 March 1996; if so, in each case, (i) what was the nature of the research, (ii) what was its purpose, (iii) what was its cost, (iv) was the outcome of the research supplied to a non-government organisation, individual or political party and (v) will the Minister release the outcome of the research.8874Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(a) I have not engaged Australasian Research Strategies, related companies or organisations or Mr Mark Textor to undertake research since 2 March 1996 although I would have no hesitation in doing so as I hold him in high regard;(b) I did not have a predecessor during the time period specified;(c) No member of staff of my Department nor any member of staff of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) nor any member of staff of its predecessor organisations (the Australian Radiation Laboratory and the Nuclear Safety Bureau) has engaged Australasian Research Strategies, related companies or organisations or Mr Mark Textor to undertake research.8874(Question No. 617)6178874Andren, Peter, MPMr AndrenKL6CalareIND00 asked the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 12 May 1999:(1) What criteria must be satisfied before a health service can be covered by the Medicare Benefits Scheme.(2) Are chiropractic services covered by Medicare; if not, (a) why not, (b) when did a formal review last consider the inclusion of chiropractic services and (c) what is the Government's position on the inclusion of chiropractic and allied health services.(3) Will the Government conduct formal reviews of the scope of the Medicare Benefits Scheme soon; if not, why not; if so, (a) when and (b) by whom will they be conducted.8874Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Health services are only covered by the Medicare benefits scheme when the service is:(a) Performed by a registered medical practitioner (or for an optometrical consultation, by a participating optometrist; or for certain oral surgery services and services in the treatment of cleft lip and cleft palate conditions, an eligible dentist); and(b) "Clinically relevant", ie. generally accepted by the medical profession as being necessary for the appropriate treatment of the patient; and(c) Among the services listed in the Medicare Benefits Schedule. Before a new service is listed an assessment of its safety, efficacy and cost effectiveness is undertaken by the Medicare Services Advisory Committee (MSAC).(2) (a) Services provided by chiropractors are not covered by the Medicare benefits arrangements, as chiropractors are not eligible providers.(b) The last formal review of this matter was in 1985 by the Medicare Benefits Review Committee (Layton Committee).(c) The Government does not intend to extend the Medicare benefits arrangements to include chiropractic and other allied health services.(3) There are no plans to review the scope of the Medicare benefits arrangements in relation to allied health services. To extend Medicare benefits coverage to the many allied health services would lead to unsustainable expenditure on Medicare.8875(Question No. 677)6778875Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister for Forestry and Conservation, upon notice, on 2 June 1999:(1) What proportion of the additions to the reserve system for the proposed West Australian Regional Forest Agreement (RFA) consists of (a) old growth forest, (b) regrowth forest and (c) woodlands or scrub.(2) How many hectares of forest included in the original deferred forest areas have now been excluded from the proposed reserve system.(3) How many hectares of forest outside the original deferred forest areas have now been included in the proposed reserve system.(4) What are the locations of the places on the interim list of the National Estate in the RFA region that are now outside the announced reserve system and what advice did the Australian Heritage Commission provide on the significance of the places.8875Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TuckeySJ4O'ConnorLPForestry and Conservation; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (a) Old Growth Forest—42.1%(1) (b) Regrowth Forest1—38%(1) (c) Woodland—11.2%Scrub2—8.7%(2) There were 21,770 hectares of forests and woodlands included in the Deferred Forest Areas for Western Australia agreed between the Commonwealth and the State which have not been included in the RFA reserve system. (3) There were 130,110 hectares of forest and woodland outside the agreed Deferred Forest Areas which have been included in the RFA reserve system. In addition, 13,600 hectares have been included in the RFA reserve system which had been voluntarily deferred by Western Australia from logging subsequent to the original Deferred Forest Areas agreement.