1999-08-243914REPS888901999-08-24Mr SPEAKER(Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 2.00 p.m., and read prayers.Questions Without Notice888988898889Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Defence. Minister, isn't it a fact that you do not make comment on operational matters, such as the grounding yesterday of the F111s? Isn't it a fact that you have refused to answer any questions in this House on defence personnel, including on unfair FBT measures? Isn't it a fact that you left the announcement of a $2 billion contract for early warning aircraft to your service chief and refused briefings on these decisions—decisions that are now apparently under United States congressional investigation? Isn't it a fact that you have not directly communicated with your departmental secretary for more than one month? If you will not get involved in operational, personnel, administrative or procurement matters, Minister, what do you do?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The question has about it a touch of irony, such as would rule it out of order.UNKNOWNOpposition memberOpposition member—Mr Speaker, did you rule the question out of order?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Yes, I did.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: have you, since you last made a ruling on irony, actually consulted what the dictionary definition of irony means?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Thank you, Mr Speaker. With regard to your ruling, the word `irony' means a word being used to give an impression opposite to that which is its proper meaning. There is nothing in that question that is ironic.8I4MARTINMr Martin—Mr Speaker, I rise on the point of order on this particular issue. There was a series of questions I put to the minister. You may have thought that the last of those was in a sense ironical; I do not think it was, but you are in the chair now.Honourable member interjecting—8I4MARTINMr Martin—It is the Old Speakers Club. The four questions certainly went to matters that were obviously in the minister's portfolio responsibility, and they were genuinely seeking a response from the minister. He actually got up on his feet and looked like he was going to answer today.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Whether the question is in order or not in order has nothing to do with whether the minister is on his feet. In fact, I felt that the preceding part of the question bordered on advancing an argument. I have heard the point of order from the member for Cunningham.HK5ANDREWSMr Andrews—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on the matter which you have just raised. The use by the honourable member for Cunningham of the words `isn't it a fact' clearly is the advancement of an argument. Moreover, the question clearly contained inferences on three grounds; therefore you ought to rule it out of order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I have heard the points of order and I have already ruled on the question.88898889Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON6K6FordeLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Treasurer, I refer to the company profits survey that was released last week. What do these survey results signify about the Australian economy?8889Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Forde for her question. The company profits survey released last week showed that company profits in Australia are in a very strong state indeed. Company profits rose by 10.3 per cent through the year to the June quarter of 1999 and, on a national accounts basis, they now account for 24 per cent of GDP—one of the highest profit shares on record. Over the last year and a half, company profits have risen steadily, and that has promoted a lot of business confidence and employment opportunities. In addition, the strong position of Australian companies and their profits has underwritten Australians' in volvement in the share market. Almost 32 per cent of Australians now hold shares, compared with 9.6 per cent in 1986. Total share ownership in Australia is now at 40.3 per cent, which I believe to be the second highest in the world.As profits have grown and increased the wealth of shareholders, they have provided a solid foundation for increased investment and underpinned strong consumption in the Australian economy. Members will be interested to know that the South China Morning Post on 16 August had a feature on Australia and described the Australian economy outlook in these terms:The Australian economy is expected to continue to outperform in a global context this year.Strong profits, low inflation, strong growth, a return of company confidence underpinning consumption, and employment growth means that the Australian economy will continue to outperform in a global context next year and speaks well for the prospects of Australian companies.88908890Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Defence. Does the minister recall, in his answer to my question about the shortage of ADF specialist medical officers on 9 August 1999, stating:At a time when we are not at war, the numbers of medical staff are adequate. For our deployments at the present moment, there is no shortage.Minister, are you aware of reports today of leaked defence department documents again revealing a critical shortage of specialist medical personnel in the ADF—reports, I might say, supported by a media release from the AMA? Is it also correct that, because of the shortage, the ADF will have to rely on specialist US medical services for the Crocodile 99 military exercises? Minister, why did you mislead the House?8890Moore, John, MPMr MOOREEI4RyanLPDefence10—As I have answered the question before, I will just outline it again. I am advised by the CDF that—to use his words—the ADF does have the appropriate medical capacity to support operations. That completely covers the issue as it relates to the exercises in Australia. If I am advised by the CDF of the adequacy of medical officers, I rely on that. Secondly, I just point to the fact that there are some 74 surgeons and 24 anaesthetists in the reserve forces. These are the people who have contributed to all exercises we have undertaken in the last few years, including those put under command by the Labor government. It is exactly the same procedure and rules, and exactly the same people have been called up for the current exercises. The CDF tells me that he is quite satisfied with the numbers that he currently has.Beyond that, a series of questions was raised before and I might take this opportunity to say a few words.8I4MARTINMr Martin—What is your ruling on that, Mr Speaker?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister has the call and I will listen to his answer. He has not, as yet, said anything that contravenes the standing orders.EI4Mr MOORE—There were a couple of other issues raised by the member for Cunningham—it was a wide ranging review, as if he had nothing else to do. For the last couple of weeks, he has mostly been attempting to put forward questions which are totally irrelevant. In relation to the early warning plane and the order we put forward with Boeing, that was done completely in accordance with proper procedures. I was briefed before the announcement.I happened to be ill in Brisbane for the final briefing, which is why Air Marshal McCormack did the briefing. That was to provide the technical expertise for members so that they would be fully briefed on the occasion. That information was in the press comment at the time so you should follow these things up and do your own homework before you make comments.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I do not wish this early in question time to issue a general warning but, if members continue to behave as they have behaved for the last 10 minutes, I will be forced to do so.88918891Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Has the minister seen reports that the building industry is engaged in de facto compulsory unionism? How does this practice affect the workplace relations record of capital city building sites in terms of pay rates, common site allowances and industrial disputation?8891Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I have seen that Productivity Commission report. It vindicates the position the government has taken. We have for some time now been calling for reform in the industry. We have been doing so because we have been concerned at the very high levels of industrial action in the industry which undermines its competitiveness and productivity. It is quite clear from the Productivity Commission report that we still have problems of de facto compulsory unionism. The government is opposed to compulsory unionism and the law provides remedies for breaches of those provisions.We are also concerned that you have deals between big companies and the unions and that the people who get squeezed are the small businesses who, as the report notes, provide most of the employment in the industry. Further, when you read the report carefully, it notes the fact that you get high wage increases not tied to productivity. One of the consequences of this is that we do not have the level of employment in the industry that we might have with a more efficient system. This government has done a lot to promote job creation in the Australian economy and there is no doubt that in this industry more could be done, with a sensible approach, to see jobs created. In fact, as we have said before, we think more young people should be able to get their first job in the building industry. That would be good for them and good for the economy.Lastly, the report notes the importance of small business. That does not need to be said to this side of the House but it is a fact that, if you encourage small business, they go out and create jobs and create prosperity. Reform in this industry is justified so that we get a better deal not just for the taxpayers, who pay for many of these projects, but also for our small businesses and the unemployed who deserve a fairer go—and a fairer go would be a benefit to everybody.88918891Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—(2.14 p.m.)—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, can you confirm that 33 of the 39 Federation Fund grants announced during the federal election—that is, 85 per cent—went to coalition held seats, especially coalition marginals and seats under threat from One Nation? Doesn't this graph demonstrate the huge bias in favour of grants to coalition seats announced during the election campaign? Isn't this the true picture of the pork barrel bias in your rorted Federation Fund?8891Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—When the Leader of the Opposition held up that bit of paper that had a lot of blue on it, I was reminded of the electoral map of Australia after March 1996. I say to the Leader of the Opposition, as I indicated yesterday: if the Auditor-General wants to have a look, let him do so.88918891Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4LaTrobeLP10—My question without notice is to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Minister, are you aware of any recent comments on the government's plans to increase school attendance and improve literacy standards for indigenous students? What is the government's response to such comments?8891Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the honourable member for La Trobe for his question, and I acknowledge his very deep interest in providing quality education for all young Australians. When this government came to office, we found that 75 per cent of young indigenous Australians could not read or write adequately. Without literacy and numeracy, it is almost impossible for these young Australians to participate adequately in the wider society. Their parents want them to be literate, but the fact is that these basic skills were neglected in their education. Attendance levels at school were low and were never effectively addressed by the Labor Party.The key things are good literacy, supported by attendance levels which are satisfactory. Attendance will never be satisfactorily addressed unless there is an effort to enlist the aid of parents, the wider communities and indigenous leaders. In April this year, the Commonwealth reached agreement with all the states and territories to undertake additional and concerted efforts to make rapid progress in literacy and numeracy and attendance for young indigenous Australians and to set proper performance targets so that young indigenous students could achieve satisfactory and equitable outcomes by the year 2004.This is a strategy based on the fundamentals of success in education for young indigenous people. It is a strategy which has strong support from indigenous communities, and not just from indigenous communities. I was interested to read in the press this morning the comments of a former Northern Territory Labor leader and former Labor federal minister, Bob Collins. Bob Collins said:This package is absolutely on the mark.He went on to say in a radio interview on Radio 8DDD:For the record, I strongly support Dr Kemp's package. The package is well directed and I may add again it has been welcomed across the Northern Territory from the most important people of all—that is, the Aboriginal teachers and parents that are vitally interested in getting better outcomes for their students.Labor lost the plot when it was in office. We are seeing in policy area after policy area former Labor ministers, and indeed some in the House, acknowledging the fact that it is the coalition that is finally putting in place the practical policies that will address problems that never achieved a satisfactory solution in 13 years of Labor government. The member for Banks, who I notice has just disappeared, would understand exactly what Bob Collins was talking about because we remember his comments—4T4MELHAMMr Melham—I haven't disappeared, brother. Don't worry about me. I don't disappear.BT4Dr KEMP—You can hear him somewhere. He is down there. Bob Collins has been honest enough to acknowledge the value of what the coalition is doing in indigenous policy. The coalition is committed to policies that will achieve educational equity and excellent outcomes for all young Australians.88928892Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, can you confirm that, despite the fact that you held a little more than 60 per cent of the seats, 87 per cent of the $40 million in federation funds announced during the election campaign went to coalition held seats? How can you really expect people to believe that the Federation Fund was anything but a taxpayer funded election buying rort?8892Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I, of course, reject the ridiculous charge made in the Leader of the Opposition's question. I repeat: if he is so inclined, this matter is open for review by the Auditor-General.Mr Bevis interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Brisbane will be warned if he continues to interject!88928892Haase, Barry, MPMr HAASE84TKalgoorlieLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Can the minister inform the House of the state of health of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples? Can the minister outline some of the recent initiatives that give hope for improved Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health status?8892Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—I thank the honourable member for his question and his interest in this area. Aboriginal health is a priority to this government. It is an area in which we have been working away quietly but very hard to try and make a real difference to Aboriginal Australians. In my own travels, all I have ever heard Aboriginal people ask for in Aboriginal health is what many others in Australia take for granted. It is an area where it is easy to be gloomy, but there are also many things happening that make me feel very positive and hopeful. In the funding area, in the last budget, we announced $100 million of new funding over the next four years—$78 million specifically to expand existing services.On the issue of new services, when I became minister, there were 36 Aboriginal communities in Australia that had virtually no access to health care whatsoever. An example of one is in Oak Valley in the member for Grey's electorate. That has 150 permanent residents, but at some times of the year it goes up to 450 permanent residents. In the last three years, we have been able to put in 25 new health care services, with 11 further services being given approval to go ahead.A framework agreement is now in place with every state and territory government in Australia. This means that for the first time we have got a common planning process between the Commonwealth and states or territories. It means that for the first time we have got ATSIC and Aboriginal medical services at the table as legitimate participators. Health ministers only two weeks ago agreed to extend these framework agreements for another three years.We are putting a lot of effort and resources into training health workers, recognising that Aboriginal people do need Aboriginal people themselves to help with health care. We have got 12 new specialist emotional and social wellbeing centres. Three more are in the planning stage, with one of these in the Kimberley regional centres graduating its first certificate holders later this year. We have got 59 new counselling positions. We have got counsellors now for the first time ever in Tasmania working as part of the government's Bringing them home package response.There are coordinated care trials going on in four Aboriginal communities—Wilcannia, Katherine West, Tiwi and Perth/Bunbury. I must say I was surprised and delighted recently that people from the Tiwi trial came down to Canberra to see me just to tell me how well the trial was going, how it had transformed their community—AV5QUICKMr Quick—They thought they had been defunded.8E4Dr WOOLDRIDGE—The interjection just shows the cynicism and hypocrisy. I am trying to give a serious answer.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—They thought they had been defunded. That is what they told me.8E4Dr WOOLDRIDGE—It shows the Leader of the Opposition's hypocrisy has no bounds.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will come to his response to the question.8E4Dr WOOLDRIDGE—The Tiwi trial has in fact been a great success but it was just that: a trial to go for two years. It has been so successful we are looking at arrangements for keeping it going beyond the two years, as the funding was only ever promised for that period of time. I might say the Tiwi trial is an example of something you were incapable of doing in 13 years of government.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—That is rubbish—absolute rubbish.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister has the call.Mr Beazley interjecting—8E4Dr WOOLDRIDGE—Yes, the coordinated care trials were moribund when I came to government because you were incapable of getting the constituency together to do it. You were hopeless and you failed completely at it. For you to try and take the credit for it is contemptible.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Minister! The minister is aware of the standing order which requires him to address his remarks through the chair, so the use of the word `you' is scarcely appropriate in that context.8E4Dr WOOLDRIDGE—Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will try to ignore the unparliamentary interjections coming across the table. Finally, in a specific area like sexual health—something that was always said was too difficult to address—in Far North Queensland we now have 70 per cent of the participating Aboriginal populations in screening programs. That is over 1,200 people. Nganampa Health, again in the member for Grey's electorate, has instituted an STD program that has reduced by half the rate of sexually transmitted diseases in the last three years. All in all, it is not anything to be complacent about. There is plenty more that needs to be done, but it is an area where we do have many reasons to be hopeful.88948894Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the government's claim that the allocation of Federation Fund grants closely matched the allocation of seats in the last parliament. Isn't it true that you only achieved this by deferring the announcement of 74 per cent of grants to Labor seats until after the federal election, as this table shows? Doesn't this and the earlier table prove that you busily announced successful projects during the election campaign in coalition seats but you delayed announcements in Labor seats until after the election? Prime Minister, haven't you just used taxpayers' money to buy coalition seats?8894Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—No.DT4CREANMr Crean—Mr Speaker, I seek leave to table the charts that I and the Leader of the Opposition have been referring to.Government members interjecting—DT4CREANMr Crean—Come on! Can we have the charts tabled?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.DT4CREANMr Crean—Both of them! The contrast!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat! Is leave granted?ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—No.88948894Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHLAE4CowperNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. The minister will be aware that the rate of unemployment amongst indigenous Australians is three times higher than the national average. As the government has recently released a strategy to deal with this major social problem, could the minister inform the House of its progress?8894Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for Cowper, because when we were consulting indigenous organisations over this policy initiative, he was very active in that process and I know he is genuinely concerned about the issue. I should also say as a preliminary comment that the indigenous employment policy obviously stands on its own, but it is a much better policy, when it is complemented by the work being done by the minister for education or the minister for health, to really have a total solution to some of these problems.The community reaction to the employment policy has been very encouraging. As part of it, we have been trying to encourage Australia's big companies to get involved. Twenty-four major national corporations signed a public statement saying they were prepared to do more. Nine companies have actually signed a memorandum with my department in respect of specific projects. In that particular segment of the program, we are looking to get 1,000 new jobs, and we have got in the order of 395 firm commitments for job placements out of those major companies so far. That is a very practical, positive program to assist with job creation.The wage assistance arrangements commenced on 1 July. So far there have been over 100 jobs approved and a further 170 jobs in the pipeline through this initiative. That is going to take a bit of time to gather momentum, but we are well on the way with that. Tenders are currently being assessed for the next Job Network tender round commencing in February next year. That is important because in that next round we have some specific measures for indigenous Australians: improving coverage by creating smaller Job Network catchment areas, encouraging the establishment of indigenous employment specialists and requiring more providers to include indigenous servicing strategies in their documentation. We also have the national cadetship program. That has been sent out to employers. That is in its fairly early days yet, but we have had a very positive reaction to that. Again, that is a really practical thing for companies to do. They want to do it, and with government assistance we can make that program work. We are also making changes with CDEP with the incentive program. That is on track for commencement on 20 September. All this demonstrates that this government has an effective targeted program to provide practical assistance in a way that really helps. For most Australians, whether you are Aboriginal, Torres Strait Islander or otherwise, if you can get a job it is a big help to you economically and a big help to you socially, and allows people the dignity of work. It is a long haul but we do have an integrated program. It is an area in which the government is very committed to seeing practical outcomes.88958895Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is again to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister recall the words of the member for Higgins in this place on 7 February 1994 when he said:[This is] an easy money scheme that could attract flies like a carcass . . . If governments get the idea that they can spend $30 million to buy elections, that is the end of open, fair and honest elections in this country.Prime Minister, didn't you sign off on an easy money scheme which saw $36 million of taxpayers' money rorted to buy coalition seats?8895Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—No.88958895Georgiou, Petro, MPMr GEORGIOUHM5KooyongLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. Minister, would you update the House on the current status of the Kosovars temporarily resident in Australian safe havens?8895Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—I thank the honourable member for Kooyong for his question. As he asked me about the situation with the people who were evacuated to Australia from Kosovo, I take the opportunity first to simply say that it was an outstanding effort on behalf of the Australian community, a very professional effort on behalf of the defence forces and the various departments and non-government organisations that were involved, and a generosity of spirit by the Australian community as a whole. I would like to thank my counterpart in the opposition, as well as the patrons and co-patrons who have assisted in the continuing monitoring of their circum stances here in Australia, for their assistance in the implementation of what I think has been a very significant bipartisan effort that has brought great credit to Australia.You will recall that we did put in place legislation that was designed to ensure that there was a temporary safe haven provided in Australia at the request of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Legislation was enacted to enable them to stay in Australia for a period of three months with provisions for extensions but did not provide opportunities ultimately for a permanent residence outcome. That was very deliberate in terms of the request of the United Nations to us and to support the effort to provide the possibility of a safe return.The fact is that now some three-quarters of a million people or more have returned to Kosovo. From Australia, some 1,200 people have already left and another 300 have indicated that they will be leaving at the end of next week. This is a time when the European winter is approaching. In the context that it is more desirable for people to return and establish their lives more quickly than they might otherwise be able to do, the government has determined that it will pay a winter reconstruction allowance to Kosovo evacuees who return by the end of October. The allowance will be $3,000 per adult and $500 for each child. It will help people who have been anxious about returning because of the loss of their homes, the very considerable destruction and the loss of livelihoods, farms and businesses to undertake rebuilding in the period before the European winter.It does have significance in terms of the costs for Australia. This evacuation has not been inexpensive. It has been an unusual arrangement. Costs have been larger than might ordinarily be the case for a permanent settlement basis in the short term while the costs would be very different over a longer term. So there are advantages to the taxpayer if more people take the opportunity to return now rather than to postpone their decisions.I want to emphasise that the returns have been voluntary. The allowance is not an unusual payment. It is similar to payments provided by other countries that evacuated people from Kosovo to assist in their return. It does complement the other measures that the government has in place to assist with the rebuilding of Kosovo and to provide people with relevant training, particularly in mine awareness, and assisting in preparation for building and providing first aid skills. These are a range of programs that we have been implementing while the Kosovars have been here and I think they have been very much to their advantage.88968896Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Are you aware that Senator Alston advised the Senate that final decisions on the Federation Fund grants were made in a meeting attended by him and Senator Hill and members of their political staffs when no official minutes were kept of the meeting, no departmental record taker was present, the only notes taken were taken by political staff and a list of approved projects was then transmitted to the departments? Prime Minister, isn't it a fact that no departmental record of decisions was able to be prepared by officials present at this meeting because there were none—it was just your two ministers, their advisers and a marginal seats map? On what basis was your department able to assure you that the reasons for decision were consistent with the guidelines for such programs?8896Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I have already indicated that, if the Auditor-General wants to have a look at this, he can—and I do not intend to depart from that.88968896Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Would the minister please inform the House of assistance provided by the federal government to support poultry producers during the recent outbreak of newcastle disease at Mangrove Mountain in my electorate of Robertson?8896Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—May I thank the honourable member for Robertson for his question and also for his representations on behalf of the poultry producers in his electorate who have endured difficult times as a result of the outbreak of newcastle disease in his electorate. All honourable members will be aware that something close to two million chickens were destroyed and many farmers have been without livelihood for some considerable time.As a result of the representations by the member for Robertson, the government has taken a number of actions to support the local farmers. Indeed, much of this support has been unprecedented. There have been something like 17 significant disease or pest outbreak incidents in Australia since March 1996, but the Mangrove Mountain chicken growers are the only ones to have received special assistance. Since April, the government has made ex gratia payments available to these producers while their farms are in quarantine. Around 95 farmers have had access to benefits of welfare assistance to enable them to ensure that their families are adequately cared for during these difficult times. In addition, the Commonwealth has provided the largest share of the cost of cleaning up the affected areas and, as a part of the program that is in place—the cost sharing between the Commonwealth and the states—has met its share of the cost associated with the clean up.Some farmers may be eligible for continuing assistance through the Farm Family Restart Scheme. Centrelink has notified all of those farmers who are no longer eligible to receive the ex gratia payments because their farms are no longer under quarantine that they may wish to apply if they feel that they are eligible, and some farmers have taken up that option.There have also been calls in some quarters for exceptional circumstances declarations to be made for that particular area. There is no doubt that this has been an event which has caused considerable difficulties in the area. However, one of the criteria that have been agreed between the Commonwealth and the states is that, before an area can be declared to be under exceptional circumstances, the events must have a longstanding impact. It will take a couple of months before that really can be assessed in this instance. Certainly the government will stand ready to assess any application that New South Wales may wish to make at that time.I compliment the member for Robertson on his representations on behalf of the growers. All Australians certainly feel for them, for the trouble that they have gone through. Newcastle disease is one of those horrific diseases that it is very important not to have endemic in the nation. There has been considerable cost associated with stamping out this outbreak, but we have also ensured that the growers, the individual affected farmers, have had access to special assistance to enable them to see their way through this tough time.We now call on the suppliers to readily and quickly restock these farms so that they can get back into production. That is a contractual arrangement between the various parties. We believe these properties can continue to produce chickens in the future in a successful and viable way.88978897Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—My question is again to the Prime Minister. You can plead the Fifth again.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Melbourne will come to his question.YU5Mr TANNER—I refer to your refusal to name the 16 Federation Fund grants which were secretly given special treatment by Ministers Hill and Alston. How many of these grants were announced during last year's election campaign? How many went to the coalition seats shown in this chart?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Melbourne!8897Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—On a quick count through question time, I think this question is about the fifth or sixth on this subject—give or take a bit. You asked another couple yesterday. I simply repeat to the opposition that these projects were consistent with the guidelines for the program. My approval was given on advice. I have already indicated that, if he so chooses, it is open to the Auditor-General of the Commonwealth to examine it. I will continue to say that. That is the government's position. If the Auditor-General wants to have a look at it, he is free to do so.88978897Hull, Kay, MPMrs HULL83ORiverinaNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Sport and Tourism. Given the importance of tourism to regional development, can the minister inform the House of the latest government initiatives to help my electorate of Riverina and all regional areas develop their tourism potential?Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Grayndler is now warned.8897Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss JACKIE KELLYGK6LindsayLPSport and Tourism; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Sydney 2000 Games10—I thank the member for her interest in tourism and in growing jobs in regional Australia, especially given recent events in Western Australia, where we have seen jobs decline. This government has put a heavy emphasis on resurrecting jobs in regional Australia, and tourism is one of those industries that can do it. I recently announced the regional tourism guidelines for the 1999-2000 Regional Tourism Program. This is a $16 million program over four years which seeks to give emphasis to tourism product in regional Australia. It is about giving the private sector as well as peak industry bodies or regional tourism or development organisations the opportunity to put forward submissions for ideas which will increase the number of tourists in their area, which will increase the yield from those tourists and which will make them stay longer. That creates jobs in regional Australia.It is an exceptional program. It has been very successful to date. We have seen some significant projects occurring under that. In some areas of Australia, you often have to rely on various icons, such as Ayers Rock, the Three Sisters or Kakadu, to give your region a figurehead. Under this program, regions can get together and come up with an idea or a proposal that is an icon in the tourism industry to bring tourists to that area and develop major tourism industries. The spin-off to small business and employment in the regions is substantial. I recommend the regional tourism guidelines to all of the country electorates on this side of the House.Opposition members interjecting—YU5TANNERMr Tanner—You're learning bad habits off Senators Alston and Hill.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Charlton! It should not be necessary for the Speaker to wait for the House to come to order, as every member is aware. The member for Melbourne has been at the dispatch box awaiting the call. He now has it.88988898Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—My question is again to the Prime Minister. I refer to your statement yesterday that your ministers relied on the advice of the National Council for the Centenary of Federation regarding the allocation of Federation Fund grants. Isn't it the case that, of the 12 grants which Ministers Hill and Alston initially advised the Senate were approved outside the departmental guidelines, only two were recommended by the National Council for the Centenary of Federation?8898Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I remind the member for Melbourne that I said yesterday that they rely inter alia on the advice of the Council of the Centenary of Federation. The situation remains that all of the programs that were approved were consistent with the guidelines. They were approved by me on advice. If the Auditor-General wants to have a look at it, he is free to do so.88988898Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANEWN6GroomLP10—My question is to the Minister for Forestry and Conservation. Will the minister advise the House of recent events relating to the forest industry in Western Australia?8898Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLPForestry and Conservation; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—Yesterday the shadow minister for lands and mining in the Gallop state government opposition, the Hon. Mark Neville, resigned from the Labor Party, the Labor opposition and his shadow ministry and has chosen to sit as an Independent. On the ABC Online news, Mr Neville's case was reported in the following words:Mr Neville has quit the ALP after a long-term disenchantment with party decisions on issues such as native title and the forest debate. His decision to sit as an independent will alter the balance of power in the Upper House and could help the Government pass key legislation.Mr Gallop is, of course, of the Oxford scholars faction, well represented in this place by the Leader of the Opposition. I go on with the quote:But Mr Neville says he still has his electorate in the mining and pastoral region to serve.That is because Dr Gallop thinks his only responsibility in parliament is to the Labor Party. It continues:`I will be representing the people who elected me,' Mr Neville said. `I will be able to represent them now because I can speak on a wide range of issues. I do not think my constituents or people in regional WA will be well served by Geoff Gallop's approach to native title or his approach to the timber industry.'They are the words of a leading and one-time dedicated Labor member of parliament. On the Sattler program, Mr Neville said:God help us—and he is talking about state politicians—they are all chasing the Green vote and they are all trying to out-green the Greens. You can't win all that constituency and not expect to lose a large chunk of blue-collar families and the women who work at home, but who are being totally ignored by the major parties in Western Australia, of course. They are the people who are flirting with—you know—the Pauline Hansons of this world, and they have no major political party representing them. I think that's a major problem. They are all fighting over the same bit of turf, which is not good for our economy, it is not good for jobs and it is not good for ordinary working Australians.UU5HORNEMr Horne—Mr Speaker, I have a point of order on relevance. The minister was asked a question about developments in the timber industry in Western Australia. He has not addressed that. All he has done is read out a succession of media releases about the Western Australian industry.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Paterson will resume his seat. The minister is being relevant to the question. He does, however, have an obligation to bring his answer—and I have no doubt that he will—to the federal perspective over which he has responsibility.SJ4Mr TUCKEY—I was just about to say that none of those allegations could be levelled against the Howard government in terms of our addressing the economy, our addressing jobs and our addressing the rights of all Australians. Mr Neville has given a message to a lot of people who sit opposite in this House that it is not a bad idea to put your working constituents first and not be subject to the rulings of the Oxford scholars faction. It is now clear that the Leader of the Opposition has more interest in the western suburbs of Perth—the salubrious suburbs of that city—than he has in the western suburbs of Sydney.88998899Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—(2.53 p.m.)—My question is to the Prime Minister. It refers to his previous answer in which he claimed that the role of the National Council for the Centenary of Federation was considered inter alia with others. Prime Minister, do you recollect your statement yesterday: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.Prime Minister, isn't it a fact that, of the 12 grants which Ministers Hill and Alston initially admitted were approved outside the guidelines, only two were recommended by the National Council for the Centenary of Federation? Isn't it also true that the only participants in the process who wanted to pervert it for political purposes were your two ministers?8899Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I reject totally the argument about perversion by the two ministers. I do not quite understand the point of the Leader of the Opposition's question. I said in my earlier answer that the ministers had relied inter alia on the advice of the Council for the Centenary of Federation, and you made that perfectly clear in reading the excerpt from the question that I answered yesterday. They got advice from their departments; they got advice from the council for the centenary. In the process, I would correct the Leader of the Opposition when he said that the projects were approved outside the guidelines. Accord ing to the advice I have, the projects were all within the program guidelines. The Leader of the Opposition should not play fast and loose with the truth.88998899Barresi, Phil, MPMr BARRESIZJ6DeakinLP10—(2.55 p.m.)—My question is to the Minister for Employment Services. Minister, how does the Regional Assistance Program contribute to the government's overall job strategy? How do local communities access funding available under the program?8899Abbott, Tony MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPEmployment Services10—I thank the member for Deakin for his question and also for his strong support for the Jobs East Area Consultative Committee of the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Along with the member for Menzies, the member for Deakin is particularly supportive of Jobs East's coming forum on enhancing job opportunities for mature aged workers.The Regional Assistance Program is a $40 million fund to boost employment in regional areas and in areas of high unemployment by promoting new economic opportunities. It is not a `Canberra knows best' program; it is not public servants picking winners. The money is spent largely on the recommendations of a national network of 58 area consultative committees comprising local business and community leaders. All these committee members are volunteers. They have given up time from busy lives, and I want to thank them all for their contribution to building a better, more fully employed and more inclusive Australia.Last week I announced funding of $2.3 million for nearly 60 projects around Australia, including—I am sure members opposite will be pleased to know—seven projects to promote indigenous employment. These projects included, for instance, a duckweed waste water treatment system for the Boggabilla community in northern New South Wales which will produce a marketable commodity, duckweed, as well as irrigation water. It included a work skills and work experience program near Cloncurry to enable young indigenous job seekers to access work at the new phosphate mine there.The Regional Assistance Program complements other government programs, particularly the Indigenous Employment Program. It is a sign that this is a government in touch with the mainstream of the Australian community and drawing on the experience and wisdom of small business to create the jobs that Australians need.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Mr Speaker, at two minutes to three, there are 20 questions. I think the short question times are marvellous. I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—The Prime Minister pleads the Fifth and runs!Personal Explanations890014:59:008900Nugent, Peter, MPMr NUGENTUT4AstonLP10—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?UT4Nugent, Peter, MPMr NUGENT—Grievously.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.UT4Nugent, Peter, MPMr NUGENT—Mr Speaker, during question time in the Senate yesterday, Senator Bob Brown asked a question of the Leader of the Government in the Senate in respect of a Mr Lafitte who was last week temporarily detained in China. The question said in part:. . . can the minister inform the Senate as to why Mr Peter Nugent, Liberal member from Victoria in the House of Representatives, who was in the city of Xining where Mr Lafitte was under detention, packed his bags and left Xining, even though he was part of a human rights delegation, before making contact with this detained Australian?Putting aside that this was a consular matter and was extremely well handled by DFAT officers from Beijing and the delegation leader, Mr Miles Kupa, a deputy secretary of DFAT, I wish to record that I also personally made representations to officials of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs from Beijing and the provincial ministry of foreign affairs local officials. Further, when I left Xining to return to Australia, contact had been made with Mr Lafitte, and he arrived back in Australia on the same day that I did.Auditor-General's Reports8900890010000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I present the Auditor-General's audit report No. 8 of 1999-2000: Performance audit—managing data privacy in Centrelink—Centrelink .Ordered that the report be printed.Documents89008900Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—Papers are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members earlier today. Details of the papers will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings .Matters of Public Importance8900890010000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I have received a letter from the honourable member for Melbourne proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The political bias in the Government's administration of cultural and heritage grants.I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—15:01:008900Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—The stench around the Federation Cultural and Heritage Projects Program grants is steadily mounting as the Prime Minister scuttles out of the parliament after having pleaded the Fifth and after having refused persistently to answer questions—Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Melbourne will resume his seat. As a matter of public importance, the member for Melbourne is entitled to be heard in silence and I expect that courtesy to be extended to him.YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNER—The Prime Minister scuttles out of the parliament after having pleaded the Fifth and after having refused persistently to answer questions on basic issues about public probity and public accountability. We have John Howard's brown paper bag, full of taxpayers' money to get his mates re-elected, now on full public display. The Prime Minister, who came into office promising a new set of standards, a new high level of transparency, integrity and honesty in government, has been caught out blatantly misusing government money to fund his re-election, and his two ministers have been caught out with him.The whole world can see that not only is this John Howard not the `Honest John' that he proclaimed himself to be and not only does he not have a set of standards higher than those of the rest of us who live in more mundane sections of the political community—he is not just another politician—but he is one of the grubbiest politicians. He is the Huey Long with the shoulder twitch and the feral eyebrows, the person who is grubbier than anybody who has held this position for many years. He stands in here and refuses to take responsibility for matters of public expenditure and public accountability that he has direct responsibility for and that relate to a letter that he signed himself.WI4REITHMr Reith—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The language being used by the shadow minister is, quite frankly, disgusting. It is contrary to the standing orders and he ought to be brought into line.