(4) I have provided Mr Ferguson with a map which identifies the locations of the National Estate places, interim and listed, in the RFA region in relationship to the RFA reserve system and to forest blocks.The Australian Heritage Commission (AHC) did not provide specific advice on each of the places identified on the map, but made general comment on the following five areas:Giblett-Hawke Area; D'Entrecasteaux Area; Jane Area; Deep Area; Roe Area.The Commission identified the natural national estate values contained in these areas.The AHC concluded that although timber harvesting will have a significant local adverse effect on these values, national estate values were adequately protected at a regional level through a combination of formal and informal CAR reservation, off-reserve protection and mechanisms agreed under the terms of the Agreement.1 This is forest that is not old growth.2 Scrub includes: peppermint and coastal health; rocky outcrops; sand dunes; scrub, herb and sedgelands; and, swamps.8875(Question No. 692)6928875Bevis, Arch, MPMr BevisET4BrisbaneALP00 asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 7 June 199:Has a Department or agency for which the Minister has portfolio responsibility entered into 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.8875Vaile, Mark, MPMr VaileSU5LyneNPTrade10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:In responding to the question, the period involved is taken to be from 31 December 1996, being the date of effect of the relevant criteria for registration of organisations under the Workplace Relations Act 1996, to June 1999; and the relevant organisations are taken to be those registered as at 7 June 1999.Austrade paid a grant (under the Export Market Development Grants scheme) to an organisation registered under subparagraph 188(1)(a) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996. De-tails are as follows:(i) Victorian Employers' Chamber of Commerce and Industry(ii) Grant paid during financial year 1998/99: $16,159.00.(iii) Victoria.8876(Question No. 696)6968876Bevis, Arch, MPMr BevisET4BrisbaneALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, 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.8876McGauran, 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:I am advised that no grants or contracts have been made between the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts and organisations registered under subparagraph (a) 188(1)(a) or (b) 188 (1)(b) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996. Payments have been made however, by the following Portfolio agencies:The National Library of AustraliaPayment made to:AmountDatePurposeNational Tertiary Education Industry Union (Vic)$40.009/5/99Purchase of library materialsAustralian Education Union (Vic)$10.0018/2/99Purchase of library materialsAustralian Education Union (Vic)$12.0017/3/99Purchase of library materialsAustralian Film CommissionPayment made to:AmountDatePurposeScreen Producers Assoc. of Australia (NSW)$15,0007/5/97Script Development grantScreen Producers Assoc. of Australia (NSW)$15,00024/6/97ICD: Conference 1997 grantScreen Producers Assoc. of Australia (NSW)$10,00025/6/97Screen producers TV research GrantScreen Producers Assoc. of Australia (NSW)$30,00030/6/97ICD: Conference 1997 loan (since repaid)Screen Producers Assoc. of Australia (NSW)$10,00029/5/98Corporate planning grantScreen Producers Assoc. of Australia (NSW)$30,00030/11/98ICD: Conference 1998 loan (since repaid)Screen Producers Assoc. of Australia (NSW)$15,00030/11/98ICD: Conference 1997 loan (since repaid)Australian Film Television and Radio SchoolPayment made to:AmountDatePurposeScreen Producers Assoc. of Australia (NSW)$19,980July `97Individual conference feesScreen Producers Assoc. of Australia (NSW)$3,000Sept `98Sponsorship of Digital Media ConferenceFilm AustraliaPayment made to:AmountDatePurposeScreen Producers Assoc. of Australia (NSW)$26,000'97-'99Media Entertainment and ArtsAlliance (NSW)$26,1601998/99Australian Film Finance CorporationPayment made to:AmountDatePurposeScreen Producers Assoc. of Australia (NSW)$8,0001996/97Sponsorship of Screen producers conferenceMedia Entertainment and Arts Alliance$26,1601997/98Sponsorship of Screen producers conferenceAustralian Broadcasting AuthorityPayment made to:AmountDatePurposeScreen Producers Assoc. of Australia (NSW)$6,240 `97-'99Conference attendance fees8877(Question No. 704)7048877Bevis, Arch, MPMr BevisET4BrisbaneALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, 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.8877Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPDefence10—The Minister for Industry, Science and Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:In response to the question the following points should be noted:- the period involved is taken to be from 31 December 1996, being the date of effect of the relevant criteria for registration of organisations under the Workplace Relations Act 1996, to 7 June 1999;- the relevant organisations are taken to be those registered as at 7 June 1999;- the organisations listed below are on a list of registered organisations provided by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission through the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business dated 7 June 1999.