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—I thank the Leader of the House for his point of order. I had been listening very carefully to the language being used by the member for Melbourne. I do not believe it was unparliamentary. It was discourteous and somewhat rude, but not unparliamentary. I call the honourable member for Melbourne.YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNER—The Prime Minister's only answer to specific questions in this House today was to throw his hands up into the air and say, `Well, look, if the Auditor-General wants to look at this, he can do so.' Of course the Auditor-General can, and I trust that he will look at it.Opposition members interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The honourable member for Melbourne will resume his seat. The level of interjection and disruption coming from my left is not condu cive to your colleague being heard with respect and attention.YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNER—Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. The question remains that, regardless of what the Auditor-General does, what accountability to this parliament does the Prime Minister have? What is his responsibility to answer questions about the handling of public money by his ministers and his government? Today he has walked away from that responsibility and refused point-blank to answer those questions, specific detailed questions, about the process that led to the expenditure of these moneys. He has simply said, `The Auditor-General can look at it if he wants to.' His responsibility as Prime Minister extends far beyond simply saying, `Look, the Auditor-General is there if he wants to have a look at it.'This government created a rort, it created a giant pork barrel, but it set in place a process. It was wary of the fact that previous events had given it some sort of credibility problem—that it had to ensure that there was some reflection of its previous statements in its actions—so it set up a departmental process that was broadly compatible with the Auditor-General's guidelines. But members of parliament were given only 30 days to apply and applications from projects supported by members of parliament closed on 30 June 1998. Why? Because the Prime Minister knew that he was going to call an election very soon. So this was a rort from the outset. This was a government in panic—frightened that it was going to lose the election and frightened of One Nation and the impact of the GST. It was panicking.The ministers interfered. They overturned the departmental recommendations, they had a points system which they ignored and they took 16 projects that did not meet the cut—that did not meet the 15-point minimum—and inserted them into the list at the expense of 16 projects which clearly did. This was contrary to the Auditor-General's guideline 2.8 which specified that grants should be made in accordance with appraisal criteria that have been established. The final decisions, as was indicated in question time today, were made in a meeting between Senator Hill, Senator Alston and a few ministerial staffers—and that is it. There were no departmental officials, no minutes and no proper record of decisions. This is decision making in the twilight zone. They went into the room, checked in their pencils and pads at the door so that there was no basis for keeping any record, went into the cone of silence and made their decisions, and somehow, mystically and telepathically, these were conveyed to the departmental officials. And—surprise, surprise—the Prime Minister signs off on the decisions on the same day, the same morning, he calls the election. This is hardly a matter of routine administration that just needs to be ticked off before you head out to Yarralumla, I would have thought.As the Leader of the Opposition revealed today in question time, during the election campaign there were 39 separate announcements—39 specific grants, specific projects, that were announced—with 33 of them in coalition seats. Thirty-three out of the 39 specific grants were announced during the election campaign, often with the appropriate fanfare and with the local Liberal member being praised for the contribution that had been made to getting the project. The balance, the remaining 28—of which 14, 50 per cent, were in Labor seats—were announced after the election. They were left until after the election. Also, of course, the unsuccessful applicants were also notified after the election. Eighty-seven per cent of the money being expended in this program was the subject of announcements for Liberal seats during the election; 87 per cent of the money that was announced during that election was for Liberal held seats.Then we had the cover-up. We had the ministers running for cover, as through the Senate estimates process Senator Faulkner and other senators started to expose what had gone on. If Australia is ever at war, I think the two government senators fielding the questions could be sent behind enemy lines: they have proved to be absolute experts at avoiding giving information, absolute experts at not telling the processes gone through and how the decisions were reached.Initially, those government senators admitted to 12 shonky grants; they admitted that 12 had been lifted up above the cut to replace ones that had made the cut. They subsequently admitted that the 12 were 16. They then refused to release the decisions and the reasons for decisions, and they refused to identify which were the projects that had not qualified for the departmental criteria that had been inserted by them in their cone of silence decision making process where there were no departmental officials involved.This, the refusal to announce the reasons for decisions, is clearly contrary to Auditor-General guidelines 1.37 and 1.38, which state:Administrators of grants programs are vulnerable to complaints of inequitable treatment, political and other forms of patronage or bias. The design of the grant program should ensure that decisions in relation to the approval or refusal of applications for grants are transparent and well documented.The criteria and basis for recommendations and decisions at all stages of the grant process, including appraisal and approval, must be effectively documented. Appraisal forms should provide for the recording of reasons for decisions and recommendations. They should be maintained consistently as part of the official record and be accessible under freedom of information provisions.It is pretty clear and unequivocal. They have refused to say why they made the decisions. They have refused to say which of the 16 projects were the projects that were not eligible to make the cut-off originally and were bumped up subsequently.All the Prime Minister would say in response to questioning is, `I'll have a look at it.' That was his line last week, remember, in question time—`I'll have a look at it.' He came back this week, and when asked `Did you have a look at it, and what did you find?' his answer was, `Oh, the Auditor-General can have a look at it if he likes.' So he has ducked, he has weaved, he has obfuscated, he has tried to avoid the point and he is blatantly avoiding his own responsibility.Their defences as to why they are refusing to release information have drifted between the ludicrous and the laughable. We have heard the commercial-in-confidence defence: somehow the reasons for a grant being given to a local council to restore an old building cannot be revealed because they are commercial-in-confidence. We have heard the `It's not just the departmental advice' excuse—and that was blown to pieces today. The only other source of advice that has been identified is the National Council for the Centenary of Federation. When the two ministers advised the Senate that 12 shonky grants were in there, they then shortly thereafter admitted that only two of the 12 were recommended by the National Council for the Centenary of Federation.The Prime Minister today said inter alia there were other sources of advice. Who were they? What other sources were there? All we have seen are the two ministers, the department who was ignored and the National Council for the Centenary of Federation who was ignored. It is abundantly clear that the only source of advice that they sought was Lynton Crosby and the Liberal Party's marginal seats committee. That is the source of advice that mattered on these projects.Now we have the Prime Minister distancing himself subtly from his two ministers—`My advice is', `Speaking for myself' and `On all the information available to me'. So clearly he is setting himself up for the possibility that these ministers will have to go. He is aware that the Auditor-General will undoubtedly have a look at these matters, and he is aware that they will not stand up to public scrutiny. His own former Deputy Prime Minister, Tim Fischer, revealed the truth on election night when he said:A lot of policy was in the pipeline and specific project announcements were always held back for announcement during the election campaign.I wonder what he was talking about! I think it is pretty clear-cut. Let us contrast what we have here with the unctuous, pious rhetoric that we had from the current government when it was in opposition. The Treasurer, on 7 February 1994, said:If governments get the idea that they can spend $30 million to buy elections, that is the end of open, fair and honest elections in this country.If that has been said about $30 million, what does $70 million add up to? The Treasurer, on 1 March 1994, said:If we were in government, we would have proper audits, and material that should be available under freedom of information would be available.Where is he now? How well we remember the Treasurer standing here, right in this spot, as the shadow minister for finance, unction dripping from his hands, his face contorted with that sneer that we know so well, bobbing up and down like a sideshow doll, with his voice elevated in a hysterical high pitched scream pouring scorn on the former government's community, cultural and sporting grants. Where is he now on the question of financial probity and integrity of this government? We have not heard a single thing from him.Where is the Prime Minister? The Prime Minister refuses to answer questions about government accountability on this issue. He refuses to say whether or not certain events occurred. He refuses to be accountable for the actions not only of his own ministers but of he himself. He signed the letter—a highly unusual action, a highly unusual event—specifically, explicitly approving the actions of his two ministers on the morning of the day the election was called.This comes from a Prime Minister—as I am sure I do not need to remind the House—who got elected on the basis that he was going to elevate parliamentary standards to new stellar heights; that the bad old days when people did not answer questions, the bad old days when things were not out in the open, the bad old days when issues were not transparent and there was no accountability under John Howard would all be gone. We would move into a new nirvana of integrity, probity and accountability.It did not take long post-March 1996 for that chimera to fall away. But it has reached new depths in this scandalous affair where the Prime Minister can come in with a new record today. I think it is the first time—I stand to be corrected on this—the full 20 questions have finished before 3 p.m. Why did that happen? Pretty simple: because he refused to answer virtually all of the questions that were directed to him. The Prime Minister stood at the dispatch box on the other side of the House and said, `I have no responsibility for any of these matters. I am not accountable to the parliament. I don't have to answer any of these questions. I don't have to say why it is that these programs were rorted, why it is that there was favouritism towards Liberal seats and why it is they were all announced in conservative seats during the election and everybody else was left until after the election campaign. I don't have to answer any of those questions. There is the Auditor-General. If he wants to have a look at it, that is okay.' It is time for both him and the Treasurer to stand up and be counted on these issues.We have had two ministers blatantly interfere in the process of allocating a very substantial amount of public money to projects around the country. The whole concept of the program was a rort, but they have perverted it for their own political purposes through their decision making kind of silence deliberately designed to avoid any involvement by departmental officials. They added in 16 projects, and the PM signed up on the very day he called the election. They announced the coalition seats grants during the election, and the bulk of the Labor and unsuccessful projects were announced after it. This is a blatant misuse of government money for electoral purposes. (Time expired)15:16:008904McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPArts and the Centenary of Federation10—If anyone anywhere in Australia had any last, lingering doubt that the Labor Party is entirely marginalised and has lost the plot, then its behaviour in question time and again in the MPI would erase that doubt. The opposition has concentrated entirely on an issue that has been answered many times over in the Senate and again in question time here over several days. Dozens, and I would expect even hundreds, of questions have been asked directly of the two ministers involved in this matter in the Senate, all of which have been answered to the satisfaction of any objective, fair observer.But, in any event, the matter is in the purview of the Auditor-General, who is an independent officer of the parliament. The Prime Minister is perfectly entitled to answer each of the repetitious questions at question time to the effect that the Auditor-General will pursue this matter in any way he so chooses. But the Auditor-General will no doubt note that the process used to determine the approval or refusal of applications under the Federation Cultural and Heritage Projects Program was developed on the basis of the National Audit Office Better practice guide for the administration of grants document. There was consultation with the Auditor-General's office and then adoption of the Auditor-General's own guidelines in the administration of this program. Moreover, the specific guidelines were circulated with the application form.The Auditor-General will pursue this matter, as I say, however he so chooses. The problem for the Labor Party is that all 60 funded projects were eligible. Moreover, the process was based on the Auditor-General's own guidelines. Here today the government asked questions of ministers relating to the economy, industrial relations, indigenous health, indigenous employment and indigenous education. We asked questions on tourism and jobs and we asked a question on forestry and jobs. Yesterday most of our questions related to job creation. What do we get from the opposition? Entirely supercilious questions to the Minister for Defence, the first question of which was ruled out of order—to the apparent amusement of most, if not all, members of the opposition who broke into hilarious giggles. It will be very interesting to see the reporting of that in tomorrow's newspapers. If we had done that in opposition where our questions were ruled out of order and the response was just a laughing matter, we would have been condemned for not being a serious, focused opposition.Then we quickly got off the defence matters and the same question on this issue—in different guises only—was asked of the Prime Minister. The Labor Party has a policy vacuum. I have to wonder: if you were the shadow minister for immigration, the shadow minister for industry, the shadow minister for the arts, the shadow minister for science or the shadow minister for regional development, how do you get questions asked at question time? Is it that they do not know how to pose questions, given that they have no alternative policies, or is it simply a few bovver boys wanting to flex their muscles, dominating the tactics committee and therefore hijacking question time? The answer to this might reside in the clue given to us during the MPI where I counted but five shadow ministers remaining for the shadow minister for finance's contribution—shallow and ill-advised as it was.Quite frankly, there must be dissent within the opposition because members of any principle, courage or policy strength would know that they are wasting question time after question time on a pointless pursuit of a program which was developed on the basis of the Auditor-General's own guidelines. The problem for the Labor Party is that, firstly, all 60 projects were eligible—they cannot answer that. Secondly, they refuse to accept that the departmental adviser was only one source of advice, that the National Council for the Centenary of Federation was another source and that there was then the minister's own discretion. I stand to be corrected but I know of no Auditor-General in history who denies the right of a ministerial discretion. Of course ministers have their own criteria: they have to make a balance between cultural and heritage applications, different states, different public good and the like. Consequently, I call on Labor to name the shonky projects. Senator Faulkner talks about 16 shonky projects; the shadow minister for finance has talked of 12 shonky projects. What are they? Name them. You know all 60. Which one does not deserve to be funded?We on this side believe that each one deserved to be funded. Which one does not deserve to be funded? Was it the restoration of the Great Synagogue in the electorate of Sydney? Was it the electorate of Melbourne, the shadow minister for finance's own electorate, where he got $4.1 million for the restoration of the Polly Woodside and the Federation Tapestry? Was it Brisbane, the restoration of naval stores; Corio, the National Wool Museum; Canberra, the development of Tuggeranong Homestead; Fraser, the conservation of the Academy of Science dome; Reid, the Rookwood cemetery restoration; Prospect, St Bartholomew's Church conservation; Batman, the Bundoora Homestead; Denison, the historic female factory site; Port Adelaide, the Commonwealth Railways Museum; Perth, the Meerilinga House restoration; or Lyons, the Clarendon Homestead and Woolmers Heritage and Cultural Estate?None of those Labor members are asking questions. Which one of them is prepared to say that the project is shonky? What about the members of the Labor Party who now reside in seats which they won from the coalition and which received projects: Bendigo, the Maryborough Cultural Centre; Braddon, the Devonport Cultural Centre; Bass, the Launceston Railway Workshop; and the Northern Territory, the Araluen Centre? Why aren't they asking questions? Because each and every one of those Labor members, I would expect—I am happy to be proved wrong—totally supports that project in their electorate. None of them are shonky. Which of them do they claim to be shonky? They do not have the courage to point out which project should not have been funded. Unlike the whiteboard fiasco, the sports rort, where projects were accepted after the closing date, did not meet the guidelines and there was no paper compliance by the minister—it was simply off the top of her head—this is a properly documented procedure developed under the guidelines of the Auditor-General.I challenge any of those Labor members who have a number of these 60 projects in their electorates: tell us which are shonky. They will not. They are not even asking questions, for the simple reason that the allocation between the various political parties to their different electorates was almost exactly according to the number of electorates they held. The Labor Party received 30 per cent of successful projects in the 33 per cent of electorates they held at the last election; the Liberal Party received 52 per cent of the projects, given they held 50 per cent of the electorates; 12 per cent of the projects went to the 12 per cent of National Party seats held in the parliament; five per cent of the projects are in the five per cent of electorates held by Independents; and one project went across multiple electorates. I can assure members of the opposition there are plenty on this side whose electorates missed out entirely—and I represent one of them. The member for Page and the member for Eden-Monaro feel very strongly about this issue and the fact that there was no political bias. The member for Gippsland, on his feet at this very moment, missed out entirely, creating some dissent from applicants in his own electorate. This was a program properly developed and properly administered.The opposition just throw around words, insults, accusations and slogans. They refuse to deny the basis upon which the program was built: Auditor-General's guidelines, ministerial discretion—surely they would not deny that; no government ever would—and a source of advice from the combined task force from the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, the Department of the Environment and Heritage, and the National Council for the Centenary of Federation. No one source of advice would have countermanded another necessarily. They were put together and all the different criteria would have been weighed up. The end result is that the government is proud of the contribution of these 60 projects that were supported through the Federation Cultural and Heritage Projects Program, for it has left a major contribution to our cultural heritage. I would defy any person to argue any single one of these projects was not worth supporting. The Labor opposition lack the courage of their supposed conviction on this issue, for they will not name any of the projects.Mr Albanese interjecting—XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURAN—I am taunted. There are five minutes to go. No, it is not easy to fill out the time on this issue. How often can you say this is a program that was properly constructed, properly administered and that the outcomes were fair and balanced to the benefit of Australia's cultural and heritage aspirations? How often can you say that? I would very happily wind up by saying that I have nothing useful to add to the Prime Minister's answers in question time. This is a matter before the Auditor-General, an independent officer of the parliament, who is well aware of the consultation that the various departments held with him and the adaptation of his own guidelines. The next speaker for the Labor opposition should simply tell us which are the shonky projects, and I bet he does not name any of the ones I read out. I bet none of those whose electorates have benefited will comment. We want their electorates to benefit. There was no monopoly on this program for political purposes to aid the government members.I do want to read out for the House the explanation given by Senator Robert Hill and Senator Richard Alston in response to an editorial in the Canberra Times of 17 August because this sums it up perfectly. The opposition, if they have any commitment to accuracy and fairness within this debating chamber, will accept the explanation of the ministers. I quote:Your editorial "Federation fund best way" (CT, 17 August) claims that we have "admitted that 16 . . . projects awarded money under the Federation Cultural and Heritage Program had not met the minimum criteria". We have made no such admissions, because no project that was rated as ineligible was funded by the Government.You question our adherence to the caretaker conventions that applied to government activities during an election-campaign period. Approval for the projects was given before the election was called, and there is no prohibition on the announcement during a campaign of decisions already validly taken.You ask for an explanation of the initial "mistake" in providing information to a Senate Committee. The original information provided to the committee was put forward in good faith on the basis of departmental advice and amended as soon as further advice came to hand.You raise questions about ministerial discretion. As was always envisaged, the final decision was made by us after taking account of advice from two sources, a joint departmental task force and the National Council of the Centenary of Federation, which was at times conflicting. We do not accept the Labor Party's belief that ministers should blindly do whatever bureaucrats might like them to do.Your editorial asks whether we adhered to Audit Office guidelines, including maintenance of a clear "paper trail". The assessment process for the Federal Cultural and Heritage Program was based on those guidelines.The fact is that of the 60 FCHP successful projects, 64 per cent were located in the 62 per cent of electorates held at the time of the decision by the Coalition, 30 per cent were in the 33 per cent of Labor seats, 5 per cent were in the 5 per cent of Independent-held electorates, and one project covered multiple electorates.Labor claims that 16 of the successful projects are "shonky". We challenge Labor to say which of the 60 successful projects it believes should not have been funded. Labor has refused so far, for the simple reason that all of the projects deserve funding.(Senator) ROBERT HILLMinister for the Environment and Heritage(Senator) RICHARD ALSTONMinister for Communications,Information Technology and the ArtsThat encapsulates perfectly the validity of the program and its subsequent administration. The Labor Party is simply unable to dent that clear explanation of how that program was first conceived and then carried out by the two ministers. They took advice from different sources and exercised their discretion according to very clear and disciplined criteria. A paper trail, in other words, very clearly exists.We have only to think back, of course, to the whiteboard sports rort to draw very obvious and clear differences. There, of course, there was no paper trail, no strict adherence to the guidelines in approving certain projects, and a clear breach on a number of occasions of the guidelines themselves. The whiteboard has gone down in infamy in both political and social terms in this country, and instead we have here a very good program which has materially funded Australia's cultural and artistic heritage.For the Labor Party to keep pursuing this issue in the way that it is, instead of accepting the role, duty and obligations of the Auditor-General in this matter, shows the paucity—indeed, the total absence—of its policy development. When are we going to hear from shadow ministers? When are we going to hear policy alternatives? What does the opposition stand for? What answers do shadow ministers give to those within their constituencies who ask them to pursue matters—legitimately—on Aboriginal health, on the arts, and on a whole range of other government administration? (Time expired)15:31:008907Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker; and I am sure that the minister opposite thanks you for putting that performance to an end—because he was struggling after a couple of minutes. You know that a minister is in real trouble when defending government action when they start reading other ministers' statements into the Hansard to fill in time. But how appropriate to have the minister opposite here defending propriety and accountability! This scheme is as shonky and has as many holes in it as the travel claims by the minister opposite in the last parliament.How appropriate also that the minister stands up here to speak about an audit and having accountability. But are we going to get John Sharp or someone back to do the audit? That is the standard of propriety in this government. That is why this government, after its first term, when seven ministers had already hit the fence, was so desperate to buy an election that it was prepared to get down low with this scheme and engage in a process which has been shown to be shonky, even though we do not know all the facts. As the facts seep out, it will be shown to be dirtier by the day.Make no mistake, Minister: we will be in here again tomorrow, asking questions of the Prime Minister—and on the day after, and on the day after that—until we get some answers; because the idea of question time is that you actually ask a question and you get an answer. We saw today the Prime Minister being asked six or seven questions and refusing: he took the Fifth Amendment and refused to be accountable to this parliament.The minister opposite has come up with, of course, a new definition of accountability. He says that it is up to the opposition to identify which 16 of these projects should not have been funded; but he misses the whole point. The fact is that we are not being told which of the 16 projects jumped the queue in terms in their eligibility for funding. We have not been told: that is the whole point of our questions. That is the whole point of this scandal before the parliament and of the dire situation in which the Prime Minister and his two ministers find themselves.Tomorrow, the Joint Statutory Committee of Public Accounts and Audit will decide whether the Auditor-General will prioritise an audit into the allocation of federation funds by this shonky government. It is now abundantly clear that this audit must be prioritised, because never before has there been such a blatant flouting of the principles of good government and proper administration of public money. All of us who went through the federation scheme for the $200,000 in our own seats know the accountability mechanisms which we had to go through, know that we had to have proper minute taking processes, know that all that information is available to the public, to anyone who wants to scrutinise it and know it is above board. We know therefore, and every member of this House knows, the distinction between an appropriate process and the shonky rort that we have seen here.Never before have the caretaker conventions been so badly breached—breached by a nervous government which was desperate to do anything to hang on to power. This rorting is best demonstrated by the specific example of how the announcements were made in the process. Let us have a look at the timetable. On 10 March 1998 the cabinet announced a $70.4 million fund to be spent on projects of significant cultural heritage. On 28 May ministers wrote to all members and senators, premiers and chief ministers, inviting applications with a deadline of just one month later. The government refused to extend the deadline—because, of course, its real timetable was the electoral timetable. That was the real timetable; not looking at what the best thing was in terms of spending taxpayer funds. On 14 August the department, having been through a rigorous selection process, presented a list of 114 projects that satisfied the department's criteria for funding.Then, three days before the election is called, we have a meeting where a couple of ministers sit around in an office with a couple of their advisers. They have no-one there from the department; they have no minute taking; they have no proper processes. What they do is decide that 16 projects which in fact have not been recommended by the department—projects that failed to reach the 15 points out of 24 points standard which had been set—would just jump up the queue. Why? Well, we do not know. We do not know, because we have not been told what the reason is for them jumping up the queue.When the minister speaks about it being up to the opposition to identify the projects that should not have been funded, what we say, Minister, is that it is up to the government. We would like the government to tell us which projects were knocked off by the ones that jumped the queue. What are the projects that were defeated not by legitimate, independent, departmental considerations but by political considerations by this desperate government? The most extraordinary thing about the Prime Minister's refusal to be accountable on this issue is the signing off of the projects on the day the election was called.You would think there would have been better planning there. It was up to the Prime Minister to call the election so you would think a week would have looked a bit better. But three days before the election we have two ministers sitting in an office—no minutes, no details, no accountability—and then on the day the election is called the Prime Minister signs his name not on a personal cheque but on a cheque paid for by the taxpayers of this country, the hardworking men and women of this country. It was not his money to play with but theirs; our money.Just to emphasise how shonky this was, we had a process whereby 33 out of 39 of the projects announced during the election campaign—all the ones in blue, Minister—were in coalition seats. That is 87 per cent. Almost four times as much money went to coalition marginals as to Labor marginals. That is a clear breach of the Auditor-General's guidelines, which quite clearly state there must be accountability, proper minutes, proper processes and transparency.We saw a government desperate to save Bass. When the minister went through the list—most of my colleagues here missed it and there was no-one over there listening to the minister—he only mentioned one in each seat. He said there was one grant in Bass— no, Minister, there were three. This government was so desperate to defend Warwick Smith against losing his seat for a second time that they made three announcements during the election campaign. Announcements were made by Howard, Hill and other ministers.When you look down the list at who made announcements, you can see that it was not just ministers, and I am looking at the seat of Richmond held by Larry Anthony. He got to make an announcement about government funding—a backbench National Party member—and so did Mr Miles in Braddon. So we had backbenchers out there making announcements about government funds. What a joke! It is a complete, open-and-shut case of a blatant breach of the caretaker provisions. Now we have information seeping out bit by bit—the great whitewash here. The Prime Minister must come clean. I will ask a question perhaps to the minister opposite—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—No, you will ask him through me.R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESE—Yes, through you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am sure someone over there will know who said this:Politics in this country is all about accountability. It is all about the executive exposing itself to the scrutiny of the public and the parliament.That might be quite hard so I will give you a helping hand. The same person also said, about a former Prime Minister:The fact that he is reducing the accountability of the executive to parliament, that under these changes . . . his sole objective has been to reduce the power and the role of parliament and to increase his own power, prestige and authority in this country.Who was it who moved the suspension of standing orders on 23 March 1994 to speak about shielding from questions on matters directly relevant to ministerial responsibility and generally being able to escape accountability for appalling ministerial performance? It was the Prime Minister, the same person who has refused to answer any questions on this issue. We see one principle in opposition, but a different principle in government.15:41:008909Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—I have found these last two days in the parlia ment quite sad because the issues we have seen from the other side have been issues of political bias. They are wanting the Prime Minister to answer questions about defence—did he have a meeting with this person or that person—and about easy money schemes. Where are the real issues in this country today? Why aren't you looking at employment? Why aren't you looking at the economy? Why aren't you looking at health and education? Why are we hearing this tripe in the parliament this afternoon?If you asked the people in the gallery—the schoolchildren in the gallery—about this they will tell you that they want the opposition to be talking about real issues, not these trumped up charges that we have been hearing today. I think Graham Richardson summed it all up when he said—to quote back to the member for Grayndler—`If one thing flourished under the Labor government, it was unemployment.' I do not think anyone could possibly deny that. We are still seeing that now—they have no policies on unemployment. Wise commentators will note that this government has seized the agendas, particularly on the environment and on social issues.The thing that sums up all of this is that last week one of my colleagues opposite said, quite openly, `Our policy is simply, whatever the government proposes, we intend to oppose.' I think the people of Australia are fast waking up to that. It is interesting that other parties in this place are now consistently working with the government, and the people of Australia like to see that. They like to see their elected representatives working together to flesh out solutions to the problems of our great country. That is certainly leaving the ALP increasingly out of the national debate. Australians want their elected representatives to work together. I say to the opposition that Australians want leadership; they do not want nitpicking. It is the nitpicking that we listened to yesterday and today that will go down on the record of the parliament of Australia. I think people are sick of this talk about political bias. When an opposition has nothing more to say, up comes political bias.This is very interesting, as a matter of history. What happened in 1998? What happened when the Leader of the Opposition again invoked the Auditor-General in relation to the Natural Heritage Trust grants? Remember that? Remember what happened? I remind those people over there who are looking embarrassed that we got a clean bill of health. I invite them to have the matter investigated by the Auditor-General, as the Prime Minister has today suggested in question time. Mr Deputy Speaker, I can you tell you the result already, I can tell you what will happen: we will get a clean bill of health. We have nothing to hide.I also remind the opposition that, when the Auditor-General reports, he reports publicly. He will tell the people of Australia exactly what he finds. So I think we are seeing a bit of the opposition's track record at the moment in relation to how they manage this particular process and how irrelevant they are in opposition. But to go through this process all over again and to waste the time and resources of the system and taxpayers' money is pretty sad indeed.I would also remind the House of the kinds of scurrilous comments that I heard at the time of the last election. In every television commercial break on every television station, the Labor Party in my electorate blatantly claimed, `Don't vote for the coalition, everything is going up 10 per cent.' We all know that is totally untrue.Today's issue is the taxpayer funded election buying rort. Actually, no. The ALP are really saying that they do not have confidence in the professionalism of the department. If I were a member of the department, I would be saddened to see the Australian Labor Party quite openly and quite publicly saying in this place that they do not have confidence in the professional officers in the department. There is also no confidence, clearly, in the National Council for the Centenary of Federation, some of whose members are in fact high profile members of the Australian Labor Party.They are also saying this afternoon that ministers should always rubber stamp bureaucratic decisions. Why have ministers if they are going to be simply a rubber stamp? This government believes that ministers should be accountable, that they should make the final decision, and they have. Of course, the minister has correctly made the point that the Australian Labor Party have not said which of the projects that were in fact chosen should not be supported or funded.I would like to turn to my own electorate and put some pretty telling facts on the record, if I may. I certainly had a project funded. It was for $936,000, and it was for the Townsville Maritime Museum, which is a marvellous project. But when it was announced the Prime Minister was in the city and we also announced a medical school for James Cook University. The federation funding announcement was overshadowed by the announcement of a medical school for James Cook University. There was certainly no intention to in any way operate politically in my electorate in relation to federation funding.Yet I would draw your attention, Mr Deputy Speaker, to my colleague the member for La Trobe—on a margin of one per cent, he did not get any federation funding. I draw your attention to my colleague the member for Eden-Monaro. Let us look at what happened to him. There were three projects in the ACT in Labor electorates plus $150 million for the National Museum, but Eden-Monaro got nothing.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—That was about Margaret Reid and Farley, you dope.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The member for Batman will not interject out of his place.HK6Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAY—I think that certainly says something.84CTHOMPSONMr Cameron Thompson—None in Blair.HK6Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAY—And none in Blair—and I thank the member for Blair. This parliament ought to get on with the real issues in the country today. There is no doubt that we should be looking at our unemployment, how we are going to further drive that down on the good record that the government has already produced, how we can get youth unemployment further down and how we can keep our inflation and our interest rates at historically low levels, yet Labor is struggling for policy ideas. It is struggling for policy relevance. That is really quite sad.In relation to these particular issues, the scurrilous claims that I have seen in the Sydney Morning Herald and the Canberra Times were simply wrong, and now we have heard them repeated here in the parliament. Some kind of agenda seems to be running, and it just amazes me that we would go against these sorts of things. The suggestion that 16 projects did not meet the minimum criteria is just wrong. They all met the criteria. The suggestion that the caretaker convention was breached—simply wrong, and demonstrably wrong. The suggestion that there was interference by ministers in an independent process—wrong. The suggestion that there was a breach of the Australian National Audit Office guidelines—wrong again.The most telling statistic—and those opposite should listen—is that, of the 60 successful projects, 64 per cent were located in 62 per cent of electorates held at the time of the decision by the coalition, 30 per cent were in 33 per cent of Labor seats, five per cent were in five per cent of Independent electorates and one project was covered by multiple electorates.Mr Crean interjecting—HK6Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAY—I do note the graphs over there. I do note the red on it. I am alarmed by the red.Mr Crean interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition!DT4CREANMr Crean—He wanted to see it, Mr Deputy Speaker.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Lower your flag.HK6Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAY—They are indeed self-described wreckers.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The discussion is now concluded.Committees8911891189118911Mr DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)10000PON/A10—I present the report of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation reports and private members business on Monday, 30 August 1999. The report will be printed in today's Hansard and the items accorded priority for debate will be published in the Notice Paper for the next sitting.The report read as follows—COMMITTEE AND DELEGATION REPORTSPresentation and statements1 AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION TO THE MEETING OF THE ASIA-PACIFIC GROUP OF THE INTER-PARLIAMENTARY UNION, ULAANBAATAR, MONGOLIA: Report on Australian Parliamentary Delegation to the meeting of the Asia-Pacific Group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, 26-31 July 1999.The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to be made within a total time of 5 minutes.Speech time limits—Each Member—5 minutes.2 ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER AFFAIRS—STANDING COMMITTEE: Report on the review of the Reeves Report on the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act.The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to be made within a total time of 15 minutes.Speech time limits—First Member speaking—10 minutes.Other Members—5 minutes each.3 RETAILING SECTOR—JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE: Report on a review of Australia's retailing sector.The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to be made within a total time of 15 minutes.Speech time limits—First Member speaking—10 minutes.Other Members—5 minutes each.4 TREATIES—JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE: Report 24—A Seminar on the Role of Parliaments in Treaty Making. The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to be made within a total time of 10 minutes.Speech time limits—Each Member—5 minutes.PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESSOrder of precedenceNotices1 Mr Kerr to present a bill for an act to establish a Parliamentary Joint Committee on Commonwealth Law Enforcement and for related purposes. (Notice given 23 August 1999 .)Presenter may speak for a period not exceeding 5 minutes—pursuant to sessional order 104A.2 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. (Notice given 23 August 1999 .)Presenter may speak for a period not exceeding 5 minutes—pursuant to sessional order 104A.3 Ms Julie Bishop to move—That the House:(1) welcomes the report entitled "Final report of the Health and Medical Research Strategic Review Committee: The virtuous cycle—Working together for health and medical research" and its recommendations for implementation;(2) notes the important link between Australia's health and medical research capability and the delivery of a cost-effective and equitable health care system;(3) recognises the excellent work and the high level of commitment among those working in the medical research field;(4) applauds the Federal Government's specific commitment to increasing annual funding for health and medical research, through the National Health and Medical Research Council, by more than doubling funding of base research with an investment of a further $614m over the next six years; and(5) urges the Federal Government to pursue reforms proposed in the final report. (Notice given 12 August 1999. )Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 1.45 p.m.Speech time limits—Each Member—10 minutes.The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.4Ms Roxon to move—That the House: (1) notes the importance of the referendum on 6 November 1999 that goes to our identity as a nation and our system of government;(2) notes that our stable democracy will continue and be strengthened if this referendum question were to be approved by the people of Australia;(4) urges all Members of this House, whether they be monarchists, republicans or direct election supporters, to participate honestly in the referendum campaign; and(5) deplores misleading and mischievous scare campaigns on such an important national issue, such as:(a) the misrepresentation of the current powers of the Prime Minister to dismiss a Governor-General;(b) suggesting that the new constitutional arrangements would be unworkable or undemocratic;(c) understating the significance of the public nomination process;(d) mischaracterising the non-partisan role of the Commonwealth Parliament in appointing the President; and(e) the use of the preamble issue to distract from the question of whether Australia should have an Australian Head of State. (Notice given 11 August 1999.)Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time.Speech time limits—Mover of motion—10 minutes.First Government Member speaking—10 minutes.Other Members—5 minutes each.The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.Miscellaneous89128912Mr DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)10000PON/A10—I advise the House that the Deputy Speaker has fixed Wednesday, 25 August 1999, at 9.40 a.m., as the time for the next meeting of the Main Committee, unless an alternative day or hour is fixed.Miscellaneous8912Motion (by Mr Ronaldson) agreed to:That the following bills be referred to the Main Committee for consideration:Crimes Amendment (Fine Enforcement) Bill 1999 Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999Electronic Transactions Bill 1999Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Legislation Amendment Bill 1999Bills8913r7548913Message received from the Senate acquainting the House that the Senate has agreed to the amendments made by the House and has made further amendments to the bill.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration forthwith.Senate's amendments—(1) Clause 14, page 12 (line 28), after "1994", insert "(as in force immediately before its repeal)".(2) Schedule 1, heading to clause 4, page 18 (line 23), omit "or third ".(3) Schedule 1, heading to clause 5, page 19 (line 26), omit "3 ", substitute "2 ".(4) Schedule 1, heading to clause 6, page 20 (line 26), omit "Prescribed ", substitute "Third or prescribed ".15:54:008913Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I move:That the amendments be agreed to.The amendments I introduce today to the A New Tax System (Commonwealth-State Financial Arrangements) Bill 1999 give effect to commitments undertaken by the government in the intergovernmental agreement on the reform of Commonwealth-state financial relations. The government's reforms to Commonwealth-state relations provide state and territory governments with revenue from a more robust tax base which can be expected to grow over time. The resulting improvement in the financial position of state and territory governments over time will assist them to provide a higher level of services while at the same time facilitate the elimination of a number of existing inefficient taxes which are impeding economic activity.The amendments to the bill currently before the House will ensure that competition payments continue to be provided to the states and territories in accordance with the April 1995 National Competition Policy Agreement. It also ensures that the distribution of GST revenue grants to the states and territories will be solely on the basis of horizontal fiscal equalisation after 2001-02. Full details of the measures in the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum circulated to honourable members. I commend the amendments to the House.15:55:008913Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—Twelve days ago this House dealt with the request for amendments to this bill, A New Tax System (Commonwealth-State Financial Arrangements) Bill 1999 , from the Senate, and now we are back here again. Since those amendments were made, we have got further amendments before the House. Both sets of amendments have now been agreed to by the Senate, but the process still is not complete. We are now faced with a further set of amendments made by the Senate.I said at the time this legislation was brought in that one thing was certain: we would get many more amendments to the GST in the future, and there would be a lot more helpings of this dog's breakfast of a tax to come because of the haste and confusion with which it was introduced. Here we are today debating the same bill again, but now we are considering amendments made by the Senate after already having dealt with requests from the Senate and amendments from this House. This government simply cannot get it right. This is now the third time that the House has considered this legislation, and that is after it has passed it twice before. It has gone from the House to the Senate back to the House back to the Senate and now back to the House again.Labor will cooperate in the smooth passage of these technical amendments to the transitional provisions governing the GST grants to the states, but we all know that this will not be the end of the GST legislative process. Everyone knows that, after the hundreds of amendments to the GST package so far, there will be many more amendments coming down the track in the future.The government is claiming that it is introducing simpler new tax arrangements, yet even the government continues to muck it up. If the government cannot understand the complexity and get it right, how does it expect ordinary Australians to deal with this complex, new, frightening tax? It continues to make change after change, time after time, yet it continues the furphy that this will be a simpler system. Clearly, it will not be.The process followed for the GST is simply not good enough. It should certainly be avoided in the business tax debate. There is a very important bill currently before the House which proposes to introduce the payas-you-go system for business. Labor is not opposed to this proposal in principle, but it is a change that will affect all business taxpayers. They deserve to be consulted properly on the proposals, and they deserve to be able to judge individual proposals in the context of the full business tax package. At the moment, they are not in a position to do that. Most importantly, business deserves certainty from this parliament in such important and complex matters as their withholding obligations and their tax payment obligations.This bill is really one of the fundamental business tax reform proposals. It is really part of the Ralph process and it must be dealt with in that process. It cannot be dealt with as a stand alone measure as it is intimately related to the total business tax regime.Furthermore, the bill does not even deal with all of the PAYG provisions. Contingent legislation we have not yet seen will address the vital area of the reporting requirements of withholders to the Taxation Office. This is a key facet of the integrity of the pay-as-you-go withholding system and any evaluation of that system cannot be made in the absence of this fundamental aspect. Yet this is what the government is asking this House to do later in the week. Labor is arguing that the government has to get the processes right now. It has to plan the process properly in order to avoid the farce of the GST legislation, part of it in evidence in these proceedings at the moment. Business is already facing the Y2K issue over the next few months; then it has to get ready for the GST. The last thing it needs in that context is further uncertainty over the business tax environment.Labor has offered bipartisan support for a constructive process for business tax reform. (Extension of time granted) But bipartisanship is a two-way street. I wrote to the Treasurer and to John Ralph two weeks ago in good faith to obtain the final report of the review of the business taxation system and a briefing into it. I understand that chairman John Ralph cannot respond without the Treasurer's approval. I accept that, but the Treasurer is still sitting on this request. Pursuing proper processes from the beginning is the only way for the government to demonstrate its bona fides in this regard. So far, it is failing the test.We will judge their intentions by their actions on this issue. The alternative to an efficient and smooth process is the GST process, and that we are concluding today and that we do not want to see repeated. That will involve less than optimal outcomes from the point of view of the key stakeholders, just as the GST process did. The government should decide now whether they want to cooperate in the future or whether they want a repeat of the farce that the GST legislation has become.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills8914r7558914Message received from the Senate acquainting the House that the Senate does not insist on its amendment disagreed to by the House, has agreed to the amendment made by the House in place thereof, and has agreed to the further amendments made by the House.Bills8915r891Billsr870Bills8915Debate resumed from 23 August, on motion by Mr McGauran:That the bill be now read a second time.16:03:008915Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—The framework for the introduction of digital TV in Australia was set in the conversion to digital TV act, the Television Broadcasting Services (Digital Conversion) Act 1998. 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 will be reported to the minister on the current timetable in September. Government decisions, when they are made and announced, will be the subject of intense public and parliamentary scrutiny and intense scrutiny from the opposition.In this area, 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. It is important to remind ourselves of 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.Some important long-term national objectives in this area are 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 viable, vibrant industry presence leading to jobs and investments. These are important long-term strategic national objectives.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 as to the vast series of changes about to be upon us. There has been no focus and no attention on these issues. I note that Senator Alston the other day was reduced to saying that all he could say was, `Watch this space.' Well, watching this space is unfortunately not enough. I do not want my comments today to prejudge any of these issues. We will await the government's decisions in these matters and we will, as I have indicated, scrutinise them carefully.One of the key issues which is now coming to the fore 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 the conversion is affordable and accessible so far as consumers are concerned.The primary objective of the transition to digital broadcasting is the delivery of the public good that can be provided through advanced digital broadcasting services. One of the major benchmarks for such measurement will be the rate at which digital technology is taken up in homes, businesses and educational institutions across the nation. The cost of digital television equipment will be a central issue. It has been suggested that, while the cost of set-top box units and televisions will initially be high, they are likely to fall as the market expands. While exact prices are currently difficult to ascertain, some indicative prices I have seen include: a set-top box decoder, $1,000 to $1,500 by the year 2001; a standard definition digital television, $1,500 to $2,500 by the year 2001; and a high definition digital television, $7,500 to $10,000 by the year 2001.It has also been suggested that high definition TV popularity with consumers will be likely to remain low until the price of receiving units falls significantly. Without endorsing any of those indicative prices or assumptions, it is worthy to note that members of the industry, including a manufacturer of television units, are currently expressing doubts about the market potential for high cost digital television in the near future.We have seen, for example, recent comments by Philips and also by Channel 7 in a supplementary submission to the Productivity Commission's inquiry into the broadcasting services legislation. For example, on 11 August in an article in the Australian entitled `Digital TV too pricey: Philips' the electronics group Philips was reported as worrying that the cost of high definition television proposed by Australia's commercial television networks might be `too expensive for most Australians'. Philips expressed the concern that a push for the world's highest standards of digital television and Dolby surround sound `will appeal to a very, very small portion of consumers'. That story was echoed in the last couple of days by a release along the same lines from Philips. Again, without endorsing the view, I note that the Executive Chairman of Channel 7, Mr Kerry Stokes, put out a press release on 19 August—a couple of days ago—in which he said:Digital television is not just about HDTV—high definition TV—and broadcasters will need flexibility in the digital age to meet consumers' budgets and demands for new services, like multi-channelling, datacasting and program enhancements.As I was flicking through old copies of the New York Times , I noticed an article in the 20 August 1998 edition entitled `HDTV: High In Definition, High in Price', subtitled, `$8,000 for a Television? Even Industry Is Surprised'. The same edition of the New York Times carries a further article entitled `HDTV: High Definition and Surprisingly High Price'. So there is an issue there which we all need to be aware of.I note that the government can be the subject of some criticism. Why do I say that? Firstly, I think there has been a strategic failure on the part of the government to ensure that the community is genuinely aware of these issues and proposed changes. Secondly, the government has failed to embrace for itself the critical role of informing the community at large about the implications for consumers arising from the conversion to digital broadcasting. Senator Alston, in a press release dated 19 August 1999, is quoted as saying:The enormous benefits of digital broadcasting and datacasting will only be realised if the Australian industry commits itself to a substantial consumer education campaign.. . . . . . . . .It would be easy for Government and industry to concentrate on these technical and regulatory issues. But we must not lose sight of the interests of consumers.. . . . . . . . .Digital TV must appeal to consumers if it is to succeed. The challenge for Government is to ensure that the policy framework does not constrain consumer opportunities.But the industry faces a greater challenge. It must give ordinary Australians a compelling reason to go out and spend several thousand dollars on a new television set or several hundred dollars on a new set top box.The industry has to do nothing less than fundamentally change consumer behaviour.. . . . . . . . .If the industry gets this right, it will drive a breakthrough in the take up of enhanced services to the home.Here, the minister places the entire weight of this issue on the industry. I would say in the first instance that there is a weight on the government and a weight upon the parliament to ensure that the decisions made out of the various reviews secure the right framework. There is an obligation on the government, in addition to that on the industry, to ensure that the interests of consumers are well represented at the table. The conversion to digital broadcasting represents a major change in the media landscape, yet if you relied on the comments of the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, you would simply be left—as he put it in his own words—to `watch this space' and await an awareness campaign by the industry. I suggest that that of itself will not be enough.Some comments about the role of the national broadcasters in the digital environment: it is important to note the potential role to be played by the national broadcasters, particularly the ABC, in responding to these comprehensive changes to the broadcasting medium. It is appropriate that specific meas ures are contained in the digital conversion legislation to reflect the special nature of public broadcasting, through the non-application to the national broadcasters of the prohibition of multichannelling by existing free-to-air broadcasters. One key challenge for government is to properly resource the national broadcasters, particularly the ABC, to enable the ABC and SBS to manage the transmission to digital production and transmission. In my view it is vital that the ABC be properly resourced to enable it to be able to play at least an equal role in the digital broadcasting environment.The ABC, to its credit, is advancing its online presence, providing both news and information services and content based on broadcast programs and material. The development of online sites, such as ABC Online, represents the first steps in delivering alternative forms of broadcast information and must be recognised as critical to the future of national broadcasting in the digital age.Labor has always supported the role that public broadcasting can play in society—providing education, information and entertainment to all Australians across a wide array of tastes and opinions and helping to ensure that the diversity of our media and broadcasting reflects our national characteristics. We recognise the importance of advancing the progress of the national broadcasters through the implementation of the digital agenda, to enable public broadcasting to emerge in the digital environment as a relevant and capable provider of information and entertainment.One of the essential steps in this respect is to ensure that the ABC, in particular, is properly resourced for conversion to digital broadcasting. I note that on Friday, 6 August, the Managing Director of the ABC, Mr Johns, called on the government to properly fund digital television for regional Australia, making the point that services could not be provided without adequate support and funding by the government. He made this call recently in respect of regional services, but it is a view which the ABC, at very many levels, has been articulating for some considerable period of time. In the last budget but one, we saw the ABC's funds reduced by $55 million. I have very significant concerns as to the adequacy and appropriateness of the level of resources being provided by the government to the ABC to ensure that the ABC, as a national broadcaster, can play at least an equal role in the digital environment.The pace of the digital agenda is accelerating very much. I think it is important that all members of this House and the Senate take the opportunity of familiarising themselves with some of the most recent, up-to-date technology and applications of digital TV. For example, tomorrow the free-to-air commercial broadcasters will be putting on an exhibition in the Main Committee area to display some of the wares of high definition TV. From memory, that will be at 6 o'clock. It will follow Telstra's launch of its Internet delivery by satellite tomorrow at 11.30 a.m. On Wednesday, 1 September, we see the ABC in town for the launch of its interactive TV to interested members and senators. I strongly recommend that interested members and senators attend all three to see the display of wares. That is not so much a commercial as saying to members and senators—as I have said in a different place, which my colleague the member for Kingsford-Smith will recall—that, in this area, intellectually we all have to reinvent ourselves or retire. Given that we will be responsible in the end for the framework which sets the scene for the conversion to digital TV, you cannot appropriately, in my view, apply yourself to these issues without having seen what is on display.In conclusion, the legislation before the House sets the scene for the introduction of digital television into Australia. It sets the scene for consideration by the government, the parliament and the community of serious and important issues. The various reviews which are now coming to fruition will shortly be the subject of government decisions. Those decisions will be the subject of intense scrutiny by the public, the industry, the parliament and the opposition. It is important that we bear in mind the long-term national strategic objectives of broadcasting and media, which I have referred to, and ensure that those strategic objectives are well met as we consider these issues.Clearly, an important issue that we need to grapple with is consumer accessibility and the affordability of the prospects, potential services and products which can flow from the conversion to digital TV. It is also clearly the case that there is a key role for the national broadcasters, in particular, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. It is essential that they are fully and adequately resourced to be able to play at least an equal role in the conversion to digital TV and in the great potential that that environment offers for all Australians. It is important that the parliament itself pays close attention to the framework and decisions which the government makes on these issues. The parliament and the government can be reliably assured that, in our case, when these decisions are made, they will be subject to the utmost scrutiny as we on this side endeavour to satisfy the long-term strategic objectives of media and broadcasting policy in Australia.16:19:008918Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—The member for Perth is right: you either reinvent yourself or retire. Given the lack of progress from those opposite to date in the policy-free vacuum they have become on the political landscape, I suspect that Mr Speaker will soon be dealing with a series of mass resignations.I will now move to the matters at hand. This government is not about being the gatekeepers on technology but about attempting to keep the door open and always being open to reviewing the circumstances that new technology brings to the public policy area of communications, telecommunications and the media in general. This government is about making sure that we do not make the same mistakes that those opposite made when they were last in government, committing the nation to the phasing out of the analog phone system right around Australia, for instance. On 31 December this year, metropolitan analog phone users lose that, all because it seemed like a good idea to the then government in 1992.The member for Hinkler is in the chamber. He is the chairman of the government's policy committee in this area. I take the role of secretary, and I know that our committee has worked very hard with Minister Alston in ensuring that, in the area of fast changing technology, we are always able to leave the door open, let the technology run its course and then review the consequences. The general principle has certainly been applied in the area of television licensing and, in particular, in the use of digital technology. We have made sure that the current players in the game with their multimillion dollars worth of investment and a long heritage of providing television programming are advancing not only the technical possibilities of that content and its delivery but also the value of involving other sectors of the Australian public in the production of television programs and the reporting of news and current affairs. I suspect that all members in this place would be united in lamenting the accuracy of some of those reports from time to time.Of course, it is by no means a cosy relationship. Hand in hand with the policy that this government has in this area is a determination that the current players have to deliver on the faith that we have put in them to continue the job that they have undertaken, in the case of the Nine Network and parts of the Seven Network, for almost 45 years.It is important for a lot of reasons that we get new entrants into the television side of the media. As a committee, we had a very simple starting point in our deliberations over the digital television regime: we did not want to see high definition television becoming a Trojan Horse by which cross-media ownership aspirations would restrict ownership even further than it currently is in the Australian scene. We did not want to see high definition television become such an elite vehicle that fewer new entrants would be able to get involved in this industry.We are firmly of the belief that we should be giving some support in the transition period. To broadcast on both analog and digital signals is going to cost commercial television operators a lot of money. To give them the certainty that they are able to continue those broadcasts in the period between now and 2008 means that, at the time of the 2008 transitional period ending, we will expect there will be spectrum available for new entrants to become involved in the television medium. None of us in this place can accurately predict where the digital regime will take us in 10 years time. That is why the review process of 2005 is very important: to make sure that we have what we were promised and that we have—as is traditionally the case in Australia in the take-up of new technology—a great raft of the Australian populace being part of receiving digital television pictures.Let me address the concern about high definition television equipment being too expensive. Well, of course, it is going to be too expensive for most of us in the early stage, just as analog mobile phones were running for $1,000 a unit or $2,000 a unit when they first started 10 or 15 years ago. The cost of these receivers will have to go down commensurate with people's ability to purchase these particular items, and it is in the best interests of all concerned—especially the commercial television operators in this country—to see the price of those receivers go down. Whilst I see the comments from Philips, which are always at the higher end of the range of television receivers available, and whilst I see the understandable highlighting of these particular matters by sections of the print media which have an interest—both the Fairfax and Murdoch presses are aspirants themselves in using digital spectrum—I also submit to you that it would be an absolute desire of the current crop of television operators in this country to ensure that a wide access to the digital regime be not just possible but achieved.I am very concerned with anybody being suspicious of where technology will take us. In this convergence of media where we are going to see essentially a continuing decline of the role of the print media as they keep scrambling to be part of the broadcast media, we will also see an ongoing decline in the viability of the radio sector in this country, which is an enormous problem. If you are concerned about the range of voices and the range of media players in the broader community, the radio industry needs to be treated far more kindly than I suspect the ABA are currently treating it. Their local area planning processes are many years behind. Nevertheless, it is critical to me that we get this digital regime right in the basics, review it and then make sure we get the outcomes that we have been promised.The media proprietors in this country should be on notice that we expect there will be, in time, new competitors in this country. We expect those new players will be there. I also think, and the member for Hinkler would back my comment, that the government's policy committee got it right when we suggested that the national broadcasters, the ABC and the SBS, should be looked at in a different light and that their responsibility was to provide a service first; being a viable entertainment medium probably comes as a result, but to turn a dollar is not one of their key objectives. The ABC, and even the SBS, should be considered in the concept of multichannelling, because there is a new role in place for the ABC where it can provide a range of services across a number of different channels, which the commercial channels are restricted, under the government's overriding legislation in this area, from being part of.The opposition have tried to paint the picture that the government has greatly assisted the commercial broadcasters at the expense of other service providers in this particular area, such as datacasters. At the end of the day, in developing policy in an area where technology is driving change more than social demand, we have to hasten slowly. We have to provide some certainty to the current players and some opportunity to the aspirants to prove their cases over time and not lock us today into a position we think will be right in 10 years time but to provide the check of a review process, as we have in the legislation. Even organisations like the Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations—and even, for that matter, the equivalent radio industry organisation, FARB—need to understand that they themselves cannot stop any future aspirant from being involved in this industry. At the same time, they should be ensuring that a wide range of people are able to access the new digital TV regime and that the commercial operators deliver what they say they will.This whole digital regime opens up a new world of opportunities for a lot of people in our society. We have spoken in this place a number of times about matters to do with the hearing impaired and the deaf community and the difficulty they have in accessing good programming properly captioned in Australia. It is a matter of concern to me that too many of the current commercial television operators are not following the lead of the Seven Network, in particular, which have provided a great majority of their programming in closed captioning. I believe the work of the Australian Caption Centre needs to be applauded and expanded. We need to see some definite demands placed on commercial television operators in this country to use the new digital regime, the vehicle that the government has helped them have, to provide closed captioning across all their programs. That is an easy thing to say and a little harder to do, but the amount of cost involved in it in the overall scheme of things is not great. I do not believe it is too much to ask at all.So we are concerned about making sure that the technical standards are right and that there is affordability of access for all Australians to this new media. A lot of what the member for Perth said in his contribution, and which others who are on the outside of the industry looking in are saying, are the same sorts of arguments that were used in the United States, which is running an agenda that is probably about two or three years ahead of us as far as digital television is concerned. It has been going on over there since November, and of course there is reason for people to be concerned that there is not enough HD—high definition—TV programming currently available on the American box. So it is an understandable argument to put that we may actually see HDTV put up as the reason for this new regime and for preserving the almost exclusive arrangements that current broadcasters or telecasters have, only to have it fall over so that datacasting and other services—which people on the outside are aspiring to provide now—are then provided by the current or incumbent commercial television providers. This government is not going to fall for that. I do not want to see any example com ing before us through the media—particularly the print media who like to trip up the television operators—from the opposition or from anybody within our ranks proving that commercial television operators in this country have marched up HDTV as a Trojan Horse to try to trick us into something else. At the end of the day, this government wants to make sure that that precious commodity of spectrum is used rightly and wisely, and that we get results. Existing players have to do this—they have to produce these results. This bill is all about assisting in meeting the cost of monitoring the process of conversion of national commercial television station broadcasting from analog to digital. There is a cost involved, and we announced in the budget that we believed that the commercial operators themselves should pay an additional amount of money to meet that cost, to meet the process of monitoring and ensuring its implementation—in other words, ensuring that what we want and what we believe we should have for the citizens of this country is achieved and accounted for.The total additional amounts to be paid by commercial television broadcasting licensees in this current financial year is just $1.21 million. In the next financial year, 2000-01, it will be another $1.21 million, and in the following year it will be $0.99 million. These amounts will be paid into consolidated revenue and they will help to meet the cost of the Australian Broadcasting Authority in its ongoing efforts to monitor the process and progress of change from analog to digital. I think this is fair enough because, after all, the commercial broadcasters will be the main beneficiaries under the digital regime. They will be able to enjoy their exclusive franchises through to 2008 and have to meet the cost of broadcasting in both analog and digital in the interim period. I think it is important to note that, at the end of that period of 2008 when a great deal of spectrum and space on the airways will be freed up, we will see a new range of services made available to people right around this country.And what a range of services that promises to be with the broadcasting of data and information. I saw on the news last night—it was on a television channel, so I suspect that what I saw was fairly accurate—that in the United States now, under their digital regime, you can simply point a cursor to the corner of your screen and order your Domino's pizza. I suspect that is quite sad because social interaction has declined as a result, but from the comfort of your own lounge chair you will be able to point to a picture on the screen and order your pizza immediately down the line. This sort of interactive television is, I think, quite spooky and frightening in a lot of ways.KV5NEVILLEMr Neville—A Barrier Reef special!CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—The member for Hinkler is loyal to his electorate. People might be familiar with that Michael J. Fox movie Back to the Future and the scene where Michael J. Fox walks into his lounge room of the future and the entire wall is covered with a picture of a television program. The phone rings, the picture shrinks back into the top right-hand corner and up comes onto the screen the picture of the person that has called him—or at least a message telling him that this person is on the line—and then the picture comes on. One suspects that all of this is on the brink of occurring. We have this great convergence of possibilities of the different media—the print, radio, television and Internet media all combining together and all provided at one central point. That your home computer will be displaced by your home television set would, I think, frighten and surprise a lot of people who have not closely watched this debate. But I think there are enough people out there who are enthused about where technology is taking us to understand that, with innovation, a bit of ingenuity and a lot of imagination and application, all sorts of things are possible. Against that background, one wonders how any government today in August 1999 can legislate exactly for where things are going to be.I come back to the point at which I started my contribution to this discussion today, and that is that we are quite rightly legislating in an area where technology is driving the change, not calls from the society that we serve. We are attempting to leave the door open for technology to go on and prove its potential and also trying to cope with protecting our electorate—the people of this nation—from anybody who wants to try to use technology as a stalking horse by which to gain some great unfettered commercial advantage.We are encouraging new competition and new players into an area of great excitement and challenge. This whole area of convergence of technology leaves the door open to all sorts of possibilities—possibilities that none of us can possibly hope to predict as accurately as some opposite might like. So, when the member for Perth suggests that the government is not out there educating the public about what digital television means to them, I do not see that it is a role for government to try to second-guess where individual initiative, commercial possibilities or technology as a whole might take us.I do note that Channel 9—and I think all the other channels have a vested interest in doing the same thing—run regular long two- to three-minute advertising `spots', as they call them, talking about what the digital regime means. So one suspects the member for Perth perhaps should sit down and watch a little more television from time to time and he will see, quite rightly, the commercial operators are out there trying to sell people on the excitement of where this new technology may take them.This new technology is coming, and the government is attempting to cope in the best possible way with what it will mean, both in a societal sense and an industry sense. I think we have the legislation right. I think the bill before us today also addresses some of the sensible measures which are needed to make sure the technical standards which have to be maintained are maintained. We have to make sure the commercial operators deliver on what they have said they will deliver. I can assure you that the member for Hinkler and I will be the first people in this place condemning commercial television operators if they do not come up with what they have said they will do. We will not fall for the concept of any Trojan Horse approach. We will not allow them to sneak through another use for the spectrum other than the use proposed by them.We support what the government is doing in this area. It is measured, it is balanced, it is sensible and it is right. It has sufficient caution balanced with sufficient encouragement for an exciting area dominated so much by new technology. I commend these bills to the House.16:39:008922Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—There are two aspects to the legislation we are looking at today. There is the operational side, but sitting behind that operational side, as the member for Moreton has just said, there is a much more visionary approach. Let me deal first with the operational side. In the great scheme of things, the additional fees proposed in the Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill 1999 and the Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 are a relevantly minor matter. Based on the 1997-98 figures, the Australian Broadcasting Authority collects about $195 million a year. Therefore, the total additional collections over three years—being $1.21 million for the first two years and just under $1 million for the third year—are not an onerous impost on the commercial television industry. They do, however, establish a very important principle, and that is that the work associated with delivering additional services to networks should be paid for by the ultimate beneficiaries without causing them unnecessary or onerous impact. That is precisely what these bills endeavour to achieve.When this matter was being considered, three options were available to the government. The first was to continue to fund the majority of the ABA's costs through the budget, with the balance being funded from specific fee for service charges. This option, in effect, would have maintained the status quo. The second option was to impose a temporary three-year surcharge on licence fees paid by commercial television licensees and suspend the existing fee-for-service arrangement during this period in order to recover the ABA's costs associated with its digital conversion work. On the basis of the $195 million collected in licence fees in 1997-98, which I mentioned earlier, this would have represented a surcharge of less than 0.7 per cent, that level being required to achieve the $3½ million necessary to carry out the work of the ABA during the transitional phase. In subsequent years, this percentage is expected to decline. The third option was to impose a comprehensive scheme which would recover all the ABA's regulatory costs from the broadcasting industry. Approximately 98 per cent of the ABA's total costs are funded from budget appropriations, with the balance being derived from specific fee-for-service charges.The government opted for the second option, being the one I have just described as returning $1.21 million, $1.21 million and $0.99 million in the three years of the transitional period. Also, the matter was not sprung on the industry today; it was clearly outlined in the 1999-2000 budget papers. The method of collection is based on a formula: $1,210,000 multiplied by the licensee's fee, divided by the total licensees' fees collected. It is also interesting that the licence fees are collected in the middle of each financial year.I suppose there is a perception in some sections of the wider media industry that the government has treated the free-to-air broadcasters more than favourably. I do not hold that view, but I can understand that these broadcasters, as the primary beneficiaries of digital conversion, should shoulder the primary cost incurred by the ABA in supervising what I suppose is the most momentous change in television viewing since the advent of colour television.Traditionally, Australia has been one of the world's leading communities to embrace broadcast and telecommunication technologies. We might have sat a little bit behind other countries. We did not introduce black and white television quite as quickly as our European and American counterparts. But when we did we introduced it at a very high standard. It has been the same with colour television, VCRs, video cameras, mobiles and faxes—and now the Internet, email and the like. We are great junkies when it comes to broadcast and telecommunication technologies.On this occasion, however, we have a bit of a dilemma. We are sitting much closer behind our American and British counterparts, in the sense that they have embraced the digital medium in television only in the last few years, and therefore we cannot afford the luxury of letting them make the mistakes first before we start; we have already started. Because of that, as my colleague the member for Moreton has said, the government and the communications and arts committee of the government have been very cautious in ensuring that we do not let the gimmickry and whizzbangs of digital television become the be-all and end-all of the medium.We have a unique opportunity to be the first country in the world to totally embrace digital television. We are an island nation. We do not have any neighbours—in the communications sense of the word—that depend on us. It is the one area where we can look inwards. We have the opportunity to deliver to every Australian household cinema-quality, high definition television pictures in wide-screen format; we have the opportunity to deliver CD-quality sound; we have the opportunity to deliver subsidiary channels; we have the opportunity to have multichannelling; and we have the opportunity to datacast. We need to take these things in an orderly and sensible way.I must admit I was a little galled when the member for Perth started to lecture us in these matters because of his own party's record. I do not say this in any pejorative sense against the member for Dobell, the shadow minister at the table, because I am sure he acted with great aplomb and sincerity at the time. I also freely acknowledge that we were in new technologies at the time. But we did not come out of some of those decisions in a very flash manner. The situation with the analog mobile phone system was quite extraordinary. We could have been put in a position where the whole of Australia, especially people in regional and rural Australia, could have been left without a service for several years or where the television industry would have to have put up an infinite number of digital towers. We also had the fiasco on coming to government of having to patch up the cable television regime which had also got out of control. I do not want to be pejorative in this matter, but the point I am trying to make to the former minister in this area, the shadow minister at the table, is that we do not want to make these same mistakes again. We want to have a good grip on what we are doing. There are a lot of people out there, as the member for Moreton said, who would like to use digital television as a Trojan Horse. They would like to fill it up with all the whizzbangs and, having got inside the city, they would like it to spill out all these wonders that would enhance themselves commercially but may not deliver to Australians what we require. We see a lot of definitions at present on what datacasting should involve. Should it just be data, teletext? Should be it be data plus talking heads? Should it be data plus talking heads plus stills? Should it be data plus talking heads plus stills plus clips? All of these things have to be considered.Then we have the opportunities, as the member for Moreton described, of using television for banking services, for operating on the Stock Exchange, for buying and selling commercially, for conducting auctions—for doing an incredible range of things, some of which will become successful and will embed themselves in the Australian psyche; some of which will be gimmicks that we will drop off. The problem is that we do not want to let the agenda be run by the gimmicks. There is too much of that sort of talk in the media at present. A lot of it has been driven by people who have nothing other than commercial interests at heart.There may be a perception that the government has been a bit easy on the free-to-air broadcasters, but I do not think so. Right from the earliest days of the inquiry into this issue, the member for Moreton and I went out and confronted the various players at meetings in Sydney and elsewhere to get a feel for what this new medium was going to be about. We then took our whole committee to Sydney where we met all the players at the Channel 10 studios and we questioned them extensively. By and large, they had a vision of where they wanted to go, and it was consistent with the government's vision, and that was that Australia would have the best quality, high definition, cinema-quality television and CD sound presentation in Australian homes.That is the thing we have to get right first. Datacasting will be available to new players, but they will have to buy spectrum to do that. We hope that the free-to-air broadcasters will also get into data transmission, and they too will pay. But what we do not want to do is have some half-baked form of standard television with a lot of gimmicks hanging off it and pretend to the Australian public that this is the high point in digital television because, quite frankly, it will not be.To see the enormity of the task you have only to look at what the Seven Network has done with their teletext system over the last 10 years. It is only in recent times that that has started to be commercially viable. It is interesting now that that whole challenge will be put to all of those who want to come into the datacasting medium. The government is going to review this matter in the year 2005. Not long after that, the government will be considering the fourth commercial television channel. But all of those things should not precede the importance of rolling out high definition television.We should also recognise that this is going to cost the free-to-air broadcasters about $750 million. That figure has come out in the last fortnight. That is not being subsidised by the government. That is coming out of the pockets of the free-to-air broadcasters. When you add in the ABC and SBS, the figure is probably around $1 billion. That is a big ask. It would be grossly unfair to allow new players into the free-to-air field before the people who have invested in that have rolled out that new system—not just in the capital cities but right throughout the country—and had a reasonable go at it. It would not be equitable, and it would not serve the best interests of balance in the industry for years to come.The other aspect is that we are requiring them to have it rolled out in the capital cities by 1 January 2001. That is a big ask as well. We are also requiring that the provincials roll out by 1 January 2004. But the reality is that in areas like Wollongong, Newcastle, the Gold Coast, the Sunshine Coast and Geelong the pressures on stations will be to roll out in 2001 because, if they do not, obviously high definition television from the capital city channels will impinge on the areas of operation of those provincial stations and create a viewing and commercial imbalance. So there will be a heavy responsibility on virtually all of the networks except the more remote ones, which will have another three years to carry out their work.The cost is estimated to be between $20 million and $50 million a year. Probably the best figure around at present is that it will be a $30 million a year ask on the commercial television stations. That is another reason why datacasting and multichannelling should be introduced with great care not only from the point of view of broadcast standards but also from the point of view of commercial equity.I noticed in the Weekend Australian of last weekend—21 to 22 August—an article from Finola Burke on broadcasting that refers to the view of the Phillips organisation that we should go straight to standard digital television. I found that an extraordinary article. I perhaps should not reflect on Philips. I know the standard of their equipment is very good, but Philips are the biggest sellers of digital television sets in the UK where there is essentially a standard digital regime. I hope that their view was not motivated by the fact that they would like to jump into the Australian market and sell a lot of standard definition television sets and leave us with probably a mishmash of data, multichannelling and standard definition and probably never reaching a high point in high definition television.The article talks about television sets being $15,000 each. This is