(a)—(i)(ii)(iii)Australia Industry Group$4,240.00ACTAustralian Hotels Association$90,000.00ACTPrinting Industries Association of Australia$21,600.00NSWNSW Branch of the Pharmacy Guild of Australia$3,800.00NSWVictorian Association of Forest Industries$39,000.00VICVictorian Employers Chamber of Commerce and Industry$171,660.00VICCivil Contractors Federation$485.83VICMaster Builders Australia$46.00VICNational Meat Association of Australia$450.00NSW(b)—(i)(ii)(iii)Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia$23,746.94VICNational Tertiary Education Industry Union$720.00VICThe Community and Public Sector Union$17,783.00VICAutomotive, Foods, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union$1,820.00VIC8878(Question No. 720)7208878Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MossfieldMK6GreenwayALP00 asked the Minister for Aged Care, upon notice, on 8 June 1999:Further to the answer to question No 521 (Hansard , 7 June 1999, page 4980) about aged care assessments, in relation to the balance of 369 persons assessed or re-assessed by the Aged Care Assessment Team, what steps are being taken to ensure that this large number of persons outstanding are able to be placed in hostels, nursing homes or Community Options/Community Aged Care Packages.8878Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs Bronwyn BishopSE4MackellarLPAged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Aged Care Assessment Teams (ACATs) assess people for a wide range of reasons. ACATs can approve people for residential aged care, including respite care, and Community Care Packages or they can recommend people to receive Home and Community Care Services. Over half the people assessed by an ACAT are recommended to remain in the community with appropriate care supports.The ACAT assessment results in either a care plan being developed detailing the most appropriate services to meet the care needs of the individual, or the granting of approval for the person to access residential care or a Community Care Package. The remaining 369 people assessed by the Blacktown ACAT team were not recommended for residential aged care or a Community Care Package. Home and Community Care services other than Community Options may have been utilised.During the 1996-97 financial year, 51.1% of people assessed by NSW ACATs were recommended to stay at home and 40.9% were recommended for residential care. The Blacktown ACAT team recommended 372 people for residential care. This equates to 46%. This figure is close to the State average for residential care.8878(Question No. 738)7388878Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, upon notice, on 21 June 1999:Further to the answer to the question No. 31 (Hansard , 9 December 1998, page 1809) in which the Minister referred to positive discrimination measures within the internal management practices of the Minister's Department, for those measures which are available to and impact on the general public (a) what measures has the Department implemented which could be categorised as positive discrimination, that is, providing preference to certain citizens on the basis of their gender, sexuality, age, race, place of birth or some other personal characteristic, and (b) what are the details and funding commitments in each case. 8879Moore, 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 has implemented the following positive discrimination measures (as described in the honourable member's question) which are available to, and impact on, the general public:(1) (a) Regional Tourism Program.(b) The National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Tourism Industry Strategy provides the framework for stakeholders to remove the barriers to the development of indigenous tourism and encourages Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to choose how they wish to participate in the tourism industry. As part of the Strategy, funding has been provided under the Regional Tourism Program to support indigenous tourism development. In 1998-99, $306,000 was provided on a competitive basis for indigenous tourism projects. These projects will enhance regional tourism business opportunities for indigenous Australians, and result in employment and other economic and social benefits.(2) (a) Science and Technology Awareness Program.