really stretching the odds. We all know that when you introduce a new technology—whether it be mobile phones, the early VCRs or the first video home movie cameras—it is very expensive. Those who want to be first in, best dressed—who always want to be the first person on the block to own one—will obviously, before the supply and demand mechanisms start to take up the slack, pay more. They will pay for the privilege of being at the front of the queue. What is more important is where that settles in a year or two.An interesting comparison—and the member for Moreton touched on this—is mobile telephony, and even more recently satellite mobile telephony, where a bit over 12 or 18 months ago we saw the original handsets that looked about the size of a stubby. They were even in the shape of a stubby. They were going to be $5,000. Fifteen months later we saw the next version—even before the satellite mobile technology had got into full swing—and it was slightly bigger than the existing mobile phones. That went from $5,000 down to $2,000. Now, I am told, it could be as low as $1,000. I do not doubt that television sets will follow the same pattern. I do not think that scare tactics serve to advance the cause of digital television or the industry as a whole. I have appreciated making a contribution to this debate. I think this is one of the most important broadcast communications decisions this country will have to make, and the regime of the ABA is the thing that will drive it.16:59:008925McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPArts and the Centenary of Federation10—in reply—I wish to thank those members who have contributed to the debate on the Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill 1999 and the Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 . I will take up the comments of the members for Moreton and Hinkler, who have spoken towards the end of the debate, because they are freshest in my mind and then turn to the contribution last night from the opposition spokesman on telecommunications, the member for Perth. I have very carefully read the Hansard of his contribution and want to pick up some specific points he makes.I thank the member for Moreton, who gave yet another considered and thoughtful contribution on this whole issue of telecommunications, specifically on conversion to digital. He made a very important point, I thought, that the government should not be the gatekeeper on new technology. The government is determined not to make the same mistakes that the previous Labor government made with the decision to phase out analog—or AMPS, as it is far better known. That was a sadness which we have had to spend a lot of time and money rectifying.He also noted that no-one can predict where the digital regime will be in 10 years time and the importance of the reviews proposed for the year 2005. The government has an excellent strategic framework in place for managing the conversion to digital television broadcasting. The reviews planned for 2005, as I am sure the member for Moreton will agree, will assist in monitoring the implementation.I also welcome the member's comments on the importance of captioning for the hearing impaired. As the member well knows, we have introduced substantial new requirements for free-to-air broadcasters from the commencement of digital services.The member for Hinkler, similarly to the member for Moreton, is extremely well versed and experienced in this area of public policy, and I wish to thank him for his very useful contribution to the debate. He provided—as I am sure you will agree, Mr Deputy Speaker—a very good outline of the options open to the government to fund the Australian Broadcasting Authority's costs in planning for the introduction of digital television.He gave a salutary warning of the dangers of focusing on the commercial gimmicks associated with the new technology. The first priority will be to ensure that consumers continue to get the highest quality television, including high definition television. The member very usefully and wisely reminded us that we need to proceed with caution, given the enormous cost of the conversion process to broadcasters.I turn now to the comments overnight by the member for Perth. He does put a lot of thought and effort into the study of government legislation. It is a horrendously complex area of public policy, and so I do concede that he brings a work ethic to scrutiny of government legislation that some of his other colleagues fail to. However, I wish he would not feel that he needed, on the way through to congratulating us and accepting the government's position, to find some utterly contrived failings on our part.Please feel free, the member for Perth, to fulsomely and unconditionally congratulate the government when it gets it right—as we have with the two bills before the House. He opens up by saying, `We accept and agree with them,' but he cannot help—maybe it is because of his political background—picking at the edges. However, let me more seriously address a couple of his `muted'—as he says—criticisms. Firstly, on the importance of having a strategic focus on digital television, he says, `I am not sure the government has applied all that much strategic thought to it.' That is a little bit whimsical. Come on: nobody believes that. This is the most important change to television broadcasting since its inception—arguably more significant than the introduction of colour TV.The conversion from analog to digital television is the biggest strategic issue in broadcasting known to this government or any previously. The government has recognised this and has responded with a framework for the transition to digital which sets the main features of the conversion process in legislation but which also involves extensive, painstaking consultation with the major stakeholders. And the members for Hinkler and Moreton would have it no other way. The government strategy, for the information of the member for Perth—in case he did know; but I am sure he does—is set out in amendments to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 which were enacted last year.In particular, I draw his attention to schedule 4 of the act, which sets out a series of statutory objectives which are to be implemented through conversion schemes developed by the ABA. These set out the fundamental features of the conversion process, such as the start-up dates and the simulcast period. However, we in the government have acknowledged that many features of the conversion process—and, indeed, of the new digital services—are uncertain.There are extraordinarily important issues at stake here, which could greatly affect industry and consumers. Therefore we have put in place a series of statutory reviews—to be completed this year, I hasten to add—to examine some of the more difficult definition al and other issues. These reviews have involved extensive consultation to ensure that the views of all interested players are given the carefullest of considerations. This process is now drawing to a close, and parliament will again have the opportunity to consider the government's proposed amendments over the coming months.A second supposed criticism from the member for Perth was on consumer issues:I am certainly sure the government has not sought to explain or educate to the public the vast series of changes about to be upon us.Again, a gratuitous criticism, unsubstantiated by the facts of the matter. Let me explain. The government recognises that digital television will be a major change for consumers, one which will require a substantial degree of consumer education.This was acknowledged by Senator Alston, Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, in a speech to a datacasting conference on 19 August of this year. In that speech, Senator Alston stressed that ultimately digital television has to appeal to the consumer if it is to succeed—a simple truth but worth restating. The challenge for the government in this area is great, but the challenge for the industry is greater. Industry has to give ordinary Australians a reason to go out and spend perhaps $1,000 on a new television receiver. Consumer education will be crucial in encouraging the take-up of new digital products. Clear and accurate information about products and services will be necessary, especially considering the complexities of DTTB.I am pleased to note the leadership that industry is providing—and I thank it on behalf of the government—in this area, through the Digital Broadcasting Industry Coordinating Group. The ABA is also concerned about this issue. The government will continue to work with these groups to develop strategies for consumer education. Again, the member for Perth's criticisms fall flat.He also raised in his contribution the issue of high definition television and the cost of consumer equipment. The government are more than one step ahead of him on this issue. We certainly remain strongly committed to high definition television as one of the drivers of the digital television conversion process. We have no plans to alter the current legislative requirements that free-to-air broadcasters provide such high definition television. High definition television is part of a package of services that will and should—I am sure the opposition would agree—be available to consumers from the commencement of digital services or soon afterwards.Australia has taken the high definition television path judging that we have sufficient spectrum to provide viewers with a television experience dramatically better than that being offered to them now. The opportunity to implement high definition television is now, and not 15 years from now. To adopt an interim standard with a view to changing it in 10 years would result in more consumer confusion. We must, of course, be sensitive, as we are, to the cost implications of high definition television particularly in relation to the prices consumers are likely to pay for set-top boxes and integrated receivers.I make it clear to the House that the horror stories about prices may provide good media fodder but do not contribute anything to informed discussion. High definition television equipment will be somewhat more expensive, initially, than equipment that can only receive standard definition television, because it has more functionality. But our best advice to date is that equipment price differences will not be dramatic and will narrow quite quickly.The member for Perth also spoke in passing on the role of the national broadcasters. The government recognises the important role of the ABC and SBS in the emerging era of digital television. National broadcasters have a unique role in Australian broadcasting, and this will continue as television and radio move to digital over the next few years. The government is currently reviewing whether, and under what conditions, the national broadcasters should be able to provide multichannel services. The government is also currently negotiating with the national broadcasters on the second phase of their digital funding. In summing up, I hope, as best a government minister can, to have reassured the opposition spokesman of the correctness of the government policy in this agreed upon crucial area which will affect so many consumers. The two bills before the House give effect to the government's 1999 budget decision to recover the costs of providing additional resources for the ABA to undertake activities related to digital television conversion as well as to help facilitate the introduction of digital television services in metropolitan licence areas on 1 January 2001, and in regional licence areas between 1 January 2001 and 1 January 2004. It has been a very useful debate from all points of view.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.8927Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr McGauran) read a third time.Bills8927r8708927 Consideration resumed from 30 June on motion by Mr McGauran:That the bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.8927Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr McGauran) read a third time.Bills8927r8938927Debate resumed from 30 June, on motion by Dr Kemp:That the bill be now read a second time.17:11:008927Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—The Vocational Education and Training Funding Amendment Bill 1999 supplements for price increases the 1999 level of Commonwealth funding for vocational education and training. It also appropriates the base level of funding for the year 2000. In both cases, the amounts of funding are the same—that is, $918 million or so. This means that no growth funding is being provided even though the ANTA agreement, which still binds the Commonwealth and the states, provides that the Commonwealth government would continue to provide growth funds `on a continuing basis', which of course reflected the former Labor government's preparedness to properly invest in education and training.Before turning to the current state of vocational education and training in Australia—the VET sector—I want to spend a few minutes going over some of the history so that we know how we got to where we are today. The first point to make is that the Commonwealth played a very limited role in the provision of technical and further education until the Whitlam government years. It was in no small measure due to some excellent work done by a committee chaired by Myer Kangan, which recommended the establishment of increased federal assistance for technical and further education and the creation of a technical and further education commission, that some progress was made.However, after the defeat of the Whitlam government, there was a reduction in the Commonwealth's recurrent support for technical and further education by a factor of a third. It was not until the 1980s that government and industry, I think, began to appreciate the great importance of skilled development to Australia's future economic success. We had a series of reports and inquiries into vocational education in Australia. In particular, we had the Commonwealth, during the Hawke government years, signing a series of resource agreements with the states requiring the states to prepare various training profiles and requiring the Commonwealth to provide funds.The Training Costs Review Committee produced the Deveson report in 1990 which argued strongly for increased Commonwealth expenditure as well as greater reform of the TAFE system to address some of the arguments about the productivity of VET training in Australia. It was not until Paul Keating in the One Nation statement to this parliament that we had the Commonwealth really put funding for TAFE on the national agenda. In many ways, while Robert Menzies will be remembered as the Prime Minister who dramatically increased federal funding for universities, it will be Paul Keating who is remembered as the Prime Minister who ensured that the Commonwealth adequately funded vocational education and training in Australia.There are lots of universities that owe to the Whitlam government years their establishment and that owe the Fraser governments for additional fully funded places over the many years that they were in power, but it is Robert Menzies who can rightly claim the credit for the fact that the Commonwealth agreed to take on the full responsibility for funding universities, together with the fact that during the Whitlam years the Commonwealth agreed to take over absolutely every last dollar of funding for the university sector, with a few odd exceptions.With vocational education and training, it was not until, as I mentioned, the One Nation statement that we had the Commonwealth commit to providing a massive increase in federal funding for vocational education and training. Let me give you two figures to demonstrate that point. In the 1990-91 financial year the Commonwealth provided $422 million in 1999 prices. By the time Paul Keating left government in the 1995-96 financial year, that had more than doubled to $846 million.So in a very short period of time we had, in effect, a doubling of the Commonwealth's investment in vocational education and training, and I am sure that was in no small measure due to the then Prime Minister's own personal experience. I know he was not the most popular of prime ministers at the time we lost government in 1996, although he can never be denied the credit for Labor's win in the 1993 election. But in many ways this massive investment in vocational education and training was in no small measure due, I am sure, to Paul Keating's own personal experience.He knew what it was like to leave school at 15 and go back to TAFE to do the higher school certificate through the local TAFE college. I am sure, as the representative for the electorate of Blaxland, he realised how many of the future career opportunities of the young men and women of his own electorate, and of those in similar electorates in urban and regional areas right across the country, depended on their developing the skills they needed for work.The reason why vocational education and training is going to be of even greater importance in the next century is that the security that any of us or any Australian child will have for employment during their working lives is falling as each day passes. We have less and less security that the job we start in will be the job that any of us can retire in. We certainly know that, with the rapid changes that are taking place in the use of technology, in the economy and in workplaces right across the country, we need to make sure that as many Australians as possible not only have the skills they need to use the latest generation of technology that is there in the workplace but also have an open attitude to changing their skills during their working life.Many of the young people who are now in high school will find that, during their working lives, the prospects for advancement in their original career may fall off and they will need the assistance of the vocational education and training sector. They will need the help and the skills available through VET, through the local TAFE college, if they are to get those skills to head off in a new direction, to make sure that the job they have in their 30s and 40s offers just as many opportunities for advancement and security in future years as the job they got when they first left school.It is for that reason that we believe that the Australian parliament should be allocating more and not less funding for vocational education and training in Australia. It is for that reason that we believe that Deveson got it right all those years ago. One of the major recommendations in the Deveson report was to: . encourage TAFE institutions to work together as a single national system, along with other elements of the VET sector.It is only if we can develop that national system that was the aim behind the establishment of ANTA that we can make sure that this parliament is meeting its responsibilities to those Australian young people out there who are about to start their working lives.For all those reasons, Paul Keating can rightly claim the credit for the Commonwealth's doubling of funding for TAFE, for the doubling of funding for vocational education and training. I would just like to read a couple of sentences from some remarks the then Prime Minister, Paul Keating, made on the day that the ANTA agreement was signed between the Commonwealth and the states. On 21 July 1992, Mr Keating said:. . . what we have concluded with the States in a very co-operative manner is truly a historic agreement which will change the nature of vocational education in Australia forever, and will give at least half of the school leavers of this country a third route to education and training; that's after high school and universities, another route to education and training. And we've come from a position where three years ago, the Commonwealth virtually knew very little about TAFE or about the training and vocational education paths. And we've come from a position where we have been, as a Commonwealth, a Government topping up State funds for TAFE, to now building on the One Nation proposals through this mechanism to build a truly national training authority . . . Unfortunately, despite that doubling of funding during the Keating years and the commitment to growth funding year by year—we virtually had, in 1992 prices, a compound increase of $70 million a year for each of those years once the commitment was made in One Nation; that Paul Keating commitment was $100 million in 1992, $170 million in 1993 and $240 million in 1994, increasing by $70 million each of those years, with the intention being that that would flow through to at least 1997—we lost the 1996 election, and one of the consequences of that election loss was that, in the 1996-97 budget, the coalition made a number of cuts in the Commonwealth's investment in VET.First of all, we had a reduction in the VET grants to the states and territories of $66 million, then we had a reduction in ANTA's operating expenses of $13 million and then there was the abolition of the five per cent real growth on the base recurrent TAFE funding, and that was worth $91 million. In the 1997-98 budget, a further cut was made which subtracted a further $72 million from the funding that had been provided for the states. That means that, in total, the TAFE sector was denied $240 million that could have been invested in giving young people and middle aged men and women, middle aged Australians, a chance to develop the skills they need to work productively for our country.In June 1997 the current Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Dr Kemp, announced that he was proposing a new deal for the states, and this was in the context of the negotiation of the new ANTA agreement. He said that the Commonwealth would maintain its base funding in real terms for five years in return for the states and territories funding 100,000 new places each year through so-called efficiencies. That of course excused the Commonwealth from actually maintaining that commitment that had been in the previous ANTA agreement to provide significant ongoing increases in the funding. `Providing growth funds on a continuing basis' was the contract that was signed between the Commonwealth and the states, and in that 1996-97 period under this minister for education, that contract was breached by the Howard government.For those reasons, we now have the current minister pointing to Victoria as being the model state for vocational education and training in Australia. We have Victoria being held up as the most efficient vocational education and training system in Australia. It just demonstrates that, under this coalition government, efficiency equates with simple cost cutting. It is no surprise that at the end of last year two of Victoria's largest TAFE colleges were facing insolvency. There were press reports quoting the Director of Melbourne's Northern Institute of TAFE as saying that TAFE colleges were so underfunded due to cuts and the encouragement of private providers that they were not able to perform the duties required of them. We had the Kangan Batman TAFE director, John Parish, quoted in the Australian on 2 December last year as saying that the institution would have less than five days operating expenses left by the end of the year.So there is no doubt at all that the slash and burn policies of the Kennett government have left many of the TAFE colleges in Victoria in dire financial circumstances. Every time Jeff Kennett makes a cut in the funding for a TAFE college in Victoria, that is young Victorians being denied the opportunity to increase their skills and have a better chance of getting a job.Between 1989 and 1998, the number of students in vocational education and training more than doubled from 791,000 to 1.5 million. Over that period, Commonwealth expenditure on VET through the states and territories generally has shown steady growth in line with the growth in enrolments. Funding growth has stopped, however, under the Howard government. I have made the point before that, during the period that Paul Keating was there influencing funding for TAFE, we had a doubling in the Commonwealth effort; yet we are now seeing a reduction in funding to TAFE which totals $240 million, as I outlined previously.In recent speeches, the Prime Minister has pointed out the need for Australia to nurture and exploit our reserves of intellectual capital, yet his government's approach to education and training has worked in the opposite direction. How can you claim to have delivered an education budget when once again you refuse to provide any growth funding for TAFE? How can you claim to be building a can-do country if you are not providing the funding to help people get the skills so they can get the can-do jobs? How can we try to build Australia's reserves of intellectual capital when we have a government which is undermining the quality of our public institutions, especially in education, and a government which is reducing the opportunities of all Australians to gain the education and skills they need in today's society and changing workplace?Following its election last year, the Beattie government in Queensland undertook a review of TAFE in that state. It found that the federal and state coalition governments' rapid moves to user choice and competitive tendering had a devastating effect on Queensland's 16 TAFEs, with eight colleges—that is half of them—in extreme financial difficulty directly as a result of the Howard government at the Commonwealth level and the coalition government at the state level pushing user choice and competitive tendering on the state colleges irrespective of the damage it had done. The report found that user choice had meant that $60 million was transferred from TAFE base funding, while the amount of competitive tendering had more than quadrupled in two years from $20 million to $85 million.In September 1998, the Queensland government began an audit of 33 registered training organisations to examine their compliance with user choice contracts. The audits looked at the quality of training, the time given and the supervision provided for training during work hours. Every provider was found to be in breach of at least one clause of the contract, with one in breach of 36 clauses of their contract, and there were seven contract cancellations. That is this government's idea of efficiency at work. It is severely damaging the quality of Australia's vocational education and training system and, as a result, many young people are missing out on their opportunities to get the vocational education and training they need.That investigation of the 33 registered training organisations gave a few examples of breaches. Let me give you two. There had been the appointment of casual staff and existing workers—such as managers, supervisors, proprietors and even spouses—into traineeship positions and they counted as new traineeships under this minister for education's bogus new apprenticeship figures. Another example of a breach was a trainee being recorded as completing an entire traineeship in 2½ hours, which just makes a complete joke of the quality of vocational education and training that all of us want to see young people receive.The federal government's New Apprenticeship Scheme is also allowing some employers to pocket training subsidies of $4,000 a head for on-the-job training which is poorly delivered or not delivered at all. The report completed for the Queensland government in July this year entitled Independent Investigation into the Quality of Training in Queensland's Traineeship System by Kaye Schofield found that around 20 per cent of trainees were receiving no training at all under the user choice system so favoured by the coalition at the federal and state levels and which usually involves full on-the-job delivery of training. The report said:The commissioned survey of employers and trainees indicated that 19 per cent of trainees receive no training from their Registered Training Organisation (RTO) and many RTOs are minimising their obligations in terms of delivery and assessment . . .The report goes on to say:This represents a serious threat not only to the quality of traineeships but if not remedied, to the VET system as a whole.The federal minister effectively acknowledged these problems when he announced tightened eligibility criteria for the scheme in May this year which was effective immediately. But the Schofield report went on to say:Poor quality of training is likely to have an impact on the quality of Queensland's future workforce, particularly because so much of the `on-the-job' training is not developing underpinning knowledge and skills necessary to take people beyond current workplace practices.I know my colleague the member for Dickson has a very clear understanding of the many lost opportunities for her own constituents—young Queenslanders living in northern Brisbane in the Pine Rivers Shire—who will not get the opportunities to which they are entitled to boost their vocational education and training skills and who will not have the skills that give them the best possible chance to get a job and provide for themselves and their families.This issue and others relating to the quality in Australia's vocational education and training system will now be examined in a wide- ranging Senate inquiry which has recently been established by the other house. This was an inquiry, you will not be surprised to learn, Madam Deputy Speaker Kelly, which was opposed by the government. I notice that the minister was quoted in the Australian on 18 August as saying that the inquiry would waste considerable government resources and was not based on evidence. The minister is quoted as saying, in the cases raised over recent months by my colleague Senator Carr, `there is no evidence of fraud against the Commonwealth'. I note that the minister's words were very carefully chosen there: `there is no evidence of fraud'. I would like to know what the minister regards as evidence.For example, in June eight statutory declarations were given to the minister's department. The statutory declarations were by trainees employed by three companies in Victoria raising allegations of training rorts involving Commonwealth incentive payments to employers. The department's response was that the allegations had been investigated and not supported. No information was provided as to what the investigations entailed and whether or not the trainees themselves had been interviewed. Returning to the Schofield report, it says:Governments cannot be confident that all traineeships are being delivered in conformance with contractual or regulatory specifications. Breaches of the User Choice contract and of the requirements of the Australian Recognition Framework appear to be common and audit findings, involving the inappropriate use of traineeships for existing workers, indicate that in some cases there may have been fraud against the Commonwealth and State Governments.Let me repeat that for you, Madam Deputy Speaker:. . . audit findings, involving the inappropriate use of traineeships for existing workers, indicate that in some cases there may have been fraud against the Commonwealth and State Governments.In a broader sense, however, the minister's attitude is extremely disturbing. While focusing on the issue of direct fraud against the Commonwealth, he is ignoring the far more important concern of the national direction of vocational education and training in Australia—a concern about the quality of our work force in years to come. Australians have a right to expect more from the current minister for education. But it fits a pattern. This minister has deliberately sought to undermine TAFE and the vocational education and training that our public TAFE colleges provide. In the same way, this minister has undermined our public universities. He has undermined our public schools in the same way as this government has undermined our public hospitals and many other public institutions right across the spectrum.I now turn to another area that is covered by this bill. The Australian Council for Private Education and Training has also raised the issue of training quality. The education export market in vocational education and training has experienced exceptional growth in recent years. Overseas students enrolled in Australian vocational education courses grew from 24,199 in 1994 to almost 41,000 in 1997, an increase of 59 per cent. The most recent data indicates that vocational education accounts for 27 per cent of overseas enrolments in Australian education institutions. The 1997 expenditure by international students in vocational education was some $790 million. So it is clear that they contribute significantly to our $3½ billion education export industry.In the face of this, the minister's management of international students at private training colleges is in desperate need of an overhaul. I see that last week he belatedly announced a series of consultations a year after a Senate committee recommended exactly that. While this minister for education has sat on his hands for 12 months, he has not understood the urgent need for a review which has been highlighted time and time again by, for example, the recent failures of the Business Institute of Victoria and the National Business Management College in Sydney.Under the Education Services for Overseas Students Act, or ESOS Act, the Commonwealth maintains a register of institutions and courses for overseas students. It also requires private education and training bodies to maintain a trust account as insurance for students should the business fail, as well as belonging to a tuition assurance scheme. Evidence given to the Senate inquiry last year highlighted the shortcomings of the present administration of trust funds, with the federal department auditing funds once a year on a known date. That is why the Senate committee called for the minister to investigate this issue a year ago.I want to spend a few minutes quoting from some of the public hearings that took place on 16 July 1998. Senator Carr asked a series of questions about some of the colleges that have got into financial difficulty, and he was advised as follows about some of them:In April 1997 there was a Sydney college. This college was deregistered by DEETYA in February or March of that year. Arrangements were made to temporarily transfer 48 students to another college. I do not know why they were deregistered because we do not have access to that information. So these students were transferred to another college. Money in the trust account with the students' authority was transferred, so there was some money in the trust account then. About six weeks later the college was re-registered, or given back their accreditation, so then we had to move the students back into that college. Then, in August, they went down and there was no money in the trust account. The new owner is actually trying to sue the previous owners.Senator CARR—What was the name of that college?The witness, Ms Thompson, replied:Eliaus College in Sydney.She goes on to quote another example:The fourth was the one that I have personally been involved with, in Queensland in April. They had English language and high school programs, and they also had a golf program. There was an Indian student enrolled in a diploma of business and music course, but there was no music program and nobody seems to know how he got the visa.Senator CARR—What was the name of that college?Ms Thompson—Queensland International Heritage College. ACPET paid the expenses of their representative to go up to Maryborough to investigate. The college had been deregistered temporarily and I suppose it was a problem with the trust account because, when I was there, there was an auditor who had been brought in by DEETYA and was keeping an eye on them. Subsequently, in about February or March, the college got their registration back again, and by April they were in liquidation.Senator Carr goes on to ask:In your experience, how is it possible for the tuition trust accounts to be emptied?Ms Thompson—The only time there is an audit is on 30 June and then we put in reports to DEETYA, which our TAS coordinator has to do, but then it is another year and nobody checks.So it is obviously quite clear that, with a number of these colleges going belly up, we have had evidence for more than a year that this minister and this government needed to act to ensure that funds remained in the trust accounts all through the year and not only until 30 June. An unscrupulous proprietor could ensure that funds were deposited into the trust accounts the day before 30 June and then empty the trust accounts on the day after 30 June. That proprietor would have satisfied all of the checks and obligations that are required under this act, with the one exception that, if the act had been breached, this minister and this government would not have known. There were no random audits or spot checks to ensure that the small number of unscrupulous providers that do not maintain their trust accounts were caught out. Australia's international reputation as a quality provider of education exports has been undermined by this minister sitting on his hands for 12 months and not accepting that Senate committee recommendation to investigate the damage that has been done by these institutions going belly up.When the Business Institute of Victoria went into receivership this year, I understand that there was absolutely no money in its account. The National Business Management College was apparently catering for between 500 and 600 students, yet the federal minister's department was aware of only 232. These additional students are now missing. It seems that this institution could well have been operating as a so-called visa factory, as the industry calls them. I would certainly encourage the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, who is at the table, to ensure that his department is carrying out thorough checks about the students who have attended these colleges that have now got into difficulty.0J4RUDDOCKMr Ruddock—You can rest assured that I have a very high degree of interest in the matter. MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—Which gives us no reassurance whatsoever. I say to the minister that his own department has responsibilities in issuing visas to many of these students. With the recent events that have taken place in the colleges, I hope he is asking his department for advice as to how these systems can be given greater credibility in days to come.The point to make is that we have a TAFE system which is in great difficulty. We have a number of changes that have been made in the funding for TAFE, which has undermined the needs of the sector. It is for these reasons that, while not seeking to deny the passage of this legislation, we believe the government is heading in the wrong direction by not providing the increased funding which our TAFE colleges need, which our VET providers need, to ensure that young Australians get the training that they need. I move:That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:"whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House:(1) notes that a quality vocational education and training system has a vital role to play in Australia's future; and(2) condemns the Government for: (a) undermining the quality of our vocational education and training system through its obsession with cost-cutting and privatisation; (b) failing to meet its responsibilities to fund growth in TAFE; and (c) failing to properly administer the provision of vocational education and training to overseas students".10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Kelly)—Is the amendment seconded?LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—I second the amendment.17:41:008934Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON6K6FordeLP10—I am pleased to rise here today in support of the Vocational Education and Training Funding Amendment Bill 1999 , which provides additional funding to supplement the already record spending allocated by the Howard government for vocational training. This bill ensures that our commitment to vocational education and training is maintained in real terms, allowing for an extra $14 million in line with real price movements—and bringing our total spending in this area to over $918 million.But of course, it is never really just about money. That is where Labor and the member for Dobell got it wrong in government—and where they continue to get it wrong. Their solution to any problem is always to throw money at it. You only have to look at the expensive farce that was Working Nation and to talk to some of my constituents who were sent on Labor's pointless and disheartening revolving door training schemes to see the futility of Labor's approach. Or of course, you can simply look at their track record in office.The highest ever level of unemployment was under Labor when Kim Beazley was employment minister, with record youth unemployment, the biggest ever decline in apprenticeships and a massive blow-out in government debt—more than $25 million in their last two years alone, when the Leader of the Opposition was the finance minister. To give all Australians a future, we have begun to pay back that debt, and to do so we have called on all areas of government to make efficiency gains—in other words, to find better and more cost effective ways to do the job. Most areas of government have risen to that challenge. Vocational education and training is one area where we have been given an undertaking through the Australian National Training Authority to ensure growth of the sector in the future.Vocational education is a growth sector and the Howard government is determined to provide even more opportunities for young Australians to get a head start and for many others to update and improve their work skills. We recognise the value of vocational education—which, again, is in stark contrast to Labor's approach. In yet another betrayal of the `blue-collar workers' they pretend to represent, Labor in the 1980s and 1990s sent a clear message to all school leavers that university was the only valid option; anything else was simply second best. Why was this the case? It was because many of the chardonnay socialists on the other side of the House look down their noses at anyone who does not have a string of university degrees. It is true.While Labor will still trot out the old class warfare lines—pitting Australians against each other—they do not realise that it backfires on them. Labor are now seen, in the eyes of mainstream Australians, as being the political party that represents elites. Whether it be in the trade union movement, the arts elite, the politically correct intelligentsia or any other number of special interest groups, Labor will side with the elites over the interests of mainstream Australia every time. They proved this during their 13 years in government, and they have certainly proven it over the last 3½ years in opposition. The sad fact is that Labor have become far removed from their traditional roots. Most members opposite would probably think Barcaldine was the name of a trendy new wine bar.DT4CREANMr Crean—Those who have been there know it is not.6K6Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON—Not many have been there, though. I know first-hand of the need to have a range of flexible options for school leavers. Of my own eight children, three have gone to study at university, three have taken up a trade through apprenticeships and two have updated their employment skills through vocational education courses at TAFE. Vocational education is not a second-best option at all; it is the very best option for many young Australians. With fewer than 30 per cent of school leavers choosing to go straight to university, it is obvious that we owe our young Australians a lot more than a narrow focus on university education.I am very proud that the Howard government has restored apprenticeship levels under our new apprenticeship scheme. Currently, more than 206,400 Australians are gaining vital skills through the apprenticeship scheme or traineeships. That is an increase of over 60,000 since the beginning of 1996. Apprenticeship commencements for the 1998 calendar year were more than double the commencements under Labor in 1995. Our new apprenticeship system, including the support and advice services through the one-stop shops, has made apprenticeships a much more attractive option for employers. I am pleased to say that there is a one-stop apprenticeship shop located in my electorate of Forde to assist all local employers and help our young people gain access to better opportunities. It is all about opportunities for our young people.Labor members will stand in their places day after day feigning indignation and whingeing and complaining about our government, but the fact is that we are providing more opportunities for our young people than they ever did. This is clearly evidenced by the fact that youth unemployment continues to drop. At 21.4 per cent, it is now at its lowest level in nearly a decade. Whilst there is obviously still much more to do, we have achieved a great deal in a short time. Of course, you will not find any member on the other side of this House standing up and quoting that statistic. In fact, you will never hear them say anything positive about the government and what we have achieved in employment, vocational education and training or any other area. They have set themselves up as the most negative, partisan, `talk Australia down' opposition that this nation has ever seen. I can assure them that the people of Australia will not thank them for it.Australians know that Labor gave us record unemployment, which makes them even more angry that Labor has blocked our efforts to help employers create more jobs. We have introduced sensible legislation, like the unfair dismissal changes and youth wages. Australians know that Labor left Australia with a massive debt. They opposed all of our efforts to bring the budget back to surplus and begin to pay back their debt. Australians know that Labor robbed many young Australians of hope and opportunity by neglecting vocational education and training, by slashing apprenticeships to the lowest level in 30 years and by letting them languish on dole queues.Before I was first elected to parliament in 1996, I sent the first of what has now become a regular survey out to my local residents, so that I can continue to get feedback on what matters most to them. One of the most significant concerns back then from people of all ages was about opportunities for our young people. There was a definite air of pessimism which sapped enthusiasm and bred resentment.It has been heartening over the past three years to work with local residents and community groups and witness a very definite positive change of attitude. This change has been brought about by the many practical ways that the Howard government is creating more opportunities for young people living in my electorate of Forde. Last year, I was pleased to announce increased funding of $534,000 for new facilities at the local Meadowbrook campus of Logan TAFE. The extra funding, which was part of the Howard government commitment to practical training, provided an additional $534,000 to complete the construction of new facilities at TAFE. The new facilities are being used for courses in airconditioning, white goods, computer repairs, computer applications, electronics, environmental studies, child care and community welfare studies. The other changing aspect of vocational education and training is that it is shifting from trade based areas to other growth areas.Of all our current apprenticeships and traineeships, for example, 31.8 per cent are now in the clerical, sales and service worker occupations. This will no doubt continue to grow as we look at ways to better meet the changes needed in our growth industries. I was pleased to encourage an innovative local program which does just that. Local businessman Ron Munn, Manager of Sunwood Engineering, has established the Jimboomba Flexi-Learn Centre as part of the TAFE network to provide job based training. His training is tailored to meet the needs of local businesspeople and is another example of how vocational education can provide a much more direct link between training and employment, therefore increasing job prospects for those who participate.There have been many other benefits for young people of Forde: the one-stop apprentice shop, which I mentioned earlier; several local Jobs Pathway programs; and funding for local training networks between schools. I have been delighted to assist and keep in close contact with the several local Green Corps programs operating in my electorate at Mount Tambourine and Canungra. These teams of young volunteers are committed to preserving and restoring the unique hinterland environment that makes these special areas a lovely place. They do a great job, are tireless workers and are gaining valuable jobs skills in the process.It is practical programs like Green Corps that are the signature of the Howard government's approach in office of sensible spending to deliver maximum results to the community. That is what Australians want from their government. Whether it is education, training or welfare spending, Australians want positive outcomes, and that is exactly what we are delivering. When I talk about positives, I simply have to mention our Work for the Dole programs. I was privileged to have one of the pilot programs based in Forde. It has successfully helped secure the future of Work for the Dole programs, and we now have more than eight different projects. The practical program, run by the local community based group Phantast, is now becoming one of the largest Work for the Dole programs in Australia. I would like to congratulate Calvin Pybus and June Hinze for their ongoing dedication. Together we have seen what a real difference it has made to the lives of so many young residents of Forde.Work for the Dole is unique. It is not a training program, yet participants are gaining valuable job skills. It is not a job placement program, yet participants within the electorate of Forde are going on to full-time paid work at a tremendous rate. It is not vocational education, but participants are learning so much about self-discipline and the work ethic, and surveys have found that employers are much more likely to employ someone who has worked under this scheme. The public support for Work for the Dole is incredible. It has in many ways bridged the gap between the community and the unemployed and made job seekers feel like they are making a direct contribution to their local area. It is achieving better outcomes than almost all the programs in Labor's Working Nation at a fraction of the cost. The community itself is benefiting in so many ways from the work participants are doing. Work for the Dole is by any measurable standard a resounding success, but its greatest success will be in the unquantifiable social benefits for years to come. Again, predictably, Labor opposes Work for the Dole. While it may make claims to the contrary, Labor is against the whole concept of mutual obligation. Its elite mates in the union movement do not like it so, naturally, Labor does not like it either. It does not matter how positive it is for everyone involved, Labor wants to scrap Work for the Dole. And let there be no doubt, that is exactly what it would do if it were re-elected to office. When it comes to vocational education and training, you can be assured that we would see a rapid decline again under Labor.This bill helps secure the future of vocational education in Australia. Vocational education is one of the ways this government is providing greater opportunities for young Australians to succeed. I have always believed, and I know it is a strong belief of the Prime Minister, that our aim should be to ensure a better future for our kids and their children. Under Labor, it was shameful that for the first time in Australia's history we were passing on a lower standard of living to our children than had been left to us. Labor built a legacy of debt and deficit that they were prepared to leave to future generations. The Howard government is not content to leave that sort of inheritance to our young Australians. Even though we did not create the debt, we are determined to fix up Labor's mess and to leave a clean slate for future generations of Australians.By our governing in the national interest and securing our economic future, Australia will be able to afford more sensible social programs to help those in genuine need and make our communities even better places. But it is not just about money. It is about helping people to help themselves. It is about providing incentive and creating the right environment for everyone to reach their full potential, and that means recognising that the path to success is not the same for everyone.I do not believe that university is the only valid option for school leavers. In the electorate of Forde, that I am very proud to repre sent, fewer than 10 per cent of local residents have formal university degrees, but we have a thriving community based on hard work and enterprise. We have tremendously successful people who are always ready and willing to help others. Thanks to the Howard government, we have more training and education opportunities for our young people than ever before. The Howard government places enormous importance on vocational education and training. We will continue to ensure increased funding for apprenticeships, Work for the Dole and the TAFE sector. I commend this bill to the House and, at the same time, I do not support the amendment of the member for Dobell.17:55:008937Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—In speaking to the Vocational Education and Training Funding Amendment Bill 1999 , it is also my pleasure to second the second reading amendment which has been moved by the member for Dobell. Before going to the content of the bill, it is appropriate that I set out a few facts on the issue of employment for the edification of the member for Forde. We should face up to the fact that, if it had not been for the participation rate falling under coalition policies aimed at directly discouraging the work force participation rate, we would currently have an unemployment rate in the order of 8.2 per cent. It is about time the Australian community understood that the biggest contributing factor to the fall in unemployment in more recent times has been a drop in the participation rate by 0.8 per cent, almost one per cent, since the election of March 1996.On the issues of employment and vocational education and training, since the Howard government began to slash funding for Working Nation in 1996, the number of very long-term unemployed—and we are talking about people who have been unemployed for 24 months or more—has increased by 5,000, not decreased. I compare that with Labor's last term in office when the number of very long-term unemployed decreased by 40,000. It is also interesting to note that, in the 3½ years this government has been in office, it has created half as many full-time jobs as Labor did in its last term.What do we say about the coalition's rhetoric? It is failing on the full-time jobs front. It is failing with respect to the very long-term unemployed, and the biggest contributor to the decrease in unemployment since the election has been a reduction in the participation rate. That is a very public statement by Australia's unemployed—especially those who are long-term unemployed, those decent workers who have difficulty gaining access to employment because of a lack of skills—that this government is not prepared to deliver decent training of a vocational education nature or of a more basic nature, which would assist those people in obtaining employment. With respect to the employment record, Labor reduced youth unemployment by 31,500 in our last three years. Despite the coalition's rhetoric, it has reduced youth unemployment in its first 3½ years by just 23,000.Having dealt with the facts—and it is very important for people like the member for Forde to deal with facts—it is now appropriate that I deal with the second reading amendment moved by our shadow minister for education, the member for Dobell, and, in doing so, deal with the bill before the House. This bill formalises the ANTA agreement with the states, though I do not believe that can be called an agreement at all. As those who follow the vocational education debate know, ANTA did not want this outcome. ANTA accepted it because they had no choice. It concerns me that this is not the basis on which Labor established ANTA as an important initiative back in 1992.Vocational education and training, as we all understand, is critical to our nation's future. Importantly, there is now widespread recognition that it is more than the poor cousin of the university or the alternative to leaving school early. It is central to our future as a nation. Its status in the community among industry, students, parents, educators and young and old people is a major determinant of the nation's long-term future. More importantly, it is not only a community issue—a determinant of our long-term future as a nation—but also a key determinant of an individual's opportunity in life and the opportunity that that individual might be able to offer his or her family. One's skill base determines one's employability, which in turn determines the nature of the job that one will get, which in turn determines one's career opportunity and, from time to time, one's capacity to achieve a certain continuity of employment.More than ever, as we look to the future, we are not going to be able to adopt the view that we will be employed for a long period by a particular employer or even in a given industry. That initial skills base—that education and training opportunity—is going to determine not only our opportunity in life but also our employability and capacity to be employed for a gainful life throughout our whole working life. That is why I suggest, in this context, that leadership is required. But the call for leadership has unfortunately not been heard by the Howard government. Doubts about the status of vocational education and training and limited receptiveness to lifelong learning imply a need to actively promote cultural change. It is Labor that has responded and that will continue to respond, just as it did with the original development of ANTA back in 1992.Our leader Kim Beazley has staked his claim, as the Education Prime Minister, that this is where we as a nation should go. I believe that compares rather favourably with a Prime Minister who wants to be seen in historical terms as the GST Prime Minister. That is a fundamental statement of priorities. Do we as a nation invest in the training of our young people and our middle aged who have lost employment or, alternatively, do we go down in historical terms as having had a GST Prime Minister? I am with Kim Beazley. He is about substance. He is about delivering to all Australians, not just to the more wealthy—the better off in the Australian community—who are frankly doing all right anyhow. As Education Prime Minister, Kim Beazley is demanding that skills be placed at the centre of the debate. I contrast that with the approach of the Howard government and with this bill, a bill which once again fails to recognise the growing importance of vocational education and training.Through a commitment to vocational education and training, the government had an opportunity to remind the Minister for Employment Services—and this was an important reminder—that the supply side of the labour market depends not just on choices but also on capabilities. The government had an opportunity to spell out that the barrier for some of those people who cannot find work is not welfare or name-calling—describing people as `job snobs'. It is something more fundamental: it is in essence a lack of skills. Rather than calling people `job snobs'—as the Minister for Employment Services all too frequently refers to them because of his own personal failures on the employment services front—and threatening to reduce their payments, we as a nation could be assisting them in developing their skills to help them become employable. That is what skills are about—making sure that people are employable.The problem is that this government has spent the last three years cutting the employability of our people and also, as this bill suggests, that it has not learnt from the mistakes of the last 3½ years and intends continuing to go down that unfortunate path. It is just not those missing out on the opportunity to develop their skills that suffer. When you start to think about how we can deliver to employers the workers that they need—and that is what skills development is about; it is not just about the workers themselves, it is also about meeting the needs of employers—you come to see skills as the common thread. It is a common thread right throughout society. Everyone needs skills: the individual, the family, the community, the employer and the nation. It is what holds this nation together and, in turn, creates prosperity and an Australia that is a competitive nation capable of competing not only domestically but also internationally. The difference is that Labor recognises this but the coalition does not.I therefore say to the House this evening that one of Labor's goals is to increase year 12-equivalent retention rates to counter the falling demand of recent decades for low skilled labour. We know in turn that this means closer links between academic and vocational education and also between school, TAFE and university. We also know that it must involve industry at every step. It is about a partnership—a common thread of skills development to bring it all together in a partnership. As a community, we therefore need to provide a range of learning options and in doing so ensure that they are adequately resourced and funded.It is ironic that, at the very time we need to do more for those who are struggling to achieve this, this government is increasing the privilege associated with a private education and even squeezing the public school system harder. The general case under this government is that those from poorer families and poorer neighbourhoods are to lose out while the privileged actually increase the gap which exists in the Australian community. It is also clear that we cannot see learning as something which is confined to schools. We need to encourage parents to be involved in learning, to ensure that the family environment is helpful and not hindering school performance and to be more imaginative in our use of small scale committee networks where family support mechanisms have broken down.As a society, we must make a commitment to our youth—yes, to all of them. It must be made not just to those who have better opportunities through the private school system but to all our youth, irrespective of whether their parents are employed or unemployed, irrespective of the suburb or the region in which they live. As a nation, we must strive to ensure that every young person gets the same opportunity in life. That is why we must ensure that family and community support networks, our relations with others and our sense of community are the things that count in considering the issue of vocational education and training and, therefore, in considering the issue of skills development which, in turn, determines one's employability.We cannot comfort ourselves by assuming that all young people ultimately will make their way into the work force, because in some places where this government has failed to create job opportunities and where support networks have been neglected these kids really feel on the outer. Not only are they alienated in some instances from their parents, their families and their wider family, from their school and the broader community in which they operate and from the political processes; they also feel completely alienated because of the failure of government, the failure of all political parties in some instances, to develop a capacity in this country to make sure that we have in place opportunities to give people skills which, in turn, will make them employable.These kids are entitled to point the finger at all political parties and say, `It is high time you got vocational education and training in this nation right, because if you don't get it right you are not only hindering our opportunity in the future but more importantly hindering the opportunity of Australia to do even better in the future.' That is why a lot of those young people who are alienated at the moment in those disadvantaged suburbs and communities are right. They do not want Australia to be further divided into the haves and the have-nots. They want hope for the future. But that takes leadership, and leadership is based on genuine compassion—something that is missing from the Howard government. Unless we get compassion in leadership, we will not be able to deliver and fulfil the needs and aspirations of those young people.The fact is that, for many kids, attachment to the work force will not happen on its own, and that is something that should concern all of us. When young people cannot fulfil their promise, their potential, our nation cannot fulfil its promise, its potential. As we all know, our young people are our work force of tomorrow. As our population ages, they will be called upon to help support retired workers. That is why there is a need to be more active in monitoring the school to work transition—to ensure that this transition effectively links classrooms to careers. Unfortunately, under this government we have had a couple of pilots here and there and a lot of rhetoric but no structured coordinated response to that challenge. Given that the Howard government sees our disadvantaged youth as the source of the problem, that should come as no surprise. Such a response is a cruel and bitter distortion of reality. It is the sort of thing that people of little imagination and even less compassion resort to after discovering that answers are not simple.Our kids are an asset. It is only by seeing them as such and supporting their development that we will reap the benefits. They are a pool of talent and ideas awaiting the opportunity and support which they need to make their way. By far the best thing we can do to keep people at school is to get in early—a theme about which we on this side of the House have been vocal. There is common recognition that labour market programs cannot remedy a problem stemming from years of educational neglect; the Labor Party acknowledges that. Early intervention, alternatively, is a necessity.We must develop targeted strategies to assist those who are not part of our current prosperity but who are critical to ensuring continued prosperity. Left behind kids in left behind families in left behind communities are a mistake; they are a disgrace to Australia. They are a problem, and it is a problem we all share ownership of and responsibility for. So let us try and start to get it right. On that note, we must ensure that young people from rural Australia have a chance and that youth from the outer fringes of our cities are in the inner circle of opportunity—not the outer circle of opportunity and disadvantage. But to do that requires a commitment that educational resources, particularly for VET, be directed appropriately. That is a commitment this government has not met.At the other end of the spectrum, the labour market performance of older males in recent decades also offers us an important lesson. The current cohort of older workers began their working lives with different expectations about the labour market and `a job for life'. These older workers, often located in declining industries, are being asked to bear the brunt of economic change, and they are receiving precious little assistance. The truth is that they are not being assisted under the Job Network because they are no longer a profitable investment for employment agencies. They have limited access to retraining because they face cultural and economic barriers to re-entering the education and training system. This group has very little in the way of social support networks because its members typically have been seen as the providers rather than the recipients. If the idea of shared responsibility is falling down anywhere in our society, it is here. Our training system could be more accessible in both institutions and in opportunities in workplaces. But, again, this would require a commitment beyond this government's capabilities.The bill is about opportunity. As a government and an opposition, we are required to ensure that there are policies in place which guarantee that generations are more adaptable and that there are more flexible career structures. That, in turn, implies a need to improve occupational mobility, and a solid skills base is critical to that. In particular, the past decade has seen a major rise in the use of interactive skills, a shift that our institutions are still struggling to respond to. That is why Labor openly talks about the need, for example, for some young people to have a week based on three days at school, one in the workplace and one in TAFE. This is the way of the future.We on this side of the House take this opportunity to say that we believe the bill fails: it fails to deliver a proper vocational education and training system. It is a bill, unfortunately, that once again is based on cutting Australia down rather than building it up. In an age when investing in the skills of our people is virtually the same as investing in the nation's economic and social future, the government has failed sadly. We take the view that investments in education and training are the single most effective way of insuring the nation against future unemployment. This bill is further confirmation that the government is not prepared to skill our nation for the future and, in doing so, to make sure that our future is guaranteed.The problem is that this government is not prepared to invest in the employability of our people and is not prepared to commit to the ideal of a knowledge nation. That, we believe, is going to make a fundamental difference in the ensuing months. We must deliver new options to make sure that we create opportuni ties for those who have been disadvantaged, for those who do not currently have access to a decent skilling, a vocational education and training opportunity and, therefore, a guarantee of their employability for the future.With over 650,000 Australians unemployed, it really is not a debate—as the Treasurer would have us believe last week—about further tax cuts, especially for those who are better off in the community. It is a debate about how we as a nation invest in our future. It is a debate about how we put additional resources into education and training and employability. That internal action will determine our prosperity in the future which, in turn, means we will have better opportunities as a nation. (Time expired)18:15:008941Lawler, Tony, MPMr LAWLER834ParkesNP10—Surprisingly enough, I agree with some of the comments the member for Batman made. I do not think there is any argument that the youth of Australia are indeed our future and I do not think there is any argument that the youth of today are all of our responsibilities. Aside from that, this is where we depart. The member for Batman talked about labour market programs not being a substitute for a decent education. This is the government that recognised that a decent education is the basis for an on-going future for our youth and this is the government that has actually acted in the area of education. This is the government, the coalition government, that has targeted literacy and numeracy programs, which were sadly lacking in the years gone by and which has resulted in a large number of our youth being unable to read and to do basic maths which would help them to obtain a good job.It was this government that changed the funding legislation in order to allow independent schools to offer a decent education to those in lower socioeconomic areas. Under previous governments, these people were destined never to have the choice of going to a government or an independent school. The previous government was full of rhetoric on these matters.The member for Batman mentioned that the Leader of the Opposition staked his claim to be the Education Prime Minister of Australia. Is this the same way that he staked his claim as the finance minister when he left a $25 billion deficit over two years? Do we accept that he staked his claim as the Australian employment minister when he left 11 per cent unemployment? Is it the same way that he staked his claim as the defence minister and left us with the debacle of the submarines?The Vocational Education and Training Funding Amendment Bill 1999 increases the amount previously appropriated for 1999 by $14.208 million and reflects the government's commitment to maintain funding to this scheme in real terms. This increase takes total funding for 1999 to $918.352 million. The money is provided to the Australian National Training Authority for distribution to the states and territories and for national projects. The states and territories supplement these funds with their own money. It covers their responsibilities for their own training systems, including the administration of TAFE institutes and funding support, where appropriate, for other providers of vocational education and training. They have a responsibility to deliver services that are needed on the ground, not to deliver services that may have been needed five or 10 years ago.We recognise the enormous importance of vocational education and training in this rapidly changing society where the demands on young people and employers are vastly different from those of 10 or 15 years ago. This message was not recognised nearly as clearly by the previous Labor government who, despite their rhetoric, really gave young people the indication that it was university or nowhere. This led to the neglect and decline of the vocational education system. Australia's apprenticeship system therefore was deteriorating, decreasing rapidly the opportunities for real work experience and training for Australia's youth. By trying to maintain apprenticeships in the same manner they have been run for years, Labor made employers turn away from apprenticeships because of the overly restrictive regulations and industrial relations arrangements. As a result of this, the number of apprenticeships as a percentage of the work force declined during Labor's last year to the lowest level for 30 years. They should hang their heads in shame.Employers in occupations experiencing skill shortages in non-metropolitan Australia will receive an additional $1,000 incentive payment when their apprentices progress from certificate level 2 to level 3, bringing the total employer incentives to $5,000. I applaud the government's vision in recognising that the needs of regional and rural employers are somewhat different from those of city employers. One of the most successful programs in my electorate has been the Jobs Pathway Program. I was fortunate enough to launch the Jobs Pathway Program in Dubbo, which is run by the Western Employment Service. The aim of this program is to improve school students' transition from school to work. Through the provision of such assistance, we focus on the skills and knowledge that are required to lessen the risks that these students will fall through the cracks and become unemployed.I recently spoke to Lesley Johnson of Western Employment Service, and her comments were that the program was `really very effective'. They have found in implementing the Jobs Pathway Program that a lot of students have come to them with no idea of the demands of the workplace. Their clients also had limited interview techniques and often had no idea how to handle a situation in which they were interviewed by a few people senior to them. In some cases, careers advisers themselves have not had the necessary skills training to assist, and both they and the students often had little knowledge of apprenticeships.In my electorate the Jobs Pathway Program has assisted many school leavers to prepare an application letter and a resume and to practice interview techniques. One of the great things about it is that it will assist kids who perhaps have not had access to good advice at school to obtain the same degree of preparedness for the job market as kids who have been lucky enough to have had a very good careers adviser, thus levelling the playing field between the haves and the have-nots.One of the other big pluses of the Jobs Pathway Program is that private enterprise is delivering the service, which is a more focused service than that which would be delivered by government. Private enterprise is also better able to provide current information on what employers are seeking in the workplace today. Organisations that are involved in the Jobs Pathway Program are receiving widespread compliments from the business sector. These are examples of what we have been striving for in education and training reform: cooperation and partnerships, responsiveness and flexibility, lifelong learning and education pathways, and the innovative use of technology. With the flexibility offered by the programs provided by the federal coalition government, we see integrated training and pathways from entry level into the workplace right up to postgraduate study at university level. This is a very clear signal to staff that learning is an ongoing process and that one can work one's way up through a business organisation in a variety of ways.Another example of the flexibility that has become part and parcel of educational institutions since the coalition government became involved is the delivery of a postgraduate course in nursing by the University of Newcastle. I was recently fortunate enough to accompany the Minister for Aged Care, Mrs Bishop, to an awards ceremony in Parkes, where some of the staff from the Niola Age Care Unit had done further study through the University of Newcastle from their home town and without the need to travel to Newcastle during their studies. This enabled them to complete their courses without spending blocks of time away from their families and their jobs. None of the graduates would have been able to contemplate further study except through the flexibility offered by educational institutions in the way they are approaching education now.Especially in its later term of government, Labor seemed intent on juggling the unemployment figures to end up with figures which suited them. It provided short-term training programs and short-term work programs purely designed to manipulate the unemployment statistics. No matter how the member for Batman puts it, this is how Labor arrived at its supposedly successful record on unemployment. But all that happened was that the pockets of many providers were filled with public money—many of them have readily admitted this to me—to the detriment of long-term gains that could have been achieved for Australia's youth if the money had been properly targeted. We have examples where some of the providers of these training programs were paying up to $50,000 plus to unskilled providers of these training programs, and they were the only people to benefit. Because of the short-term nature of these programs, the people involved had limited access to the skills that they needed to gain to become active participants in the work force. Just as they had reached the stage where they were able to generate those skills, the ground was pulled out from underneath them.This government has turned that around and, with the cooperation of the states and territories, we intend that our system will grow and result in an additional 70,000 VET places in 1999 compared with 1997. In the 1999 federal budget it was announced that the Commonwealth government would provide an annual commitment of more than $1.6 billion to support VET—an increase of $130 million over four years from 2002-03.The coalition's determination to deliver flexible arrangements for apprenticeships and traineeships has been praised by people in the industry. The Commonwealth and the states have been working together to make it easier for people going from school into new apprenticeships. This includes the joint secondary schools—TAFE initiative. Here, students are exposed to basic training during their school time so that when they appear on the job for the first day of their new apprenticeship they already have basic knowledge, basic skills and a familiarity with their new career path.The number of new apprentices reflects this change in attitude by government, because it continues to grow to record levels. At the end of December 1998 there were 206,370 new apprentices. This is a record number, and it is more than 60,000 greater than at the end of 1995.I have spoken about the New Apprenticeships scheme, which has delivered in spades to people in regional Australia. We have New Apprenticeships because apprenticeships are now available in industries which previously had no interaction with the training system. Training is now based on industry determined competency and ability rather than on time periods alone. Thus, through the combination of work, education and training, people can attain educational and vocational qualifications that are recognised nationally by relevant authorities and, most importantly, are valued by industry.As we know, only 30 per cent of students leave school and go straight to university, which has posed a challenge for some years in providing a pathway between school and work for the remaining 70 per cent of school leavers. The coalition has recognised this and has put into place real strategies which assist people on the ground and deliver satisfactory results for both industry and our youth. Though I reject the amendments foreshadowed by the Labor Party, I commend this bill to the House.Sitting suspended from 6.29 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.20:00:008944Irwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN83ZFowlerALP00—The Vocational Education and Training Funding Amendment Bill 1999 represents this government's short-sighted approach to one of the most important areas of policy. This government's real intentions for vocational education and training are to cut the level of expenditure to this sector even more than it has since coming to office. What we saw in the first Howard-Costello budget, back in 1996, was a cut of more than $240 million per year. Since 1996, this government has robbed the VET sector of more than $1 billion. By reducing grants to the states and territories and by the abolition of five per cent of growth funding, the government has put a stranglehold on the VET sector which, if not reversed soon, will put at risk Australia's capacity for economic growth.This government has a lot to say about Australia's rate of growth. The Treasurer crows loud, far and wide, claiming credit for his economic miracle. But what he fails to acknowledge is that behind Australia's impressive growth in productivity and output is the skills base of the Australian work force. That skills base did not develop by chance. It did not develop out of some micro-economic reform agenda. It developed from a long history of commitment from governments and people, going back for more than a century to the days when mechanics institutes taught technical drawing at night.The development of Australia's VET sector has been the backbone of our capacity to develop and employ the technology which gives us the living standards we enjoy. It is the cornerstone of industrial development in Australia. It is what makes Australia attractive to overseas investors. A skilled work force is worth more to an investor than low wages or low taxes. It must be developed over time; it cannot be bought over the counter.But for this Treasurer the short-term gain of cutting funding to the VET sector is the bottom line. What he fails to give credit for is the long-standing commitment of governments to invest in the skills of the work force and, until this government came to office, the sharing of the cost of VET between the Commonwealth and the states. This is in stark contrast to the policies of Labor governments, who acknowledged the importance of VET and greatly increased the Commonwealth's contribution to the funding of vocational education and training.This government, however, wants to turn back the clock to the days when VET was solely funded by the states. It wants to back out of its responsibilities in this area. Why else would the government be unwilling to commit to a three-year growth funding arrangement for VET, as the previous Labor government did? Why else would this government insist on growth funding for VET coming from savings and efficiencies in the sector rather than on the previous government's commitment to five per cent growth funding? This, for a VET sector with enrolments growing at more than seven per cent per year.That growth rate clearly shows that the clients of the VET sector understand more about the need for skills training than this government does. They are voting with their feet, lining up for courses in ever increasing numbers, while this government is pulling the funding mat out from under them. If the cuts were made by the Commonwealth alone they would be bad enough, but they have been matched by the efforts of some states to make savings in the VET funding area.Foremost among the states to cut VET funding is Victoria, home to the minister and the Treasurer. Victoria's Liberal government has made itself the front-runner in the race to the bottom of the ladder of VET funding, with contributions just over half the figure of those of New South Wales. Liberal governments in other states are not far behind in the race to see which state can give the smallest amount of funding to VET. But when there is a growing demand for training and fewer and fewer resources to provide that training, something has to give.In Victoria, some TAFE institutes are reported as being on the verge of collapse, requiring further staff cuts on top of those imposed over recent years. Faced with cuts to state funding of 1.5 per cent per year and, now, an effective cut of one-half of one per cent per year in Commonwealth funding, TAFE colleges in Victoria are bleeding to death. Further cuts can only result in unmet demand for courses and a reduction in the quality of training offered in TAFE colleges.In New South Wales, the combined effect of cuts in Commonwealth grants and the ANTA enforced obligation to match costs with the lowest funded states has recently led to overall cuts in that state as well. The race to the bottom has not only affected the state government's TAFE systems. Private providers have suffered as well, with the collapse of some longstanding private colleges. So here we have this government reluctantly agreeing to maintain funding at real 1998 levels and insisting on further cuts for states like New South Wales, making no allowance for growth funding despite growth of seven per cent per year in enrolments.Does the government expect private industry to take up the slack? If so, all indications are that it will be sadly disappointed. A more likely outcome will be that opportunities for people seeking to improve their skills will be greatly reduced. This would apply particularly to people in regional and country areas. If the only means the states have to meet increased demand is through greater efficiency, this will most likely be achieved by limiting courses to centres where full classes can be run. The impact of such a move would be to close classes in those areas where viable classes cannot be maintained.What then happens to skills training in regional and country areas? This issue was dealt with in the 1998 report of the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training, titled Today's training, tomorrow's skills. The report noted that:The existence of a vibrant TAFE sector in regional Australia is to be valued by all Australians. TAFE provides a range of services in rural communities which simply would not be readily available were commercial considerations to be the main priority. It is highly unlikely that private providers would or could offer at an affordable price the range and quality of programs in regional areas currently available through TAFE.The report goes on:TAFE institutes also help to provide a competitive skills base from which local companies can select employees. The committee is well aware that despite high unemployment many small regional centres have a shortage of skilled workers, particularly in the trades. It is one reason why industry is reluctant to locate in rural centres. However the presence of a TAFE institute in a region can make investing in the area more attractive due to the availability of skilled workers and the ability to access further training.What then is the future for TAFE institutes in regional Australia? Training, particularly in trade areas, is very labour intensive. The only way to gain efficiencies is by having the highest student to teacher ratios possible. That means that course delivery becomes restricted to those centres which have high demand for particular courses, and that means that regional centres miss out.Young people seeking skills training will be forced to move to metropolitan areas to get the skills training they need. Flexible delivery strategies and new technology may assist in some ways but there are limitations on these methods and they are not always less expensive to run. The report states:The higher costs of course delivery and the requirement to offer a wide range of courses through different media often means that regional TAFE institutes are engaged in financially unprofitable activities.How then can TAFE institutes fund expansion through efficiency gains? When I look closer to home at the South Western Sydney Institute of TAFE, which services the Fowler electorate, the potential for efficiency gains to fund expansion seems equally impossible.The South Western Sydney Institute of TAFE was the training provider of the year in 1996, the first year in which the award was made. The institute services the most diverse area of Australia. It has the greatest number of residents born outside Australia and the greatest number of new arrivals. The institute has a proud record of providing basic education and training services to people with poor English skills and lacking basic work skills. Efficiencies in teaching in these areas are not easy to find, certainly not enough to meet the growth in demand for these courses. But that is what the provisions of this bill demand. Without the skills provided by the institute, people in electorates such as Fowler are condemned to long-term unemployment or limited to poorly paid casual work that can barely provide for the needs of their families.The folly of this government's cuts to the VET sector has been highlighted in quite a dramatic way in recent weeks. It has been revealed that recruitment firms are having difficulty filling as many as 36,000 jobs for next year's Olympic Games in Sydney, and that calls have been made to the government to issue temporary visas to overseas workers to fill the positions. With unemployment in the Fowler electorate, less than 10 kilometres from Homebush, running at close to 15 per cent, and youth unemployment over 25 per cent, it would be a farce if the government were to grant those work visas. Here we have an unmet demand for 18,000 catering staff, 3,000 cleaners, 6,000 security guards, 4,500 bus drivers, 1,500 housekeepers and 3,400 broadcast specialists.The people are there—they are willing but not able. What they need are the skills to fill the positions. What they need is the training to take the jobs. The call to the immigration minister to allow overseas workers to take up jobs that rightly belong to Australians should be refused. But that will not fill the job vacancies. What is required is a well-planned training program to give people the skills to fill the positions and the opportunity to use the experience of working during the Olympics to establish a permanent career. How then can a VET sector meet that additional demand? Clearly, it cannot be achieved through efficiency savings. The additional funding required must come through amendments to the bill before the House. If it does not, we will see the paradox of Australia needing to import workers when we have high rates of unemployment.But my greatest concern is that, through its short-sighted approach to funding of VET, this government is condemning Australia to repeating this tragedy in the not too distant future. The demand for skilled labour will increase and, unless we provide appropriate levels of funding to train young people and to upgrade the skills of other workers, we will be faced with the same calls from industry to recruit skilled workers from overseas to fill jobs for which Australians are not trained. We could face the ridiculous situation of having record unemployment and yet having to import skilled labour. This situation should never arise. It is time for this government to look at the consequences of its short-sighted approach to the funding of vocational education and training. It is time for the government to take stock of the need for skills training in Australia and not wait until it is too late to act to rebuild the skills base of the Australian work force.At the beginning of this century Australia and Argentina had a comparable standard of living. Since then Australia has forged ahead and today has a much higher standard of living than Argentina. One significant difference has been the grater commitment of Australia to developing the skills of its work force. That has been one of the most important factors in Australia's economic growth. The actions of the government in winding back spending in vocational education and training will have grave consequences should they continue. The road to Argentina lies ahead. 20:14:008947Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—The Vocational Education and Training Funding Amendment Bill 1999 represents a Commonwealth appropriation to ANTA. As such, it is an appropriate place not only to debate the adequacy, or rather inadequacy, of this government's agenda for vocational education and training but also to look at the place VET holds within the Australian education system.In many ways, VET is at the middle of the institutional tensions in education. VET is pulled at from the school side with many people arguing there should be much more vocational education and training within our school system. VET is also pulled at from the opposite side in its interface with universities. One state in particular, Victoria, is quite keen on the policy of dual sector institutions—the combination of TAFE and universities within the one learning facility. But VET also has a third institutional interface tension—that is, the all-important adult and community education sector. There is a very strong argument that much more of ANTA funding should be directed to further education in this country.So VET holds a special place. It is right at the centre of these institutional tensions and interfaces. It reflects the way in which we have organised our education system in Australia, much like a series of silos. There is an institutional silo for schools, an institutional silo for the TAFE and VET sectors, an institutional silo for labour market programs, another for universities offering higher education and then finally a silo concerning further education, the ACE sector and the growing importance of third age universities.The fact that we have laid these silos out does not necessarily mean it is the most effective way of structuring education for the future. The fact they have been laid out this way is an incremental product of history. It is only in recent times, for instance, that this parliament has appropriated any substantial amount to vocational education and training. Indeed, I would argue that, with advances in learning technology and far greater flexibility in the way in which education can be structured, this silo approach will become increasingly redundant and unsuitable for the chal lenges of our education system heading into the next century.Getting it right for VET in many ways will mean that we are getting it right for the broader structure of Australia's education system. There is no doubt that new learning technologies are blurring the institutional boundaries. That is not only a challenge for policy makers but very much an opportunity—to rethink the basis of lifelong learning and the institutional structure that gives rise to a learning society.As a starting point, I have always been a bit uneasy at the false distinction made between so-called higher education and learning, implying that there is some lower form of learning. In looking at our education system, I would have thought that all learning should be regarded as beneficial and all participants to learning should be recognised for their enormous potential. I have long been attracted to some of the work of Howard Gardiner in the United States, who points out that there is no one form of intelligence, there is no one type of learning, there is no one method of knowledge that is held universally across society.Commonsense would tell us that there are many forms of intelligence, many ways of learning and many forms of knowledge that need to be recognised by policy makers, particularly in the development of funding and institutional structures. For instance, there is undoubtedly an abstract or academic type of intelligence and learning. Another learning type might be thought of as learning by doing. People are much more applied in the way in which they pick up learning signals and develop their own knowledge. Manual learning, learning of the hands over the head, might be thought of as a third type of learning. Finally, there is the subject matter of this bill: vocationally applied learning.So commonsense from a lay member of parliament would indicate that there are at least four types of learning, four different types of intelligence, that need to be catered for in our education system. Unfortunately, the way we have devised education in this country means that we do not effectively cater for the diversity of learning types. We tend to have developed a mass production, one size fits all education system, and this is one of the problems faced in vocational education and training.Each silo is not good at catering for diversity. I believe that across these sectors educationalists need to think of the customisation of services—building learning profiles, identifying the learning types and the particular intelligence of each and every student and then tracking that through their learning lifetime and building courses, teaching methods and learning materials around those particular learning types.Earlier this year, I had the good fortune of visiting the Raffles Girls School in Singapore. It was fascinating to see how that school, a very advanced school, is building an individual learning profile, an individual learning type, around each and every student. I assume that, as they move from their school to vocational education and training or university, this customised approach to learning will follow them. In fact, Singapore is building a learning profile, a customised learning system, for each of its students. This is something we should try to replicate here in Australia.