(b) The Science and Technology Awareness Program provides financial support for activities which aim to increase the science and technology awareness of Australians, and meet perceived unfilled needs in science and technology awareness. Two of the Program's target groups are young people and women. In 1998-99 the program provided financial support to a range of projects totalling $1 million.(3) (a) Telstra Business Women's Awards.(b) AusIndustry is a sponsor of the Telstra Business Women's Awards, a national awards program designed to acknowledge and recognise the valuable contribution women make to business throughout Australia. The Commonwealth's sponsorship of the Awards in 1999 is for the "AusIndustry Private Sector employing fewer than 100 Employees" category. AusIndustry sponsorship for the 1999 Awards will total $70,000.8879(Question No. 771)7718879Livermore, Kirsten, MPMs Livermore83ACapricorniaALP00 asked the Minister for Aged Care, upon notice, on 22 June 1999:(1) Did the Prime Minister announce that additional funding would be provided to meet the needs of older people who have been caring for their children with disabilities for decades, over and above that provided in the existing Common wealth/State disability agreement; if so, has the Commonwealth specified to the States how to spend the additional funding.(2) Have community aged care packages been developed to meet the needs of high level clients at the Nursing Home Care Level in the electoral division of Capricornia; if so, will the packages become available in place of existing nursing home beds or in addition to them.8879Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs Bronwyn BishopSE4MackellarLPAged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) This matter is not within my portfolio. The question should be referred to the Hon Jocelyn Newman MP, Minister for Family and Community Services.(2) There is a program called the Extended Aged Care at Home Packages Pilot Program, which aims to test the feasibility of providing care equivalent to high (nursing care) level residential care to people living at home. The pilot is limited to 10 projects, all of which have been approved and are in various stages of development. There are no plans to increase the number of projects until it has been evaluated. The formal evaluation is due to commence later in 1999. The pilot operates by replacing existing high level residential care places for the term of the pilot.8879(Question No. 784)7848879Zahra, Christian, MPMr Zahra84HMcMillanALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 30 June 1999:Did his Department or its predecessors provide funds to (a) Croft Health Care Pty Ltd, (b) Croft Health Care Vic. Pty Ltd, (c) Croft Health Care Properties Pty Ltd, (d) G&L Croft Pty Ltd, (e) Millennium Aged Care Pty Ltd, (f) Ringwood Drive-in Shopping Centre Pty Ltd, (g) Croft Management Services Pty Ltd, (h) Gracedale Manor Pty Ltd, (i) P&C Nominees Pty Ltd, (j) Sixty Ninth Octex Pty Ltd, (k) Private Hospital Management Systems Pty Ltd and (l) Third Ocwood Pty Ltd; if so, in each case, (i) when and (ii) for what purpose were the funds provided and (iii) were complaints received concerning the provision of health and aged care by the firm; if so, (A) what was the nature of the complaints and (B) what action did the Department take in response.8879Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The Department has provided funds to some of the listed entities under the National Health Act 1953, the Aged or Disabled Persons Care Act and the Aged Care Act 1997. Details of the funding are attached. ATTACHMENTEntityPeriod Funds ProvidedFunds Provided ForComplaintsCroft Health Care Pty LtdJuly 1995 to June 1999 (current)Residential Care SubsidyComplaints have been received to the following issues:Resident security of tenure & responsibilities. Agreements. Safety. Choice. Catering. Environment. Care needs. Medication Management. FinancialAll complaints were investigated and resolved through the Aged Care Complaints Resolution Scheme.Croft Health Care Vic Pty LtdJuly 1998 to presentResidential Care SubsidyComplaints have been received relating to the following issues:. Continence. Financial. Catering. Choice. MedicationAll complaints were investigated and resolved through the Aged Care Complaints Resolution SchemeCroft Health Care Properties Pty LtdNILNILNILG&L Croft Pty LtdNILNILNILMillennium Aged Care Pty LtdNILNILNILRingwood Drive-in Shopping Centre Pty LtdNILNILNILCroft Management Services Pty LtdNILNILNILGracedale Manor Pty LtdJune 1994 to May 1999 (current)Residential Care Subsidy Complaints have been received relating to the following issue:. FinancialAll complaints were investigated and resolved through the Aged Care Complaints Resolution Scheme.P&C Nominees Pty LtdNILNILNILSixty Ninth Octex Pty LtdNILNILNIL Private Hospital Management Systems Pty LtdNILNILNILThird Ocwood Pty LtdNILNILNIL. No capital payments under the Aged Care Act 1997 have been made to any of the above listed services