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The honourable member for Werriwa will resume his seat. The chair would be grateful if the member for Calare would observe standing order 57 and extend to his colleague the courtesy of not walking between him and the chair while he is speaking.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAM—Developing these learning profiles is very important. I have long had a concern not only in VET but in other parts of the education sector that we tend to build students around the needs of teachers and the comfort of the learning institution. In fact, all aspects of a learning institution need to be built around the needs of the students, and those needs are very diverse—diverse learning habits and forms of intelligence. Reversing the structure of education to build learning opportunities and methods around the students, instead of around teachers and administrators, should be an important goal.On this particular piece of legislation, I would advocate four areas for broadening ANTA's agenda, four areas where the government's approach is inadequate, four areas where ANTA is not living up to its potential and where better results can be achieved. The first of those is to move vocational education and training opportunities much more substantially into questions of middle schooling. An emerging issue in our schools system concerns the problem of youth alienation, particularly among 10- to 15-year-olds and more so males than females. Schools are increasingly facing difficulties, such as behavioural problems, truancy and a rising drop-out rate among this cohort of students. It is clear that traditional school models have not been able to cater for diverse learning needs through the sensitive adolescent years—diverse forms of intelligence, diverse patterns of personal development, diverse interests and learning habits.It is critical for teenagers to encounter positive learning experiences, whether academic, vocational, creative or intensely practical. They need to stay engaged with the value of education, thereby learning the habits of lifelong learning. Positive learning experiences inevitably lead to the desire for more education and personal improvement. Without them, a young person may decide to drop out of school and, sadly enough, drop out of society itself. Issues of this kind require a sweeping rethink of the design of secondary schooling.Schools should be regarded as a core of learning resources, off which a range of other diverse educational institutions can be developed, such as training workshops, vocational colleges, creative arts centres and multimedia and information technology opportunities. Students would then be able to move between the school curriculum and these institutions according to their learning needs and interests. Teachers need to make a detailed assessment of the intelligence type and learning habits of their students and customise learning opportunities and courses to meet these needs.There is a very good example of this approach—unfortunately, it is an isolated example—in the electorate of Bass. The Launceston workshop offers practical woodwork and metalwork experience for 15-year-olds. They spend two weeks at the workshop and two weeks in the normal school curriculum at their high school in Launceston. When I visited them a few years ago, the young people involved were saying that if it were not for the two weeks of hands-on practical work, the work they really loved, the learning experience they related to in the workshop, they would have dropped out of school by now. It was only that diverse learning experience in the workshop that kept them engaged in education at all.I have great faith in the power of learning. It is my belief that someone who stays engaged with learning at the age of 15 may well end up being a university graduate at the age of 23. Learning, especially through the adolescent years, is full of potential and change, and it is all important in our government policies to keep young people engaged in the benefits and power of learning. The Launceston workshop is a great example of the hub approach to middle schooling. The school is the centre of curriculum and educational resource but has a range of opportunities for learning sitting off the central school experience.We need to put much more vocational education and training opportunities and resources into this approach. There should be many more Launceston workshops right around the country, not just in Tasmania. I would have thought they should be a regular feature of the middle schooling opportunities in each of our major urban and regional centres.There is another good example of a diverse learning environment in the electorate of North Sydney with the Bradfield College. It is a combination of traditional TAFE learning and the high school curriculum. It is a more informal learning environment for 15-, 16- and 17-year-olds who have perhaps rebelled a bit against the normal school environment and are looking for something a bit more applied in their learning opportunities. This vocational college model also needs to be replicated much more substantially around Australia.I would have thought for middle schooling and then the final years of schooling the best model in every educational region would be this: a series of diverse and quality high schools with a vocational college in the region, plus a creative arts centre and learning opportunities in the region. I am talking about a model similar to the Launceston workshop, with a full range—almost like a smorgasbord—of learning opportunities from which students can draw their education and their best chance in life. Of course, it makes it a lot easier for the teachers. They would track through the intelligence type, know the learning methods of their students and then be able to connect them to the institution and opportunities that best suit their particular stage of educational development.To do this, we are talking about a multidisciplinary system. We are talking about levelling some of the silos. We are talking about far greater flexibility in the education system than we have at the current time. This is one of the great challenges for policy makers and one of the things that needs to be taken on board by ANTA in its use of the VET funding appropriated by this parliament.The second issue I would raise concerns the focus of ANTA and indeed the role of vocational education and training in the new economy. I would argue that we need to give as much focus to general education as to vocationally applied skills. TAFE needs to be developed as an attractive alternative to the higher education system. This does not imply a shift towards an academic based curriculum but rather the need to strengthen TAFE's relevance, structure and resource base. We should support the development of a national TAFE system as a logical response to the rapidly changing nature of work and vocational education.The TAFE graduates of the next century will face a work force with a declining number of jobs founded on manual and repetitive skills. They are more likely to be involved in product development, management and marketing than the mass production of standardised goods. This requires the development of both abstract and applied knowledge—the skills of both the head and the hands.Increasingly, TAFE is being called on to prepare Australians for the work of the future, not just the jobs of today. This is a profound challenge to the effectiveness of the TAFE curriculum—preparing young Australians for jobs not yet conceived, using technologies not yet invented. It highlights one of the difficulties with competency based education—an emphasis on immediate performance at the expense of adaptable knowledge.It is my belief that the workplace of the future will rely on problem solving skills much more than narrow enterprise applied skills, and this is the great problem with this government's agenda. It has narrowed down the VET focus in this country to enterprise applied skills—when the workplace of the future will rely much more on problem solving, on generalists, on people who can think on their feet, on people who can solve problems on the run in a very diverse and challenging economic environment.I would urge ANTA, as I would the federal minister, to broaden the focus of vocational education and training, VET, to include the ideals of a good general liberal education. This is a big challenge. It is not easy to serve so many masters simultaneously in the education system, but the importance of general education skills will grow in coming decades and the significance and usefulness of narrow, enterprise applied skills will diminish into the next century. ANTA needs to adjust its packages accordingly.The third area of policy change is to move towards a national TAFE system, indeed a national VET system, in this country. It makes good sense for the federal government to recognise that post-secondary education of all types is a great national responsibility. The Commonwealth parliament and the Commonwealth government should assume responsibility for all the post-secondary education institutions and resources—TAFE; labour market programs, as we have now; universities, to get the state parliaments away from legislating for them; adult and community education; and, of course, the third age facilities.It makes good sense to have one level of government looking after all the great post-secondary responsibilities. To do that, we need to move to a national TAFE system. There are 84 TAFE institutions around Aus tralia. If this government was willing to fund an expansion of TAFE resources through the next decade, it could progressively pick up each of those 84 TAFE institutions and take them completely off the budget of state governments and bring them under the banner of Commonwealth responsibilities. It could create a national system which is long overdue and much needed in Australian education.The Commonwealth should take up all those post-secondary responsibilities. The institutional interface with universities would be much easier to resolve if the university and TAFE systems were both under the one level of government. It is not just an interface in terms of curriculum, articulation and pathways between universities and TAFE; it is also a financial issue. So many of the dual sector institutions in Victoria waste money with double accounting systems between TAFE and universities, double quality control and some of the ridiculous costing arrangements for their facilities.The other problem is in student finance. The student financing system for universities in Australia is completely different from the student financing system for TAFE. This has led to the ridiculous situation where some students will take two years of a TAFE course HECS-free and then transfer into a university course carrying their two years forward and receive one year university accreditation. So they spend two years studying to get a one year university accreditation all to avoid the burden of HECS—which has been made so much worse under the policies of this government. This is an irrational, nonsensical way to fund education institutions which, at the boundary, are blurring all the time in course content, curriculum and financing systems. The national responsibilities need to be recognised.The final area I would outline is the need to remember the forgotten `FE' part of TAFE. When we talk about TAFE it is so much more technical education. This government has forgotten about the `FE' component—further education. No sector has been more ignored and underfunded by this government than the further education sector around Australia, yet no educational opportunity more thoroughly reflects the true meaning and value of lifelong learning than adult and community education. It reflects each of the social benefits of learning—self-knowledge, good citizenship and the development of social capital. In many instances, it helps build the confidence and self-esteem adults need to pursue further qualifications in vocational and higher education.Two things need to be done. A series of targeted learning accounts are needed to empower Australian adults who would not normally be involved in the education system to pick up ACE opportunities. Currently, one in four Australian adults do not return to any form of education after they leave school. They need to be empowered through learning accounts. The second change which needs to be made is to broaden ANTA's objectives to reflect the importance of adult education, to build it much more thoroughly into the ANTA funding arrangements and to give ACE much better consideration than it receives in legislation such as this.20:34:008951Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—I am really pleased to be able to speak on the Vocational Education and Training Funding Amendment Bill 1999 because vocational education is very important. Mr Deputy Speaker Nehl, you will be aware that, from time to time, the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs repeats a great calumny—that is, that somehow Labor in office did not give a hoot about vocational education. One of the things I can say about my electorate is that Tony Johnson, when a candidate to become the state member for Mount Druitt, pledged that we should have a TAFE for Mount Druitt. It was one of seven commitments he made. He was right. We got a TAFE. As the state member, Tony saw some extensions opened. As a federal member, I think I have seen three. The next extension of the TAFE will probably be extension No. 8. There are more than 8,000 effective full-time student places. It is the largest tertiary institution in my electorate.Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not apologise to any member in this House, to you or to the people of Australia for the aspiration that the Labor Party has—and I certainly share in full measure—that in my electorate of Chifley I should get my fair share of university students. I do not apologise one iota. Increasingly, that has been happening. I find it most offensive when Minister Kemp constantly attacks the Labor Party for wanting to have an aspiration that there should be more than 33 per cent of students staying beyond years 11 and 12.Mr Deputy Speaker, I know that you can remember when students were streamed from primary school; that is, decisions were made after grade 6 as to whether they were going to have the ability to go on to years 11 and 12 and to go on to university education. That decision was made after grade 6 in primary school. Outrageous! How can you tell whether someone is going to be a nurse, an accountant, an engineer or a communications person in grade 6 in primary school? Thankfully, that system is no longer in place. I think we ought to rejoice in the fact that we have increased the retention rates throughout Australia, although I note that, from the latest statistics, they are starting to drop.I can speak with some passion about vocational education because, when we look at the number of people in each electorate who have tertiary qualifications, we see that my electorate of Chifley rates about 18th from the bottom. We do a little bit better—we are about 54th from the bottom—with respect to trade qualifications. I do not say that to put people down but, in this day and age, Australians have become credential mad; that is, if you ain't got the piece of paper, you ain't going to get the job. Yet Australians have the tremendous characteristics of being great inventors, great tinkerers, and they do it with and without qualifications. But we have to accept the world as it presents.Vocational education is just so important. Yet there is a revolution going on that Minister Kemp does not understand and is certainly not assisting. In both Queensland and New South Wales, this revolution has started, with governments—that is, taxpayers, people—investing in the future of our young citizens. We do not hesitate to believe that it is very worth while to provide federal money, taxpayers' money, to train a doctor, a nurse, an accountant, an agronomist—you name it. We see this as being worthwhile public expenditure. The Labor government went through a lot of pain when we said that we were going to introduce HECS charges, every dollar of which would go to expanding the system. But we do not do that with respect to vocational training or entry level training. This is the revolution that is starting.In my electorate, I am pleased to say that in the Chifley College students can continue to elect—although, hopefully, not for very much longer—the vocational education subjects provided by the department of education. They also have a choice of undertaking trade and traineeship courses—both at Chifley College in my electorate and at Wyndham College in the electorate of my friend and colleague Frank Mossfield—where they will be able not only to comply with the HSC requirements but also to get TAFE credentials. Why do I say that this is a revolution? Why do I say that this is a significant move? A significant portion of entry level training costs are being shifted from employers—of whom we are all critical about not taking sufficient trainees or not taking sufficient apprenticeships—on to the public purse. It is a pity that the Commonwealth are not more involved and are not facilitating. They do not actually have to do a lot or to pay a lot.This development means that, when people have finished years 11 and 12—in New South Wales, they can do so over three years—they can have finished or significantly completed their TAFE theoretical training. More importantly, we can transform work experience from being a short-term, vicarious activity, where you are placed with an organisation and required to do the worst jobs, to being an activity where you are trying to line up young people with their prospective employers. This means that the socialisation process that normally occurs after you leave school and enter into work actually starts in years 11 and 12. So the employer has got the benefit of that. They can actually size up their prospective employee. They are not paying for the student to go to TAFE one day a week or more to have their training needs appropriate ly looked at. They can actually build on the practical requirements of the firm in-house.I think that this is really exciting. I apologise that I do not have the figures, but anyone involved in education will tell you that we in this country now have a problem with young men and certainly with some young women in continuing their education. We can transform years 11 and 12 from being a system involving something not much better than warehousing to an exciting place which students can see as having relevance and actually leading to a job. Not only will we re-enthuse and motivate a lot of young people and give them real hope but also I suspect there will be a flow-on effect to their other more general subjects, and that enthusiasm will not be confined to that vocational area.We on the Labor side do not apologise for saying that we think the great wealth of the country is not in the share market or in the sizes of the millionaires' homes. We believe the wealth of the country is in the intrinsic worth and value of its people. It does not matter whether we are talking about young people who are about to enter into the world of work or about the value of a middle-aged person. It may be a farmer who is forced off the land and has to embrace and confront a new career. It may be a worker who has had a lifetime with an employer and the factory closes down. Look at Newcastle. This is the year when people older than I am might say, `The sky has fallen in. Newcastle will not be making steel.' We cannot afford in our society to discard one individual, whether that is a young person or a middle-aged person. They have an intrinsic worth. They are worth valuing and esteeming. It is worth having the country invest in them, giving them new skills and opportunities and opening new horizons for them.When we look down the barrel of the future, it is easy to say that education is going to be transformed. Before I get off the topic of New South Wales and Queensland, I think it is true to say that the larger states have had a history of resisting innovation, principally because just the management task in those states has been so huge. One of the privileges you have as a federal member is to walk around and look around the other states. There is no doubt that the smaller states have been far more innovative. That is why it is great to see in Queensland and in New South Wales a preparedness to tolerate difference. For example, even Wyndham College in my neighbouring federal electorate is different from Chifley College. The junior high schools are separate, completely autonomous institutions. The senior campus is completely autonomous. Chifley College is going to have one director, to whom all campuses, including the senior campus, report. We have to be prepared in this day and age to develop systems and approaches that fit my area. In your area, they may be very different. You have a different community and there are different needs.I was talking about vocational education. In the future, I think we will not so clearly be able to identify what a school, TAFE or university is. Already in Chifley College next year, students will be able to take courses from the University of Western Sydney as well as TAFE courses and the traditional HSC courses. Let me give you an example of a student who might be pursuing an academic career. In years 11 and 12, they may do one or two courses at the university in, say, economics. By the same token, they may want to have a suite of software programs under their belt and take the requisite TAFE courses relating to software. Of course, they will also take some core HSC subjects. They will finish with three credentials. Isn't that fantastic? Increasingly, we have to stop thinking of these institutions as islands with moats around them.I know the honourable member for Werriwa is frequently and quite rightly drawing attention in this House to the place of libraries. Why can't the Mount Druitt library, for example, be located at the senior campus of this college? Why can't there be cooperation between the TAFE library, the public library and the school libraries so that, if there is additional funding, we can complement them? In my electorate, we clearly do not have the ownership of computers that others do in other electorates. When we are providing computer suites at schools, as we will in this senior campus, why can't we think about providing wider public access to them? If we have the Salvation Army, Nova Employment and Mission Employment providing job training for disabled people located directly in the CBD of Mount Druitt, why should we segregate these things? If we have a place of learning, shouldn't it be open to all? Shouldn't the college not only be a college of vital importance—the senior campus to years 11 and 12 students—but also have other things placed with it? Clearly, we will be attracting adults doing years 11 and 12 there. Why can't we have all these things in a school? I know that some of these things cross over portfolios and that, as soon as you do that, you are in a devil of a lot of trouble, but this is the way things are going to develop in the future.I can see that in the future people will have to make some difficult choices. They will be flooded with choices. They will be taking some things provided by a public provider and others by a private provider. They will be mixing and matching between public, private, tertiary and business. The possibilities are exciting, but there is not much use in having advances and change if they are not serving the people whom you set out to serve. I always feel that it never hurts to put the old thermometer there for a check of reality and ask, `Is it working? How do we need to adapt? How do we need to change? How do we make it better?'I am always pleased to talk on education matters. I take great satisfaction in Chifley College. I want to thank the district council, the P&C organisation, Carol Trevarthan, Robyn Reeves, Pam Slade and the mob up there for the way they have supported this new concept. I am particularly delighted with the recommendation to Minister John Aquilina of the name `Chifley College'. Being the honourable member—or mostly the honourable member—for Chifley, I think it is a great name and a great heritage. The great thing about Ben Chifley was that he always admired the educational attainments of others. He himself was involved in training through the Railway Institute. The name `Chifley' well and truly encapsulates the fact that we will have a very strong academic side and a very strong vocational side. His hope and vision for the people of Australia is a great start for any college. I want to again express my indebtedness to them.We will be starting in the year 2000. This is a campaign that in some ways has come 10 years too late. When Richard Amery and I were campaigning for this very institution 10 years ago, nothing gave me greater sadness than the then state Labor government pulling the plug on a senior college for Mount Druitt. It was in recognition of that campaign that the incoming Liberal government established the first ever public senior high school at St Marys, which is going gang busters. I have been involved in a few educational campaigns, not the least the campaign for the University of Western Sydney, but this one has the potential to do the most good for the people of my electorate. I am most excited about it.20:54:008954Plibersek, Tanya, MPMs PLIBERSEK83MSydneyALP00—I rise tonight to welcome the fact that there is some increase in training associated with this Vocational Education and Training Funding Amendment Bill 1999 and some amount of certainty for ongoing funding in this area, for the next few years at least. However, I wish to speak with a note of caution, because the government's record in this area is not a good record. It behoves us to remember that when we are welcoming this particular legislation. In the last few years, there has been a history of cuts to vocational education and training and also a sad history of maladministration, particularly in the area of the new apprenticeship scheme.This bill comes out of protracted negotiations between the federal and state governments and the vocational education and training sector relating to the level of funding for vocational education and training. It comes after a period where that funding had been slashed and where certainty for continuing funding had been nonexistent. While the bill goes some way to remedying some of those difficulties, we need to recognise that there is a poor history in this area and that funding is not the only issue. We need to continue to take careful note of how money is spent in this area, because a skilled and educated work force is the basis of a high standard of living and a strong economy for the whole country.The Australian economy is changing, and it is changing in a global context. The communications revolution means that we are more closely linked to the rest of the world, and also that Australian workers will need different skills for the different markets that we will be participating in in the future. We cannot rely on tariff walls and isolating ourselves from the rest of the world to provide security for Australian workers. We need to provide an industrial relations environment that gives people job security. We must also provide those workers with the knowledge and skills that allow them to make their way in a new economy. The whole community benefits from the situation where we are skilling all workers and producing an economy that ideally has high productivity and high wages.When we are noting the importance of skill development and training, we might take note of what Richard Sweet said in his 1998 article entitled `Youth: the rhetoric and reality of the 1990s'. He wrote:The process of economic development through increased efficiencies in the use of labour and increased use of more sophisticated labour saving technologies reduces the demand for those with few skills and little experience. Future economic growth, where it is translated into employment growth, almost inevitably will create jobs that favour the qualified, the experienced and the skilled. The appropriate use of public funds would be to invest them in ensuring that people have the education, training, qualifications, skills, and confidence that will enable them to secure employment in the emerging economy. This is a preferable course of action to spending public funds on short term job creation programs that do not necessarily provide these outcomes.In practical terms, this means training. It does not mean Work for the Dole, which provides little experience and little of long-term value to those who participate. We know that training works best for employees and best for employers when it is closely linked to local employment patterns and needs. The member for Fowler pointed that out earlier when she spoke about the potential for importing up to 38,000 workers for the Sydney Olympics. My seat has many of those jobs and, unfortunately, the people who are unemployed in my electorate are not skilled in those areas. It is a deficit of training that means that, although we still have quite high unemployment in parts of my electorate, these people are not suited to taking on the jobs that are being offered by some of the Olympic employers.When we are talking about training, we must consider who are the targets of the training programs that we are instituting. One obvious target is young people entering the work force. We know from overseas experience that the burden of unemployment need not fall as heavily as it does on Australian young people. In a 1996 review of ways of fostering lifelong learning, the OECD argued that employer-led vocational education and training systems are associated with an average four per cent reduction in youth unemployment levels. While Australia has a youth to adult unemployment ratio of two to one, this actually compares unfavourably with a ratio in Germany of one to zero, a ratio in Switzerland of one to three and a ratio in Austria of one to four. To quote from the Dusseldorf Skills Forum paper Youth: Rhetoric and Realities by Richard Sweet:A common feature in each country is the existence of large vocational education and training systems in which some 70 to 80 percent of the youth cohort participate. These systems are not characterised by class room based courses but by employment based apprenticeships where employers play the principal role in setting the parameters of the training and ensuring its quality.Early structured training for young people provides them with opportunities to commence a career path that will be rewarding and fulfilling. Young people in structured training are likely to escape the patterns of short-term casual work, which for many young people lead to a repetitive cycle of moving in and out of the work force. Training provides a critical intervention to this process and gives young people a proper base to work from.In some recent talks I had with high school students, it was very interesting that they themselves identified that increased casualisation of the work force was going to be a problem for them, not just in terms of job security but also in terms of learning skills for the future. Of course these young people are not the only ones who are in need of vocational education and training. There are older workers who, having worked all their lives in traditional sectors, find that the jobs they have traditionally done are no longer in high demand because of changes in the economy. For many of these people the prospect of change is very intimidating, not just because they are financially insecure but also because we receive a lot of our self-image from the work that we do. We need to help these older workers to develop the sorts of skills that will allow them to return to the work force and secure jobs. My predecessor, Peter Baldwin, was very interested in this area and wrote extensively in the area of lifelong learning.While we welcome, as I said earlier, the government's announcement about this funding, there are reasons to treat announcements in this area with some caution. The government has spent the last three years cutting money from vocational education and ignoring the pain that these cuts have caused to the TAFE sector and other forms of vocational education and training. Labor's record in government was different. We established the Australian National Training Authority as part of our genuine commitment to providing a comprehensive framework for vocational training. Under that agreement the Commonwealth agreed to maintain existing levels of financial support for vocational education and training as well as providing an injection of $100 million in recurrent funding and an additional $70 million of growth funding each year. These arrangements continued until 1996, with Labor accepting responsibility for continuing growth in this important sector. But not so our successors.In the 1996-97 budget, this government introduced an efficiency dividend which resulted in a five per cent reduction in funding provided to ANTA. In addition, the five per cent real growth on base recurrent funding was discontinued. In its 1997-98 budget, the Commonwealth further reduced annual funding to the states and territories to provide:. . . an incentive to the States to achieve efficiency gains in their VET operations.The current bill maintains 1998 funding in real terms and forces the states and territories to continue to fund growth through efficiencies. The vocational education and training sector has been eroded by this government. Despite the massive changes under way in our labour market, there has been little recognition of the importance of this sector in assisting ordinary Australians to adapt to these changes.While security of funding is vital, money is not the only issue. The administration of these programs is of vital importance as well. In this area, the government's lack of ability is very apparent. Nowhere is this government's failure on the training agenda more apparent than in the minister's New Apprenticeships Employer Incentives Program. This program has been a fiasco from its inception, and I know that my colleague Senator Kim Carr has been working to get the government to acknowledge that there is a problem at all. This is despite the numerous reports we have had from concerned members of the community—employers and employees—who have rung our offices to speak to us about the maladministration of this scheme.Against the government's wishes, the Senate has now endorsed an inquiry into the abuses of this program, but it is worth outlining here some of the basic problems with it. The Commonwealth New Apprenticeships Employer Incentives Program commenced in 1998. It provided an incentive payment for employers with employees who had commenced one of a range of training programs. In the absence of proper monitoring systems, and resulting from a combination of deliberate deception and incompetent management, the program quickly degenerated into a morass of confusion and maladministration. In a letter to the Secretary to DEETYA, the Director-General of the Queensland Department of Employment, Training and Industrial Relations made the following assessment of the scheme:. . . some of the key objectives of the original New Apprenticeship objectives are not being achieved.He then lists four points:. Training outcomes are of diminishing quality. People already in the workforce are the main beneficiaries not young people or those seeking to re-enter the workforce. The system is seen as more, rather than less complex, with considerable confusion in terminology. The system is being driven by financial incentives and targets rather than industry needs.There is a wealth of evidence to substantiate these claims. Indeed, because of an unwillingness on the Commonwealth's part to undertake an audit of these schemes, the Queensland government in April of this year undertook its own audit of registered training organisations. It was, as I have said, the first time an audit has been conducted. That audit uncovered serious rorting in 44 companies, affecting hundreds of trainees.The report noted that training outcomes were well below expectations in many cases, due to a combination of misuse of the scheme by employers and the failure by registered training organisations to fulfil their obligations. In many instances traineeships had been used extremely inappropriately by some registered training organisations. People were slotted into a particular training area because they did not have a licence to deliver training in another area. In one of the more outrageous examples of the misuse of public money, a church as an employer entered into the following arrangements. Of the eight employees of the church, all were trainees: four employees were undertaking a certificate in small business traineeship, one of whom was the pastor; three employees were undertaking a certificate III business traineeship, one of whom was the pastor's wife; and the remaining employee was undertaking a certificate III horticultural traineeship, being the pastor's son.In another example, a large national supermarket chain undertook 18 traineeships for a certificate in transport and storage. An application was received about four months later to shift these trainees to warehouse traineeships. One month on, departmental officers visited the supermarket and identified that all the trainees had been existing employees anyway. At the time of the departmental visit, it was also found that eight had since discon tinued their traineeship without the department having been notified of any of those discontinuations. The fact that these arrangements were possible I think reflects some of the inadequacies of the scheme.Some of the new apprenticeship centres must be fine; I am sure we do not hear about the ones that are not a problem. However, many of them have performed badly. Many of them have given poor or incorrect advice to employees. Some of them are marketing traineeships as cheap labour or free training. They are manipulating trainee agreements, including the coaching of employers to give false information on training agreements. Some of them have been reported as manipulating commencement dates of employees to ensure funding.Another problem that has been identified throughout the scheme is the diversion of funds to existing workers. When this scheme was introduced initially, it did not apply to individuals who were either currently or previously employed full time in the enterprise where the training was to take place. However, in August 1998 Minister Kemp moved to open up incentive payments for those already in employment. By the time the minister had realised the gravity of the error in May this year and moved to tighten up access in this area, 24,000 existing workers had been added to the scheme in the first five months of this year. Unfortunately, the lack of checks and balances in place to ensure that this money goes to support genuine vocational education and training has meant that in many cases it has not done that.Recent inquiries have uncovered case after case where training is not being delivered at all or certainly, when it is delivered, where it is substandard. In hospitality traineeships, many people have been employed on a casual basis, despite the requirement that they should have been employed full time or part time. Also, there are many reports of university students or backpackers being employed as trainees so that employers receive the associated benefits. These are not the people that this sort of funding should be aimed at.There have been very disturbing reports coming from the meat industry as well. I have affidavits here from workers in Victoria, one of which I will refer to. An employee of Oakdale Meats has stated in his affidavit:They said it was 400 hours of training but we'd be evaluated on our work performance, and it was for a 12 month period. We only did at most 6 hours of training—3 single hour sessions in a classroom and 2 or 3 sessions in the boning room.Those few sessions didn't happen for months after we signed up. We only got that because Dawson couldn't get beef so there was no work for us to do. We didn't get paid for the time either.A couple of blokes were away and missed the classes, but we were all told at the end when we were dismissed that if we signed a form to say we had completed the training we would get the certificates.After we'd been sacked, according to the boss for lack of work, the trainer . . . got the contract to bone [the] beef in the same workplace, and others were employed to do our work. It was too late by then to lodge an unfair dismissal but we went to the Union and notified the Commission of a dispute.. . . . . . . . .I never did get a certificate. On 1st June I rang—and he names a TAFE—thinking they would want to know what was going on, but they didn't seem real interested.And this is just one of several affidavits coming from the same workplace and detailing many of the problems they have had with this scheme: with training that was promised and never delivered; with wages that were cut because the workers were put on to training schemes—alleged training schemes. Most of these workers report that they were shifted onto training wages when on this traineeship scheme, and that they were trained for a few hours rather than the 400 hours. (Time expired)21:14:008957Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—I am pleased to be contributing to the debate this evening on the Vocational Education and Training Funding Amendment Bill 1999 , because vocational education and training is an issue that traverses not only the divergence of geographical interests represented in this parliament but also the divergence of socioeconomic interests represented in this parliament. I note in particular the second reading speech of the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs in which he talks about appropriations of levels of funding and the agreement between the Commonwealth and the state authorities for the distribution to the states and territories of these ANTA funds. He says:This agreement is a recognition by both the Commonwealth, state and territory governments that a strong national vocational education and training system is essential to develop the skills necessary to increase the productivity and competitiveness of Australian industry, and to enable individual Australians to optimise their potential.Under the agreement, the states and territories have also undertaken to achieve growth in their vocational education and training systems through efficiencies.On the face of it, I think that is a statement worthy of support. But we need to comprehend the distinction between the words of the minister in seeking to achieve an objective through the negotiation with the state and territory governments and the reality of what is happening on the ground—the reality of accepting that there have been significant cuts in VET sector funding since the Howard government was first elected in 1996.In that context, it is important to understand that there has been much debate—and I know this House saw incursions into it this afternoon—about the importance and relative merits of the government's strategies to address the needs of unemployed people and in particular, as was seen in a number of questions during question time, to address the needs of indigenous Australians. If you take that quote from the minister's second reading speech, and if you then look to the reality of what is happening on the ground and marry that with the self-congratulatory statements which were made in question time this afternoon by the member for Flinders and the member for Casey, you can see there is a difference which, when comprehended, makes a joke of the government's objective of addressing the needs of the unemployed—particularly indigenous Australians and those people who live in regional and remote Australia. I say that as someone who lives in regional and remote Australia, living in the Northern Territory and being responsible for representing the interests of the Northern Territory community in this House.In December last year in this parliament during the debate on the Australian National Training Authority Amendment Bill 1998, I made reference to the relationship between this government and the Northern Territory government in terms of ANTA funding which had previously been made available by the Labor government in the 1995-96 financial year for the use of the Institute for Aboriginal Development in Alice Springs. I will come to the detail of that in a moment but I put it up because I am going to mention the reasons why we believe that the assertions made in this parliament by the minister on this bill and the assertions made by the respective ministers in the House this afternoon are erroneous. I say that knowing, as I do, the failure of the VET sector to deliver services to people who live in remote communities as well as the failure of the Northern Territory government to pass on moneys, which were agreed to by the then federal government to be made available to the Institute for Aboriginal Development in Alice Springs for the purpose of providing training programs for indigenous Australians in Alice Springs.On 10 December 1998, I spoke in this House about the obstinate and groundless obstructions by the Northern Territory government—specifically, the Northern Territory Minister for Education and Training, Peter Adamson, and his wilful refusal to release $2.6 million of Commonwealth moneys held by ANTA and allocated for the redevelopment of the IAD's campus. It is now four years since the Commonwealth provided the money. Some of IAD's sister organisations which received funding from the same grant have completed their buildings and are using their facilities to deliver first-rate education and training elsewhere in Australia. However, the inexplicable refusal by the Northern Territory government to release the money means that 400 young Aboriginal men and women enrolled at the Institute for Aboriginal Development in Alice Springs are still studying in a collection of modified houses and portable accommodation. Since I last spoke to the House about this issue, the Northern Territory planning authorities have given approval for IAD to go ahead with stage 1 of the planned redevelopment. This means that the Northern Territory government's own independent planning process has assessed IAD's redevelopment plans and found them to be appropriate for its current site. You will recall, Mr Deputy Speaker Mossfield, as you avidly read the Hansard, that Minister Adamson had previously claimed that the site was too small to meet future growth needs and he argued that the money—$2.6 million which had been allocated as a result of an agreement with the then federal government, through ANTA, for this purpose—should be committed elsewhere. This is after, I might say, the previous minister in the Northern Territory administration before Minister Adamson had agreed to make the moneys available.So this minister—who has arrived on the scene after an agreement has been reached, after the minister prior to him had agreed to this money being distributed—comes in and says, `Oh no, I am not going to do it.' And he says to the Aboriginal community in Central Australia that, by dint of his refusal to provide a recommendation to ANTA that the money should be spent in a particular way—a way approved and agreed to by the federal government through ANTA—he is going to withhold funds. He erroneously believes that the money should not be spent because the joint was too small. He also argued that it was prone to flooding and that there was a lack of car parking.The Northern Territory's own independent planning authority has thrown out each of the minister's current objections. Still, he is obdurate, and the Commonwealth government seems incapable of enforcing the agreement reached between ANTA and the previous Northern Territory government minister to have these funds distributed. So they are being held. They have been sitting there collecting dust—and some interest, one supposes—in an account with ANTA for almost 4½ years.Another requirement of the minister—the incompetent Northern Territory government minister—was that IAD should co-locate with Centralian College, an NT Department of Education senior secondary and VET facility. As another example of changing goalposts in this long running saga, the minister is no longer requiring the co-location of Centralian College as a condition of agreeing to the release of the Commonwealth money. So what was to be his solution to the issue—that this community organisation should relocate from its current site—is no longer an issue. I understand that there is a possibility of IAD securing additional land which will increase its block size by more than 40 per cent. Regardless of whether or not this eventuates, the decision by the Northern Territory planning authority means that every one of the minister's objections to the redevelopment of IAD's current site are utterly groundless.I know that Minister Kemp has received representations on this issue, and I hope and would have thought that he would have noted these developments and would encourage—indeed, demand—that the Northern Territory government release these funds which have been legitimately set aside by ANTA as a result of an agreement by a previous government for the purpose of redeveloping IAD on its current site. The only reason it has not happened is that this incompetent and stupid Northern Territory government minister will not allow the funds to be released.So what is he doing? Not only is he encumbering this community based organisation which has been delivering vocational education and training services to the Aboriginal community of Central Australia since the early 1970s from meeting the demands of its 400-odd students but also he is saying to the community of Alice Springs that they will not get the direct benefit of the $2.6 million—which would go into their local economy and no doubt provide employment—because he is not going to approve that these funds be allowed to be allocated in the way that was agreed in the first instance.At recent Senate Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education References Committee hearings Northern Territory Senator Trish Crossin asked whether DETYA was able to allocate funding to IAD for its capital funds programs through its Indigenous Education (Supplementary Assistance) Act. The answer from the department was that it was legally possible for Indigenous Education Strategic Initiative Program funds to be made available to IAD for capital works.I say to the government: you say that it is important, and we heard this afternoon the member for Casey and the member for Flinders waxing lyrical in this House about the government's commitment to Aboriginal Australians, yet when it comes to a very simple exercise of ensuring that the organisations of Aboriginal Australians—in this case in Central Australia, in Alice Springs—have access to funds which have been set aside by the Commonwealth government, which cannot be released because of the refusal of the Northern Territory government, the current education minister, Minister Kemp, is impotent. He does not have the gumption to call the Northern Territory government minister to account, and he does not have the gumption to find an alternative mechanism.We heard Minister Reith this afternoon say to this House how important his Aboriginal employment initiatives and all they entail are for indigenous employment programs. They are; but, having said that, let us be clear about them. They comprise in dollar terms about 50 per cent of the allocation which was there under the previous Labor government. They are reinventing or replicating programs which were there under the previous Labor administration. I know this because I was responsible for administering them. A component of those programs was for training. We know that the VET sector is extremely important in achieving the outcomes that we require for all Australians and in addressing particularly the needs of those who are unemployed and disadvantaged.It should come as no surprise to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, as someone who has travelled widely around Australia, that one of the issues which has become topical at least in the current political debates has been whether the concept of mutual obligation is one which should operate throughout the whole area of service delivery in terms of welfare payments, education services, et cetera. You see, I actually support the idea of mutual obligation, but it places an onus on government to ensure that its part of the bargain is met.What we have here is a very apparent situation where, in terms of the social contract between people living in regional Australia—in this particular case, in remote Northern Territory—they do not have access to these VET programs, because the Northern Territory government has not achieved the result of applying them and ensuring that they are delivered through their own government system. This week, we had the only private provider apart from IAD in Alice Springs close down. Asset Training, which was Skillshare under the previous Labor administration and was privatised and became Asset Training, has been closed down.There is no private provider for vocational education and training programs in Central Australia. The government agencies are not delivering the services. IAD, which could deliver some of these services, has been handicapped by the failure of this government to insist that the Northern Territory government pass on funds—legitimately made available by the Australian taxpayers through the ANTA agreements about which we are talking this evening—to the Central Australian community. If mutual obligation means one thing, it must mean that governments accept the responsibility. In the context of the delivery of these services to people living in rural and remote Australia, governments have dropped the ball.If there is a social contract, and if we really do believe in mutual obligation, we accept that not only are we penalising the poor and the dispossessed but also we should be saying to those people, `We will provide the opportunities you require to get into the workplace and the opportunities you require in terms of vocational education and training so that you will have the fundamental skills that will make you employable.' We have seen earlier today the litany of breast-beating that happened in the course of question time by various government ministers about what they are doing for indigenous affairs in this country.I can tell you what they are doing: they are failing, because they do not understand at all that a comprehensive strategy requires that you actually make sure that you are developing the skills and opportunities for Australians, wherever they might be—whether they be indigenous or non-indigenous Australians. You develop those abilities not only in early childhood but through the whole education system—as the member for Werriwa talked about this evening—in a lifelong educational process. That is what mutual obligation means to me: that government provides the wherewithal so that every Australian, no matter where they live, has that opportunity.There is no point, in my view, in blaming people who have got no skills for their being unemployed. It is an easy cop to blame those who cannot defend themselves and who do not have the capacity to advocate on their own behalf. What we are seeing here is a precise example of where the Commonwealth government has given in to the craven political desires of a recalcitrant Northern Territory government minister, because they are unable to deliver the services that are so proudly spoken about in the minister's second reading speech.I say to the government: while you are thinking about how well you are doing on Aboriginal health matters—as the member for Casey was doing this afternoon—and when you are proselytising about the benefits you are producing as a result of your Aboriginal employment programs, as the member for Flinders was doing this afternoon, comprehend that they cannot be done in isolation. Comprehend that they need a partnership. Comprehend that mutual obligation means that you actually deliver the goods. I am saying to these ministers that they are failing to deliver the goods. In the context of Central Australia, at least—and I think this is true also of remote Northern Australia and the remote north-west of Western Australian and certainly of South Australia and Queensland—they are not producing the results that they think they are producing.If you look at what has been produced by the failure of the current government, there is no question at all about the importance of the VET sector but, unless you accept that the obligation of government is to ensure that the services are delivered to all people no matter where they live, then I think we are failing. On this issue, I think the government has failed miserably. I say to the minister, `Do something about ensuring that IAD gets the funds it deserves.' (Time expired)21:34:008961Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—I rise in the debate on the Vocational Education and Training Funding Amendment Bill 1999 for three reasons. The first is that, if we are serious about national capacity building in this nation, we must be equally serious about the amount of resources that we dedicate to education. The second is that vocational education and training must be an important part of this overall priority. The third reason is that the content of the bill before the House tonight demonstrates that the level of actual priority attached to vocational education and training by the current government is negligible and that it is time that the nation and the government turned the corner.This lack of priority is reflected in, but by no means restricted to, this government's treatment of the Australian National Training Authority. I actually know a little bit about ANTA; I was there at its birth. Back in 1992, when Adam was a boy, we were dealing at that stage with the unfolding of the One Nation document produced by the Keating government, I think in the early part of that year. That document recommended that the Commonwealth take over vocational education and training in the TAFE system of the states and create a single national entity.It was part of a general proposal at the time that there be a large injection of Commonwealth funding into this important area of national priority—namely, vocational education and training—an injection of funding which the Commonwealth alone would be capable of delivering, given its signigicant financial resources compared with those of the states. It was a proposal which said, `Let us do this in a way which enables the Commonwealth to direct policy.'This initiative flowed on from what had already been, by that stage, a revolution over many years in higher education across the nation and, subsequent to that, in school education. We had a burgeoning of numbers in higher education places and we had an ever increasing retention rate in year 12 in our school system. But the missing third element of this revolution in the nation's education capacity and the development of our national human capital was vocational education and training.Prime Minister Keating's proposal of the time was that the Commonwealth assume responsibility. What ensued, as a result of the policy document, was six months of the predictable argy-bargy between the Commonwealth and the states. My responsibility at that time, in the context of that argy-bargy, was on the part of one of the states. I remember those negotiations reached a complete deadlock by about the middle of 1992 and devolved into a Premiers Conference, convened in this building, where all seemed to be lost. There was an irreconcilable set of differences between the Commonwealth and the states.I remember that the member for Fremantle, the then Premier of Western Australia, and a very capable Premier of Western Australia, initiated a proposal to the Prime Minister, Mr Keating, that a small committee—of those of us who at that stage were officials—have a last attempt at trying to forge this vision into an institutional reality. Representatives from Western Australia, the then secretary to the Prime Minister's department and I, on behalf of Queensland, were sent away for a month to try to work out what this vision of a new national training enterprise—this new national training compact—might be. The result of those protracted negotiations was what we have before us tonight in this bill, the Australian National Training Authority. The model which ANTA represents may not be ideal but, in the circumstances of the time, it was the only practical outcome possible.What it represented was essentially three elements of national vision—firstly, the pooling of national funds from both Commonwealth and state sources into a single national fund; secondly, the provision of annual growth funding into that entity by the Commonwealth in return for the states main taining their own effort; and, thirdly, the allocation of those growth funds being the responsibility of the ministerial council which had oversight of ANTA. All of this, of course, was consummated in the Australian National Training Authority Act 1992.ANTA is not a bad model for Commonwealth-state cooperation. We have seen in this city year after year, decade after decade, illustration after illustration of conflict between the Commonwealth and the states. We have seen precious few examples of how cooperative federalism might work. I suggest that the ANTA model was one such example of cooperative federalism. Rather than simply resorting to the traditional mechanism of Commonwealth-state relations, which is to take the fiscal sledgehammer to the states—or the alternative, which is to allow the states complete autonomy in areas of policy of genuine national significance, which I think we would all argue that vocational education and training is—what we had was a genuinely cooperative model, and one which was achieved cooperatively. We had the common agreement that vocational education and training was a national policy priority and, as a consequence of that, an agreement that, because it was a national priority, the funding responsibility should ultimately be a national one, driven by the national government.However, what happened subsequently is, I think, a matter of regrettable institutional history. It began well—and here I refer to the initial funding of ANTA between 1993 and 1995, the first funding triennium. During that period, the states maintained their funding effort and the Commonwealth maintained its base funding effort. In addition, the Commonwealth did two things: it provided an additional $100 million to fund growth within the vocational education and training system across the nation and it provided an additional $70 million per annum to fund further growth. In other words, the Commonwealth and the states in that first funding triennium honoured the compact which was encapsulated in the ANTA Act and the associated intergovernmental agreements of 1992.When we turn to 1996-97, the last two years of the Labor government, these arrange ments for the first funding triennium were extended and, once again, we saw the Commonwealth-state compact of 1992 honoured.However, all began to be unravelled by the time we hit 1996-97. With the advent of the coalition government, we saw administered to the Australian National Training Authority a complete double whammy. Firstly, there was a five per cent reduction in the Commonwealth's funding to ANTA overall. It was part of what the Commonwealth at the time described nobly to the nation as the Commonwealth's effort to achieve an efficiency dividend on behalf of us all. Secondly, we saw the Commonwealth discontinue altogether the additional five per cent real annual growth increment on base recurrent funding to ANTA. So, in 1996-97, we saw the essence of the Commonwealth-state pact agreement of 1992 broken, and broken in the most fundamental way.When we hit the federal budget of 1997-98, we saw the Commonwealth reduce its funding to the states under the Vocational Education and Training Funding Act by a further $20 million—again, to achieve national efficiency. In April 1998, after a long period of massive disagreement between the Commonwealth and the states, we saw the Commonwealth finally agree to put a floor beneath its funding commitment to ANTA for the subsequent triennium. Of course, this was the floor that had been achieved after successive years—in fact, three years altogether—of chainsaw treatment of the overall ANTA allocation by the federal department of finance with, I submit, minimal resistance from the department represented by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, who is sitting at the table. We had a floor established at the figure of $900 million, $904 million and $920 million, which is approximately where it stands now, and a commitment that that would be retained in real terms between 1998 and 2000.When we aggregate the overall impact of these last three years of the Howard government in relation to TAFE and training taken together, we see a quite staggering overall financial impact on this most critical sector. If you put the numbers together, it makes stark reading indeed. In the 1996-97 budget, the coalition made the following cuts: a reduction in VET grants to the states and territories of $66.25 million, a reduction in the ANTA operating expenses of $12.81 million and the abolition of the five per cent real growth on base recurrent TAFE funding amounting to $91.41 million. Then, when we look and add to it the 1997-98 budget, we see a further cut being added of $72 million, arising from the benchmarking efficiencies achieved in relation to the states and territories in this sector.What is the total number that we are talking about? We are talking about total cuts to the TAFE sector alone of more than $240 million. That is how we have achieved this floor figure of the present time, and that is before we embark upon the period which lies ahead of us. Quite apart from this torpedo amidships in terms of the funding resources dedicated to vocational education and training across the nation, we have the TAFE sector in particular now being asked to deliver on the enormous administrative burden and compliance requirements of a GST.My question to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, through the parliamentary secretary seated at the table, is simply this: how long does this government actually expect to be able to deliver more with less? If we contrast the figures of 1989 and 1998 alone, they make very stark reading indeed. In 1989, something like 791,000 students across this nation were engaged in vocational education and training in one form or another. By 1998, that figure had risen to 1,535,000.This revolution in vocational education and training across the nation did not occur as a mere accident; it occurred because of direct reasons, and those reasons go to the heart of the revolution in vocational education and training which occurred during the period of the Keating government, beginning with the One Nation statement, the creation of ANTA subsequent to it, its encapsulation in the act of 1992 and, most importantly, the funding commitments which flowed from that time through until 1996-97.I would speculate that, had in fact we had a Liberal government occupying the Treasury benches during that period, the numbers who were engaged in vocational education and training would not have gone north but gone south. Rather than actually simply sustaining that figure of 791,000 in 1989, we would probably be looking at a comparable or worse figure today. Achievements like that in terms of the numerical explosion of the number of people in voc ed across this country do not occur as a consequence of magic; they occur as a consequence of good policy decisions being taken, of proper funding decisions being made to reinforce those policy decisions and appropriate institutional arrangements being put in place.Looking also at the 1997-98 funding changes raises interesting points of contrast. It also raises and brings into stark relief this question of how long this government thinks it can continue to deliver more with less. Between 1997 and 1998, we had a 5.2 per cent increase in enrolments in the voc ed sector right across the country, yet in the same period the increase in funding was 1.4 per cent. You cannot continue simply to sustain an explosion in enrolments on the one hand and those who are benefiting from a vocational education and training opportunity at the same time as having an ever decreasing pile of funding.I believe that this says everything about the current minister's overall philosophy as it relates to education in general and vocational education and training in particular. If we look at what Dr Kemp has said in this overall sector, the great Kemp revolution appears to hinge on this simple proposition: the overall responsibility of the education sector, and the vocational education and training sector in particular, is to deliver choice to consumers. It is to create a contestable market. It is to ensure that there is a market out there in the voc ed and training sector.That is just terrific, but I would suggest that in fact a vision needs to go somewhat further than simply providing consumers with the right to choose. At the end of the day, you must still have something to choose from. With this diminishing pile of federal funding over such a long period of time, the actual base of the nation's vocational education and training infrastructure is shrinking and under severe challenge.A vision for the future education and training of this nation is not just about a market, it is not just about a right to choose; it is also about content. A vision must be about content. It must be about quality. It must also be about the continuing nature of educational opportunities—the intersection between school education and training, the intersection between school education and higher education, the intersection between school education and vocational education.You cannot simply keep taking the axe to, for example, higher education and expect the enormous achievements of the 1970s and 1980s to be delivered. As a consequence of the Whitlam reforms, the Hawke reforms and the Keating reforms to higher education, Australia now occupies fifth position across the OECD in terms of the proportion of its national population possessing one form of higher education qualification or another. We are now beginning to see the unravelling of that as the affordability of higher education falls through the floor.The unravelling of vocational education and training, however, is occurring already before our eyes and at a pace and at a degree of intensity which few could have predicted. As a consequence of the funding changes of the last three years alone, Australia—again using an OECD measure—has slipped from 15th place to 18th place in terms of the number of its young people completing year 12 equivalent in education either per courtesy of a regular school education or per courtesy of a vocational education and training equivalent. This is not a record of which the nation should be proud.It is concrete evidence that the system is already starting to give. That is why this minister, represented by the parliamentary secretary at the table, is already under pressure from the Prime Minister to start to lift his game, to lift his vision beyond choice, to lift his vision beyond market contestability, to lift his vision beyond the simple proposition that consumers have the right to choose one form of education or training over another. The Prime Minister's challenge to the minister is in fact to lift the vision beyond that and do something about the crisis in the nation's school system, to do something about the declining affordability of higher education, to do something about the transition between school and work. What this minister is being challenged to do by the Prime Minister—and departmental officials and advisers would be well aware of this—is to go beyond the narrow cast of choice and contestability to look at the heart of what education and training are intended to do for the future capacity building of the Australian nation.I will take one example of what has occurred across the nation, and here I refer to the Australian School Traineeship Foundation, the ASTF. This is a good program. It began in 1994 like many good programs under the then Labor government when Simon Crean, the current Deputy Leader of the Opposition, was then minister. This ASTF program provides a practical example of what practical vocational education and training programs can do and have done on the ground. This program involves clusters of schools and local communities, and their objective is simply this: to place into training opportunities, into apprenticeships, into work experience and into work those school children who are pursuing vocational education and training programs in their last two years of secondary school.This ASTF program has been a great success. If we look across the nation, the number of kids who benefited from this in 1998 alone reached 52,000; in Queensland, my own state, in the same year, it was 10,000. In my own state, there were two-thirds of our high schools, 54 programs, some 300 to 350 schools involved. None of this occurs free of charge. It is being funded nationally between 1994 and 2000 with $65 million; in Queensland, for the same period, about $13 million. But now the minister pulls the plug on this program and we have from June 2001 complete uncertainty.In my own area, we have a program called Vision Works which delivers great services to our local community as an ASTF program. The challenge for the minister and the parliamentary secretary is to take this program and the entire sector seriously. (Time expired)21:54:008965Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLP10—I thank members who have taken part in this debate. As the saying so often goes, the debate has been wide ranging, with opposition speakers straying far from the details of the Vocational Education and Training Funding Amendment Bill 1999 for most of the debate. I remind the House that this bill increases the Commonwealth's contribution to vocational education and training in the states and territories this year by over $14 million, bringing the total to more than $918 million in 1999. This bill also appropriates the same amount for the year 2000. This funding will help to promote higher standards, provide increased training opportunities and encourage greater choice and flexibility in vocational education and training.In doing this, the bill gives effect to the Commonwealth's undertaking in the Australian National Training Authority Agreement to maintain funding in real terms for the three-year duration of the agreement—that is, 1998 to 2000. Over the life of the agreement, this will amount to some $2.7 billion, and this is in addition to the $400 million of funding that the Commonwealth will provide each year for other vocational education and training programs.The ANTA agreement is founded on a recognition by both the Commonwealth and the state and territory governments that vocational education and training is integral to the development of an Australian work force with the range and depth of skills necessary to increase the productivity and competitiveness of Australian industry. A key feature of the agreement is that it provides a stable basis for funding vocational education and training. The Commonwealth has undertaken to maintain funding in real terms for the duration of the agreement and is fulfilling the commitment in this bill.On their part, states and territories have undertaken to achieve growth in their vocational education and training systems through improvements in efficiency. This is already under way. States and territories collectively plan to deliver an extra 70,000 student places this year over the 1997 level. This would mean that over 1.5 million people will enrol in vocational education and training in 1999, more than ever before. This is a great result, especially for young Australians who will benefit from the additional opportunities to undertake vocational education and training that will help them gain real jobs.It will of course also benefit those who are already in the marketplace by enabling them to maintain the competitive advantage that up-to-date skills provide. Not only are the states and territories planning to provide more places, they are planning to do so more efficiently and more effectively with national unit costs anticipated to improve by 3.6 per cent over those recorded in 1997. This is good news for the taxpayer who can be assured that the vocational education and training sector is providing better value for money. A reduction in costs certainly should not ever mean a reduction in quality.The state and territory efficiency plans themselves identify many quality enhancements, such as investment in technology, benchmarking and equity measures. These enhancements are in addition to the significant reforms to the vocational education and training sector this government has fostered in recent years. Key elements of this reform have been the implementation of the national training framework and the development of training packages which are expressly designed to ensure training quality.The funding provided to the states and territories through ANTA is a key element of the government's support for the sector and clearly reflects the government's continuing commitment to strengthen Australian vocational education and training systems. Overall, this year's budget provides a total of $1.6 billion for vocational education and training. This includes $354 million in 1999-2000 for new apprenticeships. I might add that this compares with an expenditure of $1.2 billion in 1995-96 when Labor was in government.The member for Batman is concerned about skill shortages and so are we. Since the early 1980s, long before this government came to power, shortages have been recorded in some areas. It is worth remembering also that shortages of skilled people now may be the result of failures in the training system five or six years ago. This government is making a concerted effort to develop and improve school based vocational training arrangements so young people can maximise their employment prospects. We are also working to make vocational education and training more flexible, responsive and attractive to business.In the past, many employers, particularly in small businesses, have been put off from recruiting apprentices by the complexity of the arrangement, the red tape and the need to deal with many organisations. To assist in overcoming these barriers, the government has introduced improved apprenticeship support services. Apprenticeships themselves have also been updated and are now expanding real work based training into new industries and occupations. In a flexible way, they are delivering training which responds directly to the needs of businesses and are opening up opportunities for many young Australians in high growth industries as well as traditional trades.Apprenticeships are expanding into industries such as agriculture, telecommunications and information technology and industries where, for many occupations, there have been no nationally recognised training arrangements or qualifications. It is pleasing to see that there are now record numbers of new apprentices in training with 206,400 being recorded in training at December last year. This is an increase of 8.3 per cent over the numbers at the end of 1997.Responding to some comments that have been made, I would particularly like to thank the members for Forde and Parkes for their comments on this bill. I know that they are both concerned about training opportunities, particularly for our young people. I would like to thank the member for Dobell for his history lesson on vocational education and training funding. But, with regard to this, I would like to remind him that this government is looking forward and not backwards. Funding has been maintained by the govern ment in real terms and has in fact, as I already mentioned, increased since there was last a Labor government. All state and territory ministers for education have agreed to the recent reforms in real terms.The member for Dobell raised issues regarding the quality of our vocational education and training system. With respect to this, I draw his attention to the June 1999 Australian National Training Authority ministerial council where the Commonwealth, states and territories reaffirmed their commitment to quality training. At the same time, the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Dr David Kemp, said that the meeting was very positive and that `the support shown by the states and territories is a clear indication that all governments are working together to provide a quality training system to underpin our future success as a nation in the global economy'. A joint resolution confirmed this.Australia's leading peak employer, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, expressed strong support for the national training framework in the lead-up to the meeting. Mr Mark Paterson, the Chief Executive of the chamber, said:The new National Training Framework represents a major step forward for this country in giving business access to quality training.Australia's training system is delivering quality training and there will be continued efforts by all levels of government to guarantee quality and deliver the training industry needs.Turning to the so-called rorting of the system that a number of members of the opposition kept mentioning, I remind the House that the 24 specific cases of supposed rorting Senator Carr has put forward as evidence have been fully investigated and there was no evidence of fraud against the Commonwealth—none whatsoever. This is the sole basis for the Labor Party pursuing an inquiry. I find it telling that this should come from Senator Carr rather than the shadow spokesperson. It is clear that Labor's agenda on vocational education and training is not being delivered by the shadow minister. Instead, it is being delivered by the destructive and divisive force that is Senator Carr. The opposition has no credibility on this issue and no policy or direction of its own.The member for Dobell raised some concerns that he had with the state of vocational education and training in Victoria. I point out that in 1999 Victoria will receive nearly $210 million of Commonwealth funds and that Victoria have made significant efficiency gains while maintaining quality. They have the highest participation rates in VET and the highest employer satisfaction rates with training of any state or territory. By national standards, they are performing very well. In conclusion, together with the government's reforms to vocational education and training, the funding provided through this bill will help establish a sound basis to meet the training challenges that the economy and the community of this country will face as we move into the next century.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.8967Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Ms Worth) read a third time.Miscellaneous896789678967Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)UNKNOWNUNKNOWNUNKNOWNUNKNOWN00—The Senate transmits to the House of Representatives the following resolution which was agreed to by the Senate this day:That the Senate censures the Minister for Forestry and Conservation (Mr Tuckey) for inflaming rather than mitigating the conflict over Western Australia's Regional Forest Agreement.The Senate requests the concurrence of the House in this resolution.Ordered that consideration of the message be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Bills8968r8378968Debate resumed from 10 June, on motion by Mr Hockey:That the bill be now read a second time.22:07:008968Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—The States Grants (General Purposes) Amendment Bill 1999 gives effect to the Premiers Conference agreement from 9 April this year and it relates to the financial assistance grants to be paid by the Commonwealth to the states for the 1999-2000 financial year. In that respect I suspect that it is probably the last piece of legislation to come before this parliament with respect to financial assistance grants because of the change that is due to occur with the new financial year commencing 1 July 2000 with the introduction of the new tax system. The legislation also relates to the covering of revenue that was previously raised by the states by way of what had been decided by the High Court to be excise taxes in various areas—tobacco and petrol and the like. So a component of the legislation deals with the compensatory payments that the Commonwealth has agreed to provide to the states in order to ensure that there is no net negative outcome to the states as a result of that High Court decision.Of some further significance is that the legislation also relates to payments to the states with respect to the implementation of the national competition policy, and there are of course incentive payments provided under the Council of Australian Governments' agreement with respect to competition policy provided to the states by the Commonwealth in return for compliance with the competition policy agreement. These are payments that are provided in accordance with recommendations made by the National Competition Council as to the level of compliance by the states with the various obligations that they have undertaken under the competition policy agreement. The legislation provides for a total of approximately $17.7 billion in financial assistance grants, or FAGs, as they are popularly known, and a further $6.8 billion of revenue replace ment payments to the states, following the High Court decision on excise payments.The opposition will be supporting the legislation, but I do wish to make a few general observations on matters relating to payments to the states and financial accountability and the national competition policy question. First, I wish to revisit the question of the implications that the new tax system will hold for the financial relationship between the Commonwealth and the states, which is, of course, a central relationship to the functioning of the Australian Federation and which is critical to the implementation of policies in many areas.For many years our federation has been faced with an issue which many see as a substantial problem, that is, vertical fiscal imbalance, where there is a substantial variation between the source of revenue that is received by the states and the responsibility for raising it. So we have a situation where a substantial slice of Commonwealth raised income is handed over to the states in the form of both financial assistance grants and specific purpose payments. Therefore a very substantial proportion of state budgets which are expended by the states are not raised by the states. It is alleged by many that this leads to a disconnection between accountability and expenditure.It is significant that the result of the new tax system that has been introduced by the government will be to increase the percentage of state budgets which emerges from the Commonwealth from roughly 42 per cent to approximately 56 per cent. Therefore, the vertical fiscal imbalance problem will in fact be exacerbated by the new tax system. It is also important to note that the new tax system will ultimately squeeze specific purpose payments from the Commonwealth to the states, because the GST revenue—if it emerges as anything like as expected over a number of years—will ultimately exceed the revenue that would have been paid to the states by the Commonwealth through financial assistance grants. There are a number of varying predictions as to when the switch-over point is likely to occur, but it is probably going to be in several years time. The Commonwealth has agreed to ensure that the states are not worse off in the meantime. Nonetheless, it is fairly clear that within the space of probably three to five years, the revenue received by the states from the Commonwealth in lieu of the financial assistance grants mechanism will actually be significantly higher than would otherwise have been the case.The longer term consequence of this is that we will see an increasing proportion of the federal budget being paid to the states and, therefore, inevitably substantial pressure on the remaining part of the federal budget which goes to the states for specific purpose payments, because the legislation is in place for the GST revenue to go totally to the states. I do not think it is any accident that the government has designed the system in this way, because ultimately this is about undermining the ability of the Commonwealth to deliver a national agenda with respect to issues like public hospitals and Medicare, local government funding provision, the provision of a national education funding, and some sort of national agenda with respect to how education is conducted in this country. Ironically, as well as reducing the freedom of action of the Commonwealth in the future and placing considerable pressure on specific purpose payments and ultimately creating a situation where future governments—particularly conservative governments—are likely to reduce or phase out those payments to the states, the new tax system also has the indirect effect of reducing the freedom of action of the states.This gets back a bit to this vertical fiscal imbalance point, which is that, because the proportion of the individual state's revenue which it raises for itself is being reduced, therefore, by definition, its room for manoeuvre—to increase or reduce its own taxation—is diminished. The states individually can only alter the revenue they receive from the Commonwealth under the new tax system by a unanimous vote, an agreement amongst the states that the GST rate will be varied, for example; that is, assuming that future conservative governments do comply with the so-called lock-in provisions which ensure that the rate does not change. Assuming that that will be the case, taking them at face value on their own rhetoric, what in effect is happening is that the proportion of state budgets which is being raised by the states themselves is being reduced; therefore, the room for manoeuvre for individual states in setting their own policies, in determining their own total revenue outlook, is actually being reduced.To some extent, this has been modified—I think entirely unintentionally—by the deal that the government did with the Democrats in order to get the legislation through the parliament. Some of the state taxes that were to be abolished, including some stamp duties, are to be retained, and some that were to be abolished, such as certain bank duties, are in fact to be abolished substantially later than they otherwise would have been. In one instance, they have been put off into the never-never and may or may not be abolished at some stage down the track. The upshot of all this is that we can look at the new tax system and the issue of federal payments to the states, which this legislation deals with and which is intimately connected with the introduction of the new tax system, and see that there is a very substantial change in train with respect to Commonwealth-state financial relations, which this legislation is indirectly part of. Ultimately, there are a number of negative components to that change. It will be some years before we are able to say precisely what the impact of these changes will be on Commonwealth-state financial relations.The second issue that I want to turn to with respect to federal payments to the states and the question of the broad accountability of government for the expenditure of public money is the question that was very much at hand in question time today: the expenditure of public money in the Federation Fund, which the opposition raised a number of questions on today. I do not wish to traverse this in huge detail, but for the sake of the record I will repeat some of the key points in a minute. I think there is a very important point here that is particularly relevant to this legislation—that is, in the parliament today, the Prime Minister essentially refused to answer questions about the expenditure of public money by the government and instead referred the opposition to the Auditor-General. In effect, he said—and I am paraphrasing; nonetheless, I think this is a fairly accurate interpretation of what the Prime Minister was saying—`The Auditor-General can look at these issues; therefore I am under no obligation to answer your questions.'The first part of what he said is entirely correct. He has stated correctly that the Auditor-General has the power to examine this particular spending program or any other spending program. But the implication of what the Prime Minister has done today is to say to the parliament, `Your role in scrutinising the executive and holding the government to account for how it spends public money is now redundant. Essentially, the only public institution that has any function in asking me, the Prime Minister, questions about how I or any of my ministers have conducted ourselves—MP6BAIRDMr Baird—Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The honourable member has been speaking for some time. The bill being debated in the House at the moment is the States Grants (General Purposes) Amendment Bill 1999 . It deals with the financial relations between state and federal government. It does not deal with the role of the Auditor-General, and the member's reference to the Prime Minister in question time is certainly totally out of line with the debate under consideration by the House at this point in time. Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask you to bring the member back to order.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—I must say that I have been listening very carefully, and the thought that the member for Melbourne was straying rather away from the subject of the bill did cross my mind. I uphold the point of order. I ask the member for Melbourne to concentrate his remarks on the bill.YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNER—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will remind you of this ruling in subsequent debates, I am sure.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Please do.YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNER—In fact, I trust you will talk to your fellow deputy speakers about it as well. The issue that I am seeking to canvass here is one of financial accountability. There is a point to it that is entirely relevant to this legislation, and that is that these matters are central to governance. They are not just dry technical issues that we have to consider in passing; they are fundamental to the proper functioning of this Federation and to ensuring that there is accountability for public expenditure and integrity in government.Ultimately, this matter is central to this legislation. This is about transferring billions of dollars of taxpayers' money from one level of government to another. I think it is entirely in order that I should raise questions about the probity and integrity of expenditure generally. As I pointed out, I was referring to the issue of the executive and the government's responsibility to the parliament to ensure that public expenditure is conducted properly and is within the ambit of regulations, guidelines and the like that apply. I accept your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker; nonetheless, I think that these issues are central to this parliament and its consideration of a piece of legislation that is ultimately about passing over in the vicinity of $24 billion to another level of government.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I will interrupt the honourable member. I would like to say to you that I can accept the proposition that, because the long title of the bill does refer to related purposes, you would be within your rights to canvass the payments between state and federal government to other levels. However, I understand that you were concentrating on the questions asked at question time today relating to payments from the Federation Fund, which has nothing to do with the transfer of finances from the federal to state governments. I think that is a fair summation. If you wish to expand on the relationship between the states and controls and investigations, I am happy to have you continue.YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNER—Mr Deputy Speaker, this is slightly off the top of my head—and I stand to be corrected on this—but I suspect that the payments made out of the Federation Fund would technically be specific purpose pay ments made to the states anyway. I do not think there would be a Commonwealth head of power that would sustain those payments. I think you will find that there is a technical basis on which they would have to be, because there is no Commonwealth head of power that sustains those particular payments.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I cannot argue with you about that. Carry on.YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNER—In any event, Mr Deputy Speaker, I point out that, contrary to what you appear to have intimated, I was not canvassing the specifics of the matters raised in question time today and I was not raising specific points about individual processes. I was simply raising a broader question about the need for accountability in government and about how expenditure is scrutinised by this parliament. That is ultimately what we are doing here. This parliament is in the process of authorising about $25 billion worth of public expenditure to go to the states. In any event, I have made the point which I was seeking to make, though in a slightly interrupted fashion.The third particular question at issue that I want to deal with in this legislation is the question of national competition policy. This has been something of a controversial topic in many quarters on both sides of the House. There is quite a degree of anger in many parts of the country with respect to the implementation of national competition policy and the activities of the National Competition Council.Mr Anthony interjecting—YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNER—I remind the new minister, the Minister for Community Services, at the table that all of the conservative state governments in the federation signed up to it at the time. So I would not get too excited about it, and I have not noticed you abolishing it.We have some interesting issues to deal with in the question of national competition policy. I want to put a point of view that the minister will probably disagree with about one aspect of national competition policy and incentive payments to the states. I think it is a very good thing. It makes a significant contribution to a critical issue that is facing this country, and that is the question of water conservation and ensuring that our critical water systems—our river systems, particularly the Murray-Darling system—can be rehabilitated and can get some relief from the overuse and the misuse of water resources that have unfortunately characterised our country for far too long.The former Labor government took the lead in pursuing this issue through the Murray-Darling Basin Commission. It is time that governments in this country got serious about ensuring the Murray-Darling Basin system in particular, other river systems as well and our water resources generally are managed in a much more conservative fashion and in a way that ensures the levels of land degradation, salinity and erosion—all of the negative environmental consequences that we have seen rapidly accelerating—are substantially reduced. It is long overdue.There has been considerable progress on this issue, albeit from a fairly low base. It is important to understand that the national competition policy is playing a very significant role in this process. It is a significant component which is putting pressure on the states to live up to their obligations. Hidden subsidies have been handed over to primary producers in many areas through very large capital investments in dams and various other processes at a cost of substantial environmental degradation in some cases. These subsidies are being brought to the surface. They are being dealt with properly and, finally, environmental concerns are being considered.Not everybody has seen the logic in this. The former Queensland government under the then Premier Rob Borbidge chose to ignore the cap on extracting water from the Murray-Darling system and to continue to hand out licences regardless of the cap. It is significant that at the New South Wales state election, where the coalition suffered a very heavy defeat earlier this year, the new Leader of the National Party, George Souris, made an equivalent promise, saying that, if the National Party got into government, they would abolish the cap. That is not only environmental madness but, in the longer term, it is economic madness, because it would destroy the very resource on which Australia's farmers rely. They rely on the Murray-Darling Basin for a huge percentage of our agricultural production.I concede that there are some serious issues with respect to how national competition policy has been pursued. A stronger public interest test is one thing that we need to look at. But however else it has been a problem or controversial this is one area where it has been very useful and very effective in ensuring that we finally start getting serious about protecting and conserving what is our most precious resource—and, in some cases, one of our more abused and misused resources—water. If this is the vehicle that we have to use to bring about a national approach to water conservation, so be it. I remind honourable members that however any individual state wishes to deal with the water resources in the Murray-Darling system its dealings have consequences downstream. Talk to South Australians. Talk to the South Australian wine industry about how they feel about what goes on upstream in the use of the Murray-Darling resources.To put the issue in some context and to illustrate the importance of government mechanisms like national competition policy putting pressure on governments at the state level to do the right thing, it was calculated a couple of years ago by the Total Irrigation Centre that, if all of the irrigation practices in the Murray-Darling Basin were at world's best practice—for example, much less flood irrigation, which is extremely wasteful, and better piping infrastructure and the like—the volume of water that would be extracted for agricultural purposes would be half of what it currently is. That is with no reduction in production of agricultural products and no reduction in farms. Simply by moving to world's best practice in technology and in applications, the volume of water taken out of the Murray-Darling for agricultural purposes could be halved. Currently, roughly 85 per cent of the river system is used for agricultural purposes.In conclusion, it is important to keep in mind, as we debate competition policy and look at things like the incentive payments to the states, that this is one area where it is unequivocally a good thing. Some of the recalcitrants in the National Party, some of the backwoodsmen, have not woken up to the fact that, in the past and until now, we have been destroying our own environmental capital, the source of our own agricultural productivity. If we do not take action very soon, our capacity to produce will continue to deteriorate very quickly. I raise those issues to point out that, even though this legislation deals with fairly narrow, and in many respects dry, matters of public expenditure, questions of integrity and accountability in public finance are ultimately central to our ability to govern properly and to ensure that we have integrity in public processes. These are very good examples of how it is not just some sort of minor, arcane debate about questions of whether the Prime Minister is accountable to the parliament, how public money is expended and the question of the relationship between the states and the Commonwealth financially. It is not a minor issue.Debate interrupted.Adjournment897210000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 10.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn.897222:30:008972Livermore, Kirsten, MPMs LIVERMORE83ACapricorniaALP00—I want to speak tonight about a problem that is of great concern to my electorate, that is, parthenium weed and the damage it is doing to our rural industries and the health of so many people living in rural towns in Central Queensland. Some people might take the attitude that weeds are the responsibility of individual land-holders, but my constituents keep telling me that this problem is much too big for them now and that, if they do not get the help they need, it will be the whole community that will pay the price through environmental degradation, economic damage to our rural industries and the medical problems that will affect more and more people as parthenium weed spreads from the properties into the towns. They are absolutely right in saying that.Parthenium weed has been around in Central Queensland since 1958. In that time, the area affected by parthenium weed has steadily increased, but it is now reaching crisis proportions. When you see what this weed can do to grazing land you know that it has to be taken seriously. I have been shown properties in Central Queensland where paddock after paddock is infested from fence line to fence line. The danger lies in the weed's ability to spread rapidly and uncontrollably. Each plant produces up to 15,000 seeds per life cycle and those seeds can remain viable for up to four years. Other plants just cannot compete, especially in the post-drought conditions we have been experiencing in Central Queensland in recent seasons.Parthenium is the first species to get established after the drought and nothing else gets a look-in. The problem is moving towards areas like the Murray-Darling Basin and the Lake Eyre Catchment. If we ignore it, we are going to have a national environmental disaster on our hands. You really have to see this weed to believe it. I am pleased to say that the shadow minister for agriculture, the honourable member for Corio, Mr Gavan O'Connor, did just that. He took up my invitation to come to Central Queensland to meet the people worst affected by parthenium weed and to hear their stories and get an understanding of the size of this problem. One side of the problem is obviously its impact on the beef industry in Central Queensland. According to figures from the University of Central Queensland, the value of that industry to Queensland is $1.3 billion per year, and that is just on the measure of the value of cattle slaughtered. Twenty-two per cent of that production comes from Central Queensland.Individual graziers clearly cannot afford for that to be put at risk, nor can the community of Central Queensland as a whole. But that risk is very real. Studies from the early 1990s put the cost of parthenium to the beef industry in Queensland at around $20 million, just in lost production. That figure would be much higher now following the proliferation of the weed in the post-drought period. It is these production and environmental risks that have put parthenium on the list of weeds of national significance, and all of us in Central Queensland welcome that recognition. But there is an outstanding issue that has received very little recognition and it dominated the discussions that Gavan O'Connor and I had with the people who met with us in Clermont a month ago.These people are suffering serious, long-term medical problems as a result of living and working in an area infested with parthenium. The most common complaints are hay fever, asthma and dermatitis. The problems that parthenium causes have been backed up by people such as Dr Graham Solly, a specialist in allergies based in Brisbane. He says:Parthenium is well recognised as a cause of major health problems. They range from hay fever, which can be so severe in some patients that it can make them very miserable for weeks on end such that they are unable to function properly in the work force not only because of repetitive sneezing and nasal stuffiness but because of the induction of chronic tiredness, poor concentration and reduced ability to think clearly.These people are living with those symptoms, day in, day out. When the tanker spilled oil in Sydney Harbour a few weeks ago and whole suburbs of people were affected by fumes—causing discomfort and breathing difficulties—the reaction from the government was, quite correctly, immediate and appropriately strong to ensure that the health and welfare of residents was addressed. When I hear about the hardship of people in the Central Highlands suffering chronic health problems as a result of parthenium, I can understand their frustration that more is not being done to control this pest.There needs to be a comprehensive and coordinated response to this problem, with an emphasis on research into biological controls and other measures based around land management. The results of that research have to be put out into the community immediately through grassroots education and awareness initiatives to prevent the spread of the weed into unaffected areas and minimise the impact in infested areas. Most importantly, local communities and individual land holders have to be given the financial assistance they need to combat this weed. When you think of the environmental damage this weed can do, the work of those graziers in controlling this weed is really helping all of us, and we should recognise and support that. I call on the government to immediately respond to the health issues that are present in my Central Queensland community. The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Mr Warren Truss, should be well aware of this, as his electorate covers other similarly affected communities, and I call on him to help. (Time expired)897422:35:008974Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—Tonight I would like to speak on a subject that concerns me greatly. In Australia, volunteers contribute to the wellbeing of others in a very real and constant fashion that meshes like a special thread in the fabric of our society. I believe that we are now taking volunteers and their efforts for granted. Instead of hoping that people may step into the breach with goodwill and their spare time, governments are now factoring volunteers into their equations as a matter of course. In fact, volunteers are being faced with ever increasing and unwanted loads of paperwork and accountability. People who cheerfully gave a bit of their time on a small but regular basis are now straining under the load. Once volunteers stop enjoying what they freely give, they leave. The fun has gone out of their voluntary work.The ever increasing demand for paperwork, accountability and responsibility is leading to an acute shortage of people volunteering for committees, management or to take leadership roles. New state laws have been introduced and, while we recognise that there has to be an accountability process when dealing with government funds, that should not be to the exclusion of the very service the funding is designed to help. The constant cry is, `I came here to volunteer, not to do paperwork, sit in meetings and be assessed and reported on by government.' Heads of agencies tell me that they are now bulldozing people to be on committees, et cetera, and shaming those already there into not leaving. Volunteers often provide a counterpoint, if you like, to the rules and regulations attracted by the paid worker. Volunteers often do the extras that perhaps a paid worker cannot. In particular, I would like to talk about the North Nowra Meals on Wheels service. These volunteers have been working in Nowra for 33 of the 42 years that Meals on Wheels has been up and running in New South Wales. During that time, flexible systems have evolved to meet special needs and serve regular meals on doctors' instructions. Previously when the Meals on Wheels service came to the door, if a person was not home or could not get to the door easily, the volunteer would put the meal in an esky provided by the client on the front or back verandah, in the garage or wherever. This meant that clashes with community transport to get to medical appointments, et cetera, would not result in the patient going without a meal. Many people have several meals delivered, especially if it is a Friday or a day before a public holiday. This system has been working well for many years. Volunteers now must leave the meals with a neighbour, or take the meals back to the Meals on Wheels kitchen and throw them in the bin.In my electorate, many of the people requiring the Meals on Wheels service have retired to their seaside cottages. They live in little villages that contain many holiday houses and few permanent residents. Regularly, there are no neighbours. So now I have lots of people entitled to a service who are left without food, sometimes for a couple of days. What do you think that kind of rule does to the hearts of our volunteers who want to deliver a service but who are not allowed to?I have also heard from people who now have their meals left with a neighbour that they are at the mercy of the neighbour's hygiene and habits. Children have decided to taste meals while delivering them, or they have even dropped them; or the meal has been locked in the neighbour's home for hours. It just goes on and on.With the best intentions at heart, Meals on Wheels committee practices are now under review. The first report form under the new rules is 30 pages long. Now the meals side of the service has to cover its own costs. But with the new rules, as mentioned earlier, five to 10 per cent of meals can no longer be delivered, must be thrown out and, therefore, cannot be charged for. Before these rules and regulations, a small amount of loss due to illness, death, absences and families visiting has always been okay. Now it has to be fully costed, documented and explained.People at the North Nowra Meals on Wheels service cook their own meals. With help from the hospital, the Shoalhaven City Council and a lot of fundraising, they built their own $75,000 kitchen facility. This created much more variation in the meals, catering to people's various needs and tastes. Now they are in a fix: the treasurer is 80 years old and is tired of the paperwork—and no-one else wants to do it. The current committee is made up of the same wonderful volunteers who have been on it for years, but now no-one wants the increasingly onerous responsibility in paperwork. This means: no committee equals no funding, equals no service.Our volunteers are now forced to drive away from a client's home knowing that the person will not have anything to eat on that day and sometimes over the entire weekend. The cooks, who once prided themselves on their delicious meals, have had to cut corners as all the meals, whether thrown out or not, are funded. Where is the sense in all of this? Today's example is but one of many. The fun has gone out of volunteering because of the rules, the paperwork and the insurance risks.In 1997 over 600,000 meals were delivered by Meals on Wheels in Australia. It took 20,000 volunteers to prepare and deliver them. At Meals on Wheels in North Nowra, in Gilmore, 14,000 meals are prepared and lovingly delivered by 200 volunteers. What is the state government trying to do: frustrate our people so much that they will stop volunteering? Their major role is to make sure that people have their meals; not to make reports for which they may not be qualified. Governments and communities could not survive without volunteers.897522:40:008975Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—I want to report to the House on a couple of things that have occurred in my electorate. For Victory in the Pacific Day on Friday, 13 August, we held our normal ceremony in the Memorial Gardens which were a legacy of Australia Remembers—and I must say that I am very proud of those gardens and that it is great to see them being used.I want particularly to thank Barry Burke from the Rooty Hill RSL sub-branch and Col Sheppard from the St Marys RSL sub-branch. Also, I want to thank all the students from the schools who turned up and participated in what was a very moving ceremony. Father Paul Hanna gave the address and, in doing so, involved some of those school children in a way that I considered to be most moving.Reporting on all that is really nothing particularly new. It was really the second event that I found to be of particular interest. At the Rooty Hill RSL a plaque was laid to commemorate the Turkish and Australians fallen in the First World War. I must say that I had the honour of unveiling the plaque on the other side of the memorial to celebrate those lost in the Second World War, so now I suppose we have a beautiful balance.Recorded on that recently laid plaque are the words of Kemal Ataturk, Commander-in-Chief of the Turkish forces. I think those words are worth recording in Hansard:Those heroes that shed their blood and lost their lives you are now lying in the soil of a friendly country therefore rest in peace. There is no difference between the Johnnies and Mehmets to us where they lie side by side here in this country of ours. You the mothers who sent their sons from far away countries wipe away your tears. Your sons are now lying in our bosom and are in peace. Having lost their lives on this land they have become our sons as well.I think these are tremendously generous words to have been uttered. Who would have thought that, along with the uttering of those words, we would see a ceremony in 1999 where Australian citizens of a Turkish background were participating alongside other members of our community in the unveiling of such a plaque by Serit Ergin, the Consul-General of Turkey. My friend Laurie Ferguson was also there, as was Richard Amey, representing the Premier. I found that ceremony very moving, and I hope its words and sentiments will not be lost. I was particularly moved.I also want to mention that last Saturday I attended a fundraising affair for Krishant Sharma. The affair had been organised by my local Fijian-Indian community. Krishant unfortunately had a hole in the heart and required an operation here in Australia. The operation was carried out and was successful. Indeed, Krishant was at the function. But $25,000 needed to be raised to pay for that operation.I would like to congratulate Deo Datt Sharma and his wife, Chandra, and all of the community. I think it is a lesson in how communities can rally behind a good cause and raise money. I thought they did an outstanding job. I am sure that we will soon have that $25,000 raised to pay off Krishant's medical bills. I just want to say that I applaud the community for what they have done so unselfishly. In making that contribution, they have really given a child the prospect of life.897622:45:008976Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—I rise tonight following comments made last week by the member for Macquarie. There is no decision that impacts on the members of my electorate as much as the decision in relation to the location of a second airport in Sydney. I am sure that most members of the House, including some of the members I see opposite, would have wished that this decision was made some 30 years ago when we had space available on which a second airport should be located. Procrastination of governments from both sides of the House has meant that this long overdue decision has been put off until the start of the new millennium.Undoubtedly, when I was a boy growing up in Cronulla, the impact of aircraft across the area was absolutely minimal. But today it is very different. Even in the last 10 years, the amount of freight that comes into Sydney has increased from 229,000 tonnes to 446,000 tonnes per year. The number of passengers over the past 10 years has increased from 2.3 million to just on four million per year. The number of aircraft movements has risen from 153,000 movements per annum to 249,000 movements. In terms of the projection for the future, based on the current figures of 4.2 million international visitors into Australia last year, we can expect by the year 2008 that this figure will double to 8.4 million international visitors, which is a very sizeable number.One of the options the government can consider is to do nothing. But to do nothing with a cap that has been established of 80 movements per hour and with a curfew at night means that, within a certain period of time, we are going to reach the capacity of what Kingsford-Smith can handle. Some people estimate it will be by the year 2005, others longer than that.Another proposed solution is that we use Bankstown for regional aircraft. There are some disadvantages with that solution. Passengers from regional centres would be at a disadvantage compared with those coming from further interstate capitals. It is also seen as being of limited use, it would impact on the extent of noise sharing in Sydney and it would affect flight paths. While it would buy some time by having smaller aircraft diverted into Bankstown and would relieve some of the pressure, it is certainly no long-term solution.If we look at it right now, the third option that has been raised is Richmond, which has been lifted up as the new saviour for the commuters into Sydney. But I have to say from my perspective it is not a real option. Even if the Air Force decide to vacate that site, it has the cities of Richmond and Windsor at either end, it has the Blue Mountains close by, and it has fog for 100 days a year compared with Badgerys which is of the order of 10 days a year. It has very limited capacity for expansion and at present it has total runway capacity of 2,100 metres, which would not really allow you to fly nonstop with jet aircraft between Sydney and Perth let alone on longer international flights. It really is not a viable option. I think the sooner that option is put to bed, the better we would all be.That leaves one single option. After speaking to airline leaders in the country, it is clear that unless we do something by at least 2007 to 2010 we will have serious difficulties in being able to operate a viable international service. I believe that a limited operation at Badgerys Creek serving Western Sydney, which is a larger population base than Adelaide and certainly deserves an airport serving that area, as well as catering for flowover traffic from Kingsford Smith, some charter flights and serving as a cargo hub represents the most sensible solution. In the longer term there may be other considerations as to whether it should take on international services, but I believe that is the appropriate option. (Time expired)897722:50:008977Gerick, Jane, MPMs GERICK83WCanningALP00—Tonight I want to let the House know about Fred, whom I met recently in a shed. Fred is incredible and has the capacity to make a great contribution to the improvement of the protection of our environment. Fred is the invention of a gentleman who lives in my electorate of Canning. Fred has been designed to improve the control of waste which is disposed of down stormwater drains. Stormwater is directed down through street drains, then enters the stormwater system and finally enters the ocean, creeks, rivers and other waters untreated. Stormwater is usually rich in organic matter and nutrients and therefore contributes to the environmental degradation in our waterways. The detrimental effect that stormwater has on aquatic life and water quality, and the encouragement of weed and algal growth, all impact on the fragile ecological system. There needs to be a public awareness campaign to highlight such effects so that all sections of the community can work together to protect such environmental damage.In Western Australia the Water Corporation has acknowledged that it not only needs to protect against flooding but also has a major role to play in the improvement and protection of water quality in our waterways. Local community groups such as the Bayswater Integrated Catchment Management Group, one of the first urban management groups in Australia, are focusing on the issue of water quality in stormwater. This group is addressing nutrient loading, heavy metals and faecal coliforms which have all caused problems in their local waterways. It involves participation of different groups, such as local government, state government agencies and members of the local community.It is pleasing to know that the New South Wales government has recognised the vital importance of addressing the problems associated with eutrophication and other water quality issues. This has culminated in the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 which recently took effect. This act provides the main regulation of stormwater pollution, and the New South Wales government has encouraged innovative ideas to assist in the process.In addition, the Pittwater Coastal Environment Centre has embarked on a public awareness campaign about stormwater pollution. This campaign is based on a very successful Canadian project called `Yellow Fish Road', which involved the marking of drains with the shape of a bream. Community groups stencil the outline of a fish near the local drains and then embark on an education program by distributing information to nearby houses. The pamphlets make householders aware of the small things they can do in their own homes to stop the pollution, including measures such as applying fertiliser in moderation, washing cars on the lawn to filter out detergent residue, not over-watering gardens, et cetera. It also brings to their attention the consequences of pollution of the waterways.The New South Wales Stormwater Industries Association was one of the original sponsors and it still provides funding for the production of the information kits—also in the shape of a bream—that are distributed. This program is now spreading across Australia, and in Western Australia several groups are keen to embark on this project. Federal funding towards these sorts of hands-on projects is much needed and would provide uniformity across our states and territories.Fred has a contribution to make to this field. At no stage of his cleaning process does any waste water enter drains or stormwater systems. As we are all no doubt aware, the main contributor to nutrients entering our waterways is phosphates in cleaning agents. The Environmental Protection Authority and Waters and Rivers in Western Australia have seen the cleaning process, and it has their approval as being environmentally friendly. This system can be used, for example, for commercial cleaning in shopping centres, fast food outlets and buildings and for cleaning machinery. During the process the water is picked up and recycled through a filtering system. This water is then reused in the cleaning process, eliminating the need to dispose of waste water.Equipment of this type not only helps in pollution reduction but also results in a massive amount of savings in water usage. It also eliminates the need to use harsh cleaning chemicals. Now that the technology is available to stop stormwater pollution, it is up to all levels of government to give support to these new businesses. Government should ensure that legislation is put in place to stop the processes which pollute our stormwater. I encourage all members to look at the new technologies available, such as Fred, and to promote their use to protect our environment.897822:55:008978Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—I preface my remarks by reminding the House that I have spent most of my adult life fighting the tobacco industry. I do not support the legalisation of currently illegal drugs. In fact, if we are going to have zero tolerance, I would like to start with the tobacco industry.I was in Zurich on the day that the New South Wales Premier, Mr Bob Carr, announced that Australia's first legally sanctioned injecting room would be conducted by the Sisters of Charity from St Vincent's Hospital. I would just like to explain to you what happened when I visited the first of the six injecting rooms which were established in the city of Zurich in 1992. I was accompanied by the director of Swiss drug policy. We were in what is called Kreis 4, which is the equivalent of the red light district in Zurich. We walked off the main drag into the street in which the injecting room was situated. The street was almost abandoned. In fact, outside a fairly nondescript building was a security guard. As we approached him, he wanted to know who we were. His job is to see that the people going inside are Swiss nationals and that they are neither aggressive nor intoxicated.We went into a room which was about the size of a medium sized cafe—modern tables and chairs, people sitting around drinking coffee, talking and reading newspapers. About half of them had the world-weary persona of the street drug addict—as do quite a few of those who sit comfortably in my waiting room in my upper North Shore Sydney electorate waiting to see me. Possibly three or four appeared to have been intoxicated. To my right was an industrial washing machine, an industrial clothes dryer, clothes, showers and toilets—the cleanliness of which would match those in the parliament here.I was told by one of the assistants in the injecting room that it was very important to maintain whatever self-esteem these people had, because if they are able to do that they might continue to inject drugs in this facility and not use somebody's backyard, not discard needles and syringes somewhere else, and at least be exposed to some anti-drug messages.Behind a counter was a matronly woman who was serving coffee, tea and orange juice, which the drug users are required to pay for. She was assisted by a drug addict who was rostered on to assist in this process. Behind her were two rooms. On the right of them was a first-aid room, and there was a nurse there dressing an abscess on the arm of a woman who looked considerably older than her 23 years. The next room was the injecting room itself, which was run by a registered nurse. The two things that stood out—to me, at least—were the hospital style of hygiene and, secondly, the resuscitation equipment which was readily available. Only two people are allowed into the injecting room at any one time—the person injecting drugs and, if they wish, a friend. They are not allowed to inject in neck veins or into other unsafe sites.Interestingly, when we left this facility about 800 metres down the road from it were two police cars. As we approached them it transpired that the police had just arrested a drug dealer. I asked them how they policed drugs around the injecting rooms, given that in Switzerland, as in Australia, these drugs are illegal. They said, `No different from anywhere else.' In fact, the police themselves are on the management committee of the injecting rooms; they have the police, health policy officials, local community representatives and also people from local government.Whatever the Swiss are doing, they are doing something right. The number of deaths from heroin in 1992 was 419 in Switzerland. Last year it was 209, and this year's death rate is running at half that of last year. I also add that in Switzerland the lifetime use of cannabis is 15 per cent; in Australia it is 43 per cent.Whilst I strongly support what the New South Wales Premier has done, my concern is that he may be setting the nuns up for failure. If the injecting room is not well resourced, if there are not well-constructed, scientifically rigorous research programs into the social, health, legal and economic impacts of the injecting room, we may in 18 months time not be in a position to say with certainty whether it has worked or it has not. For those who are very much opposed to these things, the other thing that is worth remembering is that you cannot save the life of someone who is already dead. Until such time as a person is ready to abandon their drug use of their own volition—whether it is alcohol, nicotine, heroin or cocaine—everything you do is an exercise in utter futility. So I strongly commend the injecting room proposal to the House, and I hope it is supported by all people in the parliament.House adjourned at 11.00 p.m.Notices8979The following notices were given:Mr Entsch to present a bill for an act to amend legislation relating to intellectual property, 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;(3) notes the unique and harsh conditions that ADF personnel work under and the fact that the ADF is not an ordinary workforce and has never been treated that way by previous governments; and(4) calls on the Government to recognise the unique status of the ADF and to therefore exempt all ADF personnel from FBT reporting requirements in respect of the conditions and benefits they receive because of their service in the armed forces.Mr Andren to move:That the House:(1) notes the report of the National Inquiry into Children and the Legal Process in 1997 entitled "Seen and Heard", undertaken jointly by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and the Australian Law Reform Commission, and its recommendation that Federal legislation be enacted to prohibit the mandatory detention of juvenile offenders;(2) notes the 1998 report of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties into the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which was critical of mandatory sentencing;(3) further notes the introduction of a private Senator's bill entitled Human Rights (Mandatory Sentencing of Juvenile Offenders) Bill 1999, and its planned reference to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee for a public inquiry; and(4) calls on the Government to support the Senate inquiry and to ensure that Australia meets its stated human rights obligations.Ms Irwin to move:That the House:(1) notes the failure of the Howard Government's Tough on Drugs Strategy, in particular, that after two years there has been:(a) an increase in drug use, with the average age of first users decreasing;(b) no significant decline in the amount of illicit drugs entering Australia, even after a number of high profile "busts"; (c) inadequate funding for community-based programs in those areas of greatest need, particularly the south-west of Sydney; and(d) a lack of evidence that zero tolerance policies have achieved anything other than making the illicit drug trade the world's fastest growing industry; and(2) calls on the Government to take a more effective and creative approach to stemming the social tragedy being caused by the increasing use of heroin and other dangerous, addictive and illicit drugs.Answers to Questions in Writing8981The following answers to questions were circulated:8981(Question No. 699)6998981Bevis, Arch, MPMr BevisET4BrisbaneALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 7 June:Has a Department or agency for which the Minister has portfolio responsibility entered into a contract with or made a 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.8981Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—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 1999AusAID made a payment to the following organisation registered under subparagraph 188(1)(a) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996:(a) Victorian Employers' Chamber of Commerce and Industry.(b) $120,325.00.(c) Victoria.AusAID made payments to the following organisations registered under subparagraph 188(1)(b) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996:(1) (a) Australian Nursing Federation.(b) $1338.07.(c) Victoria.(2) (a) Community and Public Sector Union.(b) $1865.45.(c) New South Wales. 8981(Question No. 706)7068981Bevis, Arch, MPMr BevisET4BrisbaneALP00 asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, 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.8981Truss, Warren, MPMr TrussGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:I am advised that considerable resources would be required to research the answers to these questions across the portfolio. This would represent an unwarranted diversion of the resources of the department.8981(Question No. 712)7128981Bevis, Arch, MPMr BevisET4BrisbaneALP00 asked the Minister for Forestry and Conservation, 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.8981Truss, Warren, MPMr TrussGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:I am advised that considerable resources would be required to research the answers to these questions across the portfolio. This would represent an unwarranted diversion of the resources of the department. 8982(Question No. 737)7378982Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 21 June 1999: Further to the answer to question No.30 (Hansard , 16 February 1999, page 2924) in which he referred to positive discrimination measures within the internal management practices of his Department, for those measures which are available to and impact on the general public 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 what are the details and funding commitments in each case.8982Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KempBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(a) DETYA has been active in meeting its commitment to Workplace Diversity, Equal Employment Opportunity and Equity programs in line with Government policy.The Government is committed to the elimination of all forms of discrimination within our society and has identified groups who, for a range of historical and systemic reasons, have been unable to gain equal access to quality education and training.The Department has implemented a number of measures designed to enhance equity in education and training and eliminate discrimination. Such programs are designed to remove obstacles preventing disadvantaged people from gaining equal access to quality education and training or achieving positive outcomes. For example:. Indigenous Education Direct Assistance (IEDA) aims to assist Indigenous students achieve educational outcomes equal to those of other Australians.. Aboriginal Student Support and Parent Awareness Program (ASSPA), a component of IEDA, assists schools to respond better to students' educational needs.. Vocational and Educational Guidance for Aboriginals Scheme (VEGAS), a component of IEDA, aims to improve retention rates and develop informed training and education schemes through direct grants for studies/projects on the special needs of indigenous people.. Indigenous Education Strategic Initiatives Program (IESIP) aims to support improved employment of Indigenous staff, parent involvement and more culturally appropriate and inclusive curriculum as well as increased educational outcomes for Indigenous students.. ABSTUDY—provides supplementary assistance where alignment with mainstream assistance clearly does not cater effectively for the particular disadvantages faced by many indigenous students.. Aboriginal Tutorial Assistance Scheme (ATAS), a component of IEDA, which aims to achieve equal educational outcomes.. Indigenous Support Funding (ISF) program—directed at universities to attract Indigenous students and provide additional support to them following enrolment. Higher Education Equity Program (HEEP)—directed at universities to encourage them to improve participation and outcomes for disadvantaged groups currently under-represented in higher education. These groups include people from low socio-economic backgrounds, rural/isolated people, people with disabilities, people from non-English speaking backgrounds and women in non-traditional fields of study.. New Apprenticeships Incentives Program (NAIP) provides additional assistance ($1000) to employers who commence a woman in a New Apprenticeship occupation that is identified to be non-traditional for a female.. Disabled Apprenticeship Wage Support (DAWS) program provides a wage subsidy of $104.30 per week to employers of disabled apprentices and tutorial, interpreter and mentor support for eligible disabled apprentices.. Workplace modification assistance of up to $5,000 is provided to employers of disabled New Apprentices (apprentices and trainees) who require essential equipment to support their New Apprenticeship.. Production of leaflets Making our Future Work—a series of ten leaflets directed at Indigenous job seekers covering all aspects of looking for and applying for jobs.. The Commonwealth is concerned to ensure that students who live in rural or geographically isolated areas, newly arrived students of non-English speaking backgrounds and Indigenous students whose first language is not English are given opportunities and access to programs which will assist them to achieve outcomes at least equal to other students. Under the Special Learning Needs Program, the Commonwealth offers a range of programs to assist these students. These programs include the Country Areas Program, English as a Second Language for New Arrivals (ESL-NA), English as a Second Language for Indigenous Language Speaking Students (ESL- ILSS) and Assistance for Isolated Children Scheme (AIC).(b) The budget estimates for the 1999/2000 financial year are as follows:ABSTUDY $147 million. Assistance depends on level of study, age of applicant, personal income and amount of parental income and personal circumstances.IEDA $62.3 million including the three elements ATAS, VEGAS and ASSPA.IESIP $130 million. Assistance for geographically remote students and attendance strategy initiatives.ISF $22.2 million in 1999. Funding is allocated to higher education institutions and is linked to the number of Indigenous students at each institution.HEEP $5.5 million in 1999. This funding is allocated to higher education institutions based on the relative share of under-represented equity groups.NAIP $354 million allocated to the NAIP overall. This incorporates funding for DAWS and Workplace Modifications, for which funds are not allocated separately. Making our Future Work leaflets—proposed budget is $70,000.Country Areas Program $20.036 million (approximately) over 1999-2000ESL New Arrivals $39.402 million over 1999-2000ESL Indigenous Language Speaking Students $3.6 million (approximately) to end of 1999Assistance for Isolated Children $33.751 million over 1999-2000.8983(Question No. 751)7518983Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio7T4ProspectALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 21 June 1999:Does the Minister's Department operate a library or libraries; if so, (a) what sum was spent on purchasing new books for departmental libraries in (i) 1996-97, (ii) 1997-98 and (iii) 1998-99 and (b) will the Minister provide a list of the title and author of each book purchased by departmental libraries in 1998-99.8984Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPDefence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Yes(a) i. FY96/97—$782,757ii. FY97/98—$841,164iii. FY98/99—$377,799(b) Due to the volume of the information requested, the list of the titles and authors of each book purchased by Defence departmental libraries in the 98/99 Financial Year has been forwarded separately to Mrs Crosio's office.8984(Question No. 779)7798984Cox, David, MPMr Cox83UKingstonALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 23 June 1999:(1) What sum did the Commonwealth contribute towards funding South Australia's public hospitals in 1991-92 and each subsequent financial year.(2) Is he able to say what sum the South Australian Government contributed towards funding South Australia's public hospitals in 1991-92 and each subsequent financial year.(3) Is he also able to say what total sum was spent on funding South Australia's public hospitals in 1991-92 and each subsequent financial year.8984Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Based on funding under the 1988-93 and 1993-98 Medicare Agreements, the 1998-2003 Australian Health Care Agreements and various hospital related Specific Purpose Payments to the State, the Commonwealth's contribution towards funding South Australia's public hospitals in 1991-92 and each subsequent financial year was as follows:Specific Purpose GrantsFinancial Assistance GrantsTotal$m$m$m1991-923441,4741,8181992-933551,5211,8761993-944251,4291,8541994-954521,4581,9101995-964711,5011,9721996-974821,5031,9851997-984931,5512,0441998-99500 (prov)1,668 (prov)2,168 (prov)1999-00531 (prov)1,681 (prov)2,212 (prov)It should be noted that virtually all Commonwealth assistance to States for public hospitals and related purposes is absorbed into the general revenue assistance pool distributed between States on the basis of relativities recommended by the Commonwealth Grants Commission. As a result the relatively small increase in specific purpose grants in 1998-99 shown above will be compensated for by an increase in Financial Assistance Grants to South Australia.(2) Based on Commonwealth Grants Commission data on States' own recurrent outlays on hospital services, the South Australian Government contribution towards recurrent funding of South Australia's public hospitals in 1991-92 and each subsequent financial year was as follows:$m1991-924241992-934051993-943961994-953671995-963851996-973551997-98370 (prov)1998-99not available1999-00not available(3) The total sum spent on funding South Australia's public hospitals in 1991-92 and each subsequent financial year cannot be readily ascertained. The figures above exclude capital funding by the State and funding from any source for the treatment of private patients in public hospitals.Under the public hospital funding arrangements, State and Territory Governments are responsible for the planning and provision of public hospital services, including the total amount of funds available to the